What makes a homosexual?

Shannon, I agree.

I think my friends below (Syntatic Tree and a few others) are brilliantly stating their case Mr. Roger Rabbit. I am now putting you on ignore.

E

*btw... reported this article as well.

reported this article as well.

I saw it got collapsed for a while but I'm glad it was restored.

Mr. Roger Rabbit wrote:

What makes me assume that by asking this question, I think it needs treatment?

All I said that should we find the cure

Seriously?

people will have a lot of difficult choices to make.

Well, certainly *you* would.

All I said that should we find the cure

You obviously think something's wrong with homosexuality so your whole article is biased.

Would we live the dicision to the parents, or would the left finally join the right in their struggle to finally overturn Roe v Wade?

And RvW has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality unless you can make a way better case than you've done so far.

Shannoscubie wrote:

You obviously think something's wrong with homosexuality so your whole article is biased.

This guy's about as disingenuous as one can get.

I wouldn't waste too much time with it.

This guy's about as disingenuous as one can get.

I wouldn't waste too much time with it.

Enh, yeah. And here I'd hoped for an interesting discussion.

So was I, but apparently you two are more interesting in bashing me, than having the aforementioned discussion.

YThat's because you've already made up your mind that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy so asking the question "What makes a homosexual?" isn't just NOT rhetorical, it's borderline inflammatory, but in a passive-aggressive way. You've also managed somehow to drag a non sequitor bias against both abortion AND Islam into the equation.

So, no. I'm not bashing you personally, just dismantling the entire premise of your article and your purported reason for writing it. If you're taking that personally, that's not any else's fault but your own.

Damn those unnatural homosexual dolphins! Apparently the person making this article hasn't done much research into this subject. Worst yet, the poster of this article makes logical fallacy arguments by attempting to compare homosexuality with abortion as if they are some how linked. The dishonesty of this article is without surprise. :/

What makes me assume that by asking this question, I think it needs treatment? I mean people kill healthy fetuses for just being a girl, how the fetus being a homosexual is any better?

When you have to engage in a circular argument in order to avoid actually having to address the argument with something of actual value, you lose any sort of credibility and value in the discussion you have perhaps hoped to have had. Worse yet, I don't think you quite understand the relativity of morality to which is also latent in nature.:

Understanding Moral Evolution: System of behavioral Adaptation

Thus what you are really attempting to do is get people to fear homosexuality with dishonest arguments to which have no basis in regards to reality. And in doing so you are attempting to convince people to conform to your relative moral opinions. But giving from what I have read, you have not even remotely come close to depositing a credible argument.

you do realize that you just broke the COH rules by deleting my post correct? I would suggest you restore the post because it will get restored regardless of you choose to or not.

you have violated the following rule:

As the host of your column, you are expected to foster healthy, open discussions by setting a good example. Be responsible for the content you submit and exercise impartiality when deleting comments and reporting abuse.

More specifically:

1. Do not delete comments based on disagreement; remove only comments that grossly violate the Code of Honor or the User Agreement.
2. Comments that are grossly off-topic may be deleted. If the majority of the comment is on-topic, then the comment may not be deleted for being off-topic.

None of my comments were "Grossly off-topic"..

If you don't believe me, you can visit this article that tried to pull the same stunt:

http://strangerontheshore.newsvine.com/_news/2011/06/17/6878175-the-ultimate-purpose-of-life#c55138112

Other than the claim that this is how they are wired.

The difference being that those who are lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or gay are not hurting anyone or violating any laws by simple being lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or gay. Pedophiles and rapists, on the other hand, are and do. Thus, the energies spent in trying to find putative "treatments," "cures" or "rehabilitations" for the former group is futile, as there is no need for a cure. There is nothing that needs to be changed.

unfortunately, not to the questions I asked.

I wasn't answering any particular question at that moment - I was commenting on a point you made. To that end...

Please attempt to answer it, rather than debate irrelevant points.

...if they were irrelevant points you wouldn't have written them. I didn't address anything you didn't say. So unless you are admitting that you inundated your article with irrelevant points, everything I posted is relevant, precisely because it addresses comments you made.

what about the ones who haven't been born yet?

Well, there's no treatment for them either, because there will be nothing wrong with them when they are born.

what makes a person a homosexual?

I don't know, and don't particularly care. But your implication in that finding an answer to this question will somehow lead to a "cure" - or can/should lead to a cure - is what makes it a pointless question. There is nothing to cure, and there is thus no need to search for a cure.

Where do they come from?

Their mother's uterus.

I asked what makes the homosexual, not if they are unhealthy or abnormal.

No, you did basically ask what makes homosexuals because you went on to describe the entire condition in terms of unhealthy and abnormal-ness. The question is invalid in that, whether they're "wired" that way or make the choice to be that way, they're no more unhealthy or abnormal than heterosexuals.

The downside of this theory, is that it puts homosexuality from the proud column of being a “natural” condition, out into the much more modest, but yet hopeful line of treatable conditions.

If homosexuals are as happy with their "natural" condition, why on earth would they seek treatment?

Correction: it should be "their mothers' uterus." I assume they all have individual mothers, which would require the plural possessive "s'." Unless homosexuals all come from the same mother, making " 's " grammatical, and conveniently helping us in answering all these questions. Experimentally speaking, if they all share one mother, research will be much easier.

The answer can be found by typing "cause of homosexuality in men" into Google. The article, in LiveScience, is titled Why Gays Don't Go Extinct. There is no "cure" since there is no disease or defect.

"I think this is an example where the results of scientific research can have important social implications," Camperio-Ciani said. "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund."

Enjoy!

None of which answers the questions I ask.

You've already answered the question for yourself before you even asked anyone else and are now threatening to delete anyone who is asking you to use critical thinking skills to examine the premises you've used to ask the question in the first place.

What's the point of continuing?

None of which answers the questions I ask

Apparently you do not understand what a debate entails. My comments are not limited to answering your direct questions - I'm also entitled to address your claims, which is exactly what I did. That's not being off-topic, that's by definition having a discussion. I'm not beholden to your assumptions in this debate.

If there is nothing that needs changing than why we are actively fighting for gay marriage,

Laws need to be changed to respect the rights of fellow citizens. Citizens don't need to be changed just to conform to society's arbitrary and ever changing definition of "normal."

and peddling their normality to unsuspecting student body?

Student bodies around this country already correctly suspect (or better, accept) homosexuals' normality. Any poll with demographic information will clearly show that, among the younger populations in this country, homosexuality is accepted as normal, gay-marriage is supported, etc. etc. There is nothing unsuspecting about it.

Any further off-topics will be deleted.

Which would be an abuse of your moderating ability since I've posted nothing off-topic, deletions which are just as frowned upon as CoH violations. As I previously mentioned, I made comments directly related to comments you made - I have done nothing but quote you verbatim. That, by definition, makes them on-topic. Deleting them will simply require me to take the time to have them restored, which I guarantee you, they will be. And continuing to delete on-topic comments simply because you disagree with or dislike them has never boded well for users.

Do you want to know why everything I've said so far is on topic? Since you are quite adament about us answering your questions, I'm happy to oblige. You asked this:

Imagine if we could identify [homosexuality] early and treat as necessary?

Emphasis mine. All this time, I've done nothing but try to answer this for you. No treatment is necessary since there is nothing to be treated - it's not a disease that needs treatment. You brought up the topic of "cures" and "treatments." We've been responding to that.

We all do - her name is Eve, and she is about 50 million year old African lady. Other than that - thank you for the correction.

I love me some incest.

I love me some incest.

Ew.

I'm just glad I was never a Christian so I didn't have to deal with that.

We all do - her name is Eve, and she is about 50 million year old African lady.

Actually, that isn't true either.

Mitochondrial Eve is alleged to have lived in Africa at the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene period (between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago). She has been described as the most-recent common ancestor of all humans on Earth today, with respect to matrilineal descent. The validity of these assertions, however, is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and (2) that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time. However, we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong!

To further explain why Mitochondrial Eve never existed, you might want to read the rest of my post from this article seeded by Michael Sautter-

One conclusion drawn from the coalescence theory of population genetics is that the population ancestral to modern humans has maintained a mean effective size of one hundred thousand individuals over the thirty million year persistence of these polymorphisms and finds no merit in the claim, based on mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms, that a constriction down to one or few women occurred in Africa at the transition from archaic to anatomically modern humans some two hundred thousand years ago, one of the foundational claims for the Out of Africa Replacement theory. These studies on molecular polymorphisms are consistent with a Multiregional theory of continuity since the time of migrations of Homo erectus to the present, with distinctive regional selective pressures and occasional migrations between populations.

Again, the answer can be found by using Google, this time, by typing "Camperio-Ciani", the lead researcher's name printed in the LiveScience article. This brings up the Research Article, Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality at PLoS ONE, with additional information you are free to explore.

1) I never mentioned incest.
2) There are many references to homosexuality in animals. If you are really looking for answers, any decent search engine can give you the information you're seeking.

You dismiss theories based on facts that don't support what you want to hear but discount facts that disprove theories that support what you do want hear. Sorry, I thought you were seriously looking for answers. It appears you only want validation for preconceived ideas. I won't bother you with facts again.

It appears you only want validation for preconceived ideas. I won't bother you with facts again.

Oh, now you're in the "pro-gay choir"" too. :-P

Apparently it is you who does not understand what a debate means.

Nope, I understand just fine, thanks.

Yes - your answers are limited to the subject at hand.

And all my answers have applied to the subject at hand.

I'll be the judge of that.

Not the ultimate judge, however.

Laws need to conform to my definitionof "normal" - isn't that what you are advocating?

Not at all. I personally have no direct say in it - nor am I arrogant enough to think I do. It just happens to be the case that my opinion coincides with the Supreme Court of my state, which rightly granted marriage rights to homosexual couples.

You see - no gay law has been passed at the ballot box yet, no matter how many times I vote for it.

If only minority rights were up to majority vote. On the other hand, we live in a representative democratic republic, wherein our elected officials speak on our behalf. And legislatures have indeed passed gay marriage bills.

Good luck complaining to the management.

Thanks, but I won't need luck if and when you choose to delete any of my posts. I've done nothing but address comments you've made; I'm not concerned about any post of mine not being restored.

The discretion of what is and is not off-topic is pretty much all mine,

Pretty much, and only at this level. Site administrators, on the other hand, have the authority to restore posts that moderators incorrectly delete.

Getting back on-topic, I notice you failed to even acknowledge the crux of my post, found in very last paragraph of the linked comment. I'll repost it in case you missed it.

"Do you want to know why everything I've said so far is on topic? Since you are quite adamant [corrected] about us answering your questions, I'm happy to oblige. You asked this:

Imagine if we could identify [homosexuality] early and treat as necessary?

Emphasis mine. All this time, I've done nothing but try to answer this for you. No treatment is necessary since there is nothing to be treated - it's not a disease that needs treatment. You brought up the topic of "cures" and "treatments." We've been responding to that."

So instead of flexing your muscles as moderator of your own column, care to address my answer to one of your questions? Your assumption that homosexuality is in need of a cure makes for a loaded question, a type of logical fallacy. It's no different that, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Your question - which I answered - assumes that homosexuality needs to be treated, which in itself carries the implication that homosexuality is a disease. All of my comments have been on topic because I am disagreeing with you on both those points, and the APA agrees with me. I even cited the relevant sources when they came to that conclusion.

So feel free to continue to ignore my responses to your questions and instead threaten me with deletion because you don't agree with said responses. I'm happy to go above you to have them restored all the same.

Nope, you don't.

Yep, I do. And I've shown why. If you care to ignore that, I suppose ignorance is bliss.

The subject at hand is where homosexuals come from. Please show me one of your posts that deals with it.

One of the subjects also at hand is "treating homosexuality" - a subject I might add that you introduced in your article - I previously quoted the direct question you posed. If you didn't wish to introduce that subject, you shouldn't have written about it. Yet it's not my fault you choose to ignore my points related to a subject you introduced.

but I feel comfortable using the delete button.

And I feel comfortable contesting your deletions. So I guess that makes us just a pair of comfortable, happy campers.

Always were. Up until the sixties all minority rights were adopted through the process, and are reflected in our Constitution. If only liberals could learn.

Perceived partisan superiority lacking in substance. If only conservatives could... well, too many things to enumerate.

So either get with the program, or quit polluting.

I've been with the program since my first post; you'll find no pollution here - well, maybe you personally will, but I guarantee that any reasonable, objective third party won't.

You've thus far chosen to ignore my rebuttals to points you made in your article. That's your choice, but it doesn't make the comments off-topic in any way. It does, on the other hand, undermine the purpose of a discussion. It's seem rather pointless to me to pose questions, then ignore perfectly reasonable responses simply because you disagree with them.

I don't know about you, but I don't have the time to waste making articles in which I have no intention of engaging the content of responses.

You can continue to ignore my rebuttals all the same. I'll take that as implied concession to my point: you acknowledge that you are incorrect in labeling homosexuality a disease in need of a cure. Thank you for conceding that.

Since we've closed this portion of the discussion, the link in 8.3 offers plenty of biological reasons for homosexuality in species.

I am female, so I have a husband. Our Daughter is now 29, and I only know her how she is today, so no.... I would not change her. We love her, as is.

stop telling me how normal it is.

Stop telling gay folks how normal you think they're not.

It's more like:

Try stop telling us what you think nature does is magically moral or not. Nature doesn't care what you think, it is what you think and what we think all while it does what you think is immoral.

Now I wonder if he will grasp what I've just said ;)

I wouldn't change her in the womb. I wouldn't abort her.

I would not interfere with other people's decisions in their personal health and the health of their family or sexual orientation.

One article discussing hormones as a cause for Homosexuality

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-29/health/gay.fingers_1_androgen-sexual-orientation-heterosexual-women?_s=PM:HEALTH

?????

Just a little payback to Roger for his mischievous behavior on my most recent article.

All specieces main purpose is to procreate

The main purpose of any member of any species is to contribute to the continuation of its entire species, not just of its own genes. Procreation, while of importance, is only a part of that. Every member of every species has a part to play in the continuation of its species.

It is also frequentl refered to as biological imperative, which homosexuals violate in spades, apparently for no good reason.

The biological imperative is the continuation of the species, not merely generating one's own offspring. It takes more than than the ability to spit out offspring to ensure the survival of a species. Otherwise, among other things, human females would still have an estrus cycle and only be sexually receptive when they're fertile. Instead, humans and thousands of other animals have the ability to have sex - heterosexual or homosexual, pair-bonded or not - as a part of strengthening their social bonding and thereby increasing the chances of the survival of their genes whether or not they're of their own offspring.

Along those same lines...

what makes a person a homosexual?

Nature. Your dismissal of nature as a possible explanation for the origins of homosexuality was rather cursory. "Because they cannot themselves reproduce naturally, they must therefore be antagonistic to reproduction" ignores many alternatives, cited in the link.

"Apparently for no good reason" is now not so apparent at all.

Let's add a humanistic perspective then tie it back in with biological imperatives. Just off the top of my head I can imagine two benefits of homosexuality: population control, and population maintenance.

As you obviously note, homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce. With a current world population of 6.93 billion people, the continuance of the human species is not currently under threat. However, this possibility has other implications that might be problematic - what is the threshold at which homosexuals emerge in a species? Therein lies the problem, especially considering that one might find evidence of (possible) homosexuals throughout human history with clear differences in population size. But it's a hypothesis.

Point two: for those locations where the government - for whatever reason - prevents homosexuals from adopting (ignoring studies that show no negative - and in fact some positive - effects on children raised in homosexual families), this does not apply. Yet barring those locations, homosexuals do adopt and raise families - all else being equal, as successfully as heterosexuals.

Both have natural biological benefits.

Both have natural biological benefits.

So do non-breeding members of any species, whether they're infertile heterosexuals, homosexuals, or post-fertile members of the group. All bring a benefit to the overall success of the group.

Mr. Roger Rabbit asks,

What makes a homosexual?

Shanno asks,

What makes a heterosexual?

Mr. Roger Rabbit answers,

Nature.

I do believe that Mr. Roger Rabbit has just answered his own questions. Bravo, Shanno!

What else is worth discusssing, unless you are a geneticist or a pre-natal researcher?

Even if we all WERE geneticists or pre-natal researchers, why should the answer to the question posed matter any more to any of us than "What makes a red-head" or "What makes a southpaw"?

For purely scientific understanding, as science strives to understand all answers to all questions in the Universe. Plus, if it were definitively proven that homosexuality is a matter of chance rather than choice, it would go a long way toward taking the wind out of the sails of the bigots who perceive homosexuality as aberrant or a opted-for violation of their god's laws.

Two words: "biological imperative".

Asexuals are not seen as mentally ill or disabled either and they too have no desire or want for sex however being homosexual does not eliminate the want or desire to reproduce just as being a heterosexual does not necessarily mean you have a want or desire to sire children.

The fact is that they have educated guesses on “what makes a homosexual” but at the end of the day, homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness as it had no negative repercussions in terms of the everyday psyche of an individual in a healthy, non-judgmental environment, we keep our mental and rational capacities and our mental health is in no way impaired by the fact that we have same-sex attraction. Even Freud admitted to that. The same cannot be said for paedophiles and rapists. While they may claim they have no choice their mental condition is not in good condition and both mentalities or afflictions depending on your view of them, both come with certain mindsets that are the same across the board in the same way that psychopaths or sociopaths show similar signs of mental deterioration in certain areas. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. Thus your initial comparison is not apt to categorise them in the same boat.

In terms of why it exists, my own view is perhaps it is a response to increased populations? In the same way that women stop producing viable eggs in her forties normally was an evolutionary response which has been viewed as a means of helping her raise her children’s children without the burden of too many mouths to feed. Humans are and always have been pack animals. Perhaps we were a throwback to a time where if a tribe was too large extra caregivers were required without the risk of them adding to the pack? Its just conjecture and something I heard someone speak for once however, and either way, in our time it simply doesn’t matter.

In the same way that we no longer view women working or voting abnormal or interracial marriages or even worse, that black people are somehow sub-human we too have come to a cross roads with homosexuality. It is a natural phenomena that occurs throughout nature.

On the issue of a “cure”, if one was presented to me I don’t think I would take it. It would be unnatural to go against how my body was hardwired to be honest. My being gay does not effect me negatively in anyway except when dealing with other peoples issues and bigotry. Frankly, I feel we are here for a reason. Nature doesn’t create without some purpose in mind, even if we don’t know what it is yet.

Definitely a possibility, however the too much people theory doesn't seem to correlate with the fact that the highest percentage of the homosexuals if found with the dying breed (the Caucasian) while the breeders - chinese, indian, african, seem (perhaps for cultural reasons) not have quite as many

As I was saying, that’s just my view, I thought it made sense when it was said to me, I don’t really have any back up on it. I would say that in certain African, Chinese, Indian etc nations, many of them have sever penalties for practicing homosexuality, up to and including death or at the very least ostracism. Just because people hide and say they’re straight does not make it so. The more advanced and accepting a society is, the larger the number of open homosexuals per capita there tends to be. An example I find interesting is the Netherlands. Ten percent of their army officially class their orientation as homosexual and the Netherlands would be considered extremely accepting. Or the recent study in New York ( a more “Liberal” state) that stated up to 12% of teenagers under the age of 18 stated to have been in a homosexual relationship or at least sexually active with someone of the same gender. That’s just my two cents.

The argument against women’s suffrage came from the supposed “fact” that women were not as mentally developed as men however and the pseudo science that then passed as evidence that backed them up in a patriarchal society, It was indeed a cultural misunderstanding and the view that women were not equal to men. Same with the old mentality that black people due to their different features were somehow abnormal and a lesser, deficient type of human being. An awful, disgusting view but one that in certain times in history was considered “fact”.

I link the two issues to homosexuality because that despite our biological differences, in the same way with females and black people, it our differences do not make us unequal and we are treated differently in the eyes of the law because of this biological difference if that makes sense. Again, pseudo science is panned out as a defence against not affording us equal rights and protections (i.e we’re akin to paedophiles, we’re promiscuous, we’re more inclined to disease) We are being discriminated due to an inherent biological difference that we cannot change, same as the cause of female discrimination and same as the cause of black oppression.

Interesting that you would be pedantic and fill your young daughter's head with potential misinformation about a science-based subject in which you freely admit you are sorely lacking in research and comprehension. You would have been better off buying her a recognized scientific text discussing the origins of homosexuality and letting her learn from recognized authorities. Beats the Bible every time. And why would you be so sure that choice plays any role at all, except in perhaps horribly abused children who grow up without a sexual identity because it was either tortured and beaten out of them or sexually taken from them? And if that is the case in some small percentage of homosexuals, does that create justiifcation for singling them out and denying them their human and civil rights? Or might such treatment by the society in which they live be more correctly considered a continuation of the abuse they suffered? Please refrain from teaching your children ignorance in the guise of fatherly advice and intelligent analysis. You are an authority figure on which she relies for guidance and information which necessarily increases exponentially the obligation and responsibility upon you to inform her correctly. That kind of parenting might be the biggest problem America faces today.

Just reply to the email from Newsvine Help that informed you it was removed. If it wasn't a CoH violation, it'll be restored.

Well, my answer was that I thought your "article" was irrelevent and that you seemed to have an ulterior motive in posting it and I wanted to know if you would reveal that ulterior motive here.

Good question.

Just scrolled up and saw your thought, Becky. not sure where you are in understanding the intricacies of Christian theology, but..., Man rebelled in God's perfect design, and the whole universe became unhinged. Like a precipitate in water, all of creation pulled loose from the "spiritual solution of God" --- "THE FALL OF MAN". Because of this 'fall' all creation is under the curse of death-- everything is winding down-- entropy.. Everything is corrupted and falling apart and dying. So, the brains of men and women have become corrupted by the corrupting nature of desintigrating creation-- we don't have normal passions. And yes, God tells us they are wrong-- wasn't His oringinal design. But has provided a way to be plugged back into God in Christ. But wait-- I still feel like I'm kind of a woman.... Oh, "all things are lawful in Christ, not all things are profitable". so, it's up to the individual, before God, to ask Him~~ is it alright for me to have sex with that guy over there? If the Christian is plugged back into God through Christ, and asks that question-- God will individually answer that request (not for me to judge what God tells the gay guy) In that, God only wants to protect us from the pain of sin, and the heartache of making wrong decisions-- He may tell the gay guy to not have sex with the guy down the street- maybe he's got aids, maybe he's an asshat? maybe God tells the gay guy that, Sex is spiritual, that we become "one flesh" with sexual union-- maybe recreational sex is very damaging to the soul?? In the end, it's up to the individual relationship with God, that determines what actions may or not be "profitable" for anyone in Christ.

Your standards for "off-topic" are confusing to me. Oh, well.

If we're talking about homosexuality, there's sex involved. Unless...do you think someone is someone still a homosexual if they never act on their homosexual desires but instead marry a member of the opposite sex and have children?

Okay, then Roger, Permit me to rephrase: Why are we even discussing THE ORIGIN OF a substantial segment of society that does exactly what men and women do sexually for the most part, but just do it between two men? Why is anal penetration and fellatio so abhorrent when done between two men, but a source of excitation when done between a man and a woman. And what about a woman who straps one on and plays the man with a man? Or with another woman? Seems to me we are discussing nothing of moment at all. Aren't we all just opposite sides of the same sexual coin?

You want origin? I'll give you origin...vast percentage in utero and the rest from abuse and incest. Work for you? PS: These answers are readily available in the research materials. Why do I think that you started this seed in an effort to justify your own prejudice, especially since authoritative sources are just a Google away?

Ok, and those in utero - how they come to be?

How the F am I supposed to know other than what I read? How do fetuses develop red hair or spina bifida or genius-level intelligence? Your seed is just dog-chasing-tail BS. This information is readily available if you do some basic research and, frankly, I am starting to resent this foolishness. Your question is a subject for a scientific paper, not for a seed and has been answered. Somehow I get the feeling you have a hidden agenda, particularly since you limit your sources to heterosexual researchers and "unbiased" research. Did it ever occur to you that science is not necessarily biased and/or that biased researchers may be biased toward the truth? Your attitude is a dead giveaway, pal, especially in light of what you've taught your daughter. As a result, I suggest you do your own homework like your daughter does hers. I am not your genetics or pre-natal professor. Nor am I going to be party to supporting your prejudices. Nor do I have time to waste on this fruitless pursuit. Ciao.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-29/health/gay.fingers_1_androgen-sexual-orientation-heterosexual-women?_s=PM:HEALTH

Do migets wish they could have prevented it? Ya know, maybe they're fine with being little people. I know I'm fine being gender ambiguous.

People have a harder time being themselves when the rest of the world treats them like crap. It's not the fault of the midget or transgendered person that other people are asshats.

Maybe we should start looking for a cure for asshatery instead. That seems to be the bigger problem in the world.

agreed..., I notice some people at check outs seem positively irritated I'm in their line. I'm not in a dress, not wearing lipstick, but probably think I'm a women, then I talk--- they treat me horrible, like I'm sick for looking like I do. Of course this is the exception rather than the rule.... Many, seem positively delighted by their surprise, and seem to like me. But the ASSHATERY, wow.., where does that come from??

where does that come from??

Confusion, maybe. I dunno. People get really angry when they can't categorize. I worked with a guy who was really upset because I carry my wallet in my back pocket and apparently, according to his worldview, that's a sure marker for a lesbian, which I'm not.

The silence is deafening.

Those too scared to answer personal questions should not ask them.

Yes, I got erections much earlier than I got girls. As for the left-handedness it is genetic. Homosexuality does not appear to be, although it is one of the theories.

Then the next question would be why you got those erections. Did you only get erections from girls? or boys as well?

Why do you consider the thoughts that cause you to have an erection "dirty"?? What is the origin of that? And this is on-topic because it has to do with why you felt motivated to pose the question in the first place. It is a good discussion, if you allow the answers to be shared without discriminating. None of the posts you have deleted were in any way offensive, and all were relevent to the topic.

Where are you leading this conversation, and when will you begin to answer my question?

So, you can safely say that you were not coerced into and did not choose to be attracted to girls, you just were (ie: born that way). So for what ever reason you were made a heterosexual; hormones, genes, gestation, whatever, it is the same thing that made homosexual individuals, the only difference is maybe the hormonal/gene mix is different and changes the gender of the person that individual may likely be attracted to.

A gene for left handedness was only recently discovered, it is not the complete reason for the condition, and it is not a guarantee of being left handed, it only give a greater chance of it. So it is (I believe) with homosexuality, there has not been a definitive reason, but it is biological in nature. Just like the fact that all fetus's have female genitalia until the the hormones/genes tell it to be male or stay female.

In short it's all in the mix, and it's all good.

It's quite obvious that you have no idea about that better understanding of homosexuality.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Of course, those scientific facts don't fit your preconceived ideas, DUH.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."

And by damn iffen youe isa looking for some beautiful acts of homosexuality then youse will surely see it ........ even iffen its only a couple trees swaying back n' forth together in a breeze. And a Federally Funded Research Grant of $100K to $250K will surelly keep ya looking until ya see what your are looking for.

Are 75% of prison inmates homosexuals and the other 25% masturbators?

Or is it the other way around?

Often times a male canine will try to copulate with the leg of a human male (but more often a human female).

What do you brainiacks call that, ….. an act of homosapienuscaninusexuality?

"Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."

A lot of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom has been missed or glossed over because of the heterosexual bias of the supposedly scientific observers.

"The theme has long been taboo. The problem is that researchers have not seen for themselves that the phenomenon exists or they have been confused when observing homosexual behaviour or that they are fearful of being ridiculed by their colleagues. Many therefore overlook the abundance of material that is found. Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."

OOPS, my 2nd below post should have been posted here.

Thank you for the links, it seems that chemical imbalance during pregnancy,

Just one among many possible reasons.

Shannoscubie, all that your #18.4 quote is saying is that “those scientific observers just can’t see that beautiful display of homosexuality like us homosexuals can”.

(#18.4) They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."

And me thinks the above statement from your quote better describes the human animal than it describes any other species of animals …… because the human species will have sex with just about any other species of animals that “they can get their hands on”, and the female human animal will also have sex with most any inanimate object “they can get their hands on”.

But not so with other species. And don’t be forgetting that there are literally TENS of MILLIONS of humans that form everlasting “pair bonds” with a non-human animals.

(#19) Here's an interesting study I forgot about. A girlfriend of mine who is a geneticist studying the effects of ethanol sent me the paper a while back.

Shannoscubie, instead of the effects of … “Ethanol Exposure Produces Inversion of Sexual Partner Preference in Mice”, … why didn’t your girlfriend send you a paper on …. “Ethanol Exposure Produces Inversion of Sexual Partner Preference in Humans”?

Or are you already familiar with all the strange and/or weird sexual acts that drunks, drinking and/or intoxicated humans have been known to perform? If not, I can tell you about a few of them that are often reported in the news.

Shannoscubie, all that your #18.4 quote is saying is that “those scientific observers just can’t see that beautiful display of homosexuality like us homosexuals can”.

Well, I'm straight and I've seen cows engaging in homosexual sexual behavior so I'm pretty sure I'm not biased in that regard. And, trust me, it wasn't beautiful. Mating bovines just aren't, I don't care what combination of sexes they are. :-P

But not so with other species.

You haven't been reading the articles linked, have you? Other species besides humans use sex toys and engage in sex acts with other species.

why didn’t your girlfriend send you a paper on …. “Ethanol Exposure Produces Inversion of Sexual Partner Preference in Humans”?

Because they can't do those experiments without risking Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. And you're totally leaving out the stress effect in both experiments. That's hard to control for in humans, too, though. I can't imagine pregnant women signing up for that experiment, either.

Or are you already familiar with all the strange and/or weird sexual acts that drunks, drinking and/or intoxicated humans have been known to perform?

What was the point in THAT?

(#18.2) [SamC] Homosexuality is a nurtured trait in humans.

I am not really convinced that it is nurtured. The degree of acceptance, and the degree of precived normality is clearly what we being brainwashed for, as for the trait itself - it is difficult for me to imagine anyone convincing me to have sex with another man as long as I have the freedom to choose.

Mr. Roger Rabbit, there is more than one (1) way “to skin a cat”, ….. uh, I mean, “to be nurtured”. HA

There is “self” nurturing and there is “environmental” nurturing. And there is “positive” nurturing, “negative” nurturing and “neutral” nurturing which is directly associated with and determines the “effects” of both “self” and “environmental” nurturing. And any of these aforementioned four (4) types of nurturing, …. positive self, negative self, positive environmental, negative environmental, ….can nurture …. or convince …… one to do something or to not do something. “Neutral” nurturing, ….. like learning a name, a color or a number set, …. does not affect one’s actions or personality.

Given said, Roger Rabbit, humans have two inherited traits: 1) to procreate, 2) a pair-bonding or social trait, with the former taking precedence over the latter. Thus, a person can be positively nurtured to pair bond with one of the opposite sex (heterosexual) or they can be negatively nurtured to pair bond with one of the same sex (homosexual), neither of which will affect their inherited desire to procreate. When their sex hormones kick in they generate an uncontrollable “urge” to engage in physical sex and it really doesn’t matter to those hormones with whom, where, how or with what that “urge” is satisfied. But it does to the person themselves and there is when the pair-bonding is the determining factor.

If a young child is harmed or injured (negatively nurtured) by a caregiver then it is a possibility they will never pair-bond with anyone of that sex and will most likely never remember it ever happened (consciously recall the event).

During one’s early adolescent years, it they are constantly rejected by all their peers of the opposite sex …… then it is a possibility that their pair bonding instinct will force them to pair-bond with one of their own sex, and likewise, will most likely never remember it ever happened (consciously recall the events) or ever admit to anyone the reason they did said.

Every human is a unique individual and not even identical or conjoined twins are nurtured the same. And the majority of all humans have been nurtured to believe that heterosexuality is “the norm”, and anything else is “abnormal”. But the only thing that is really “normal” is the fact that “You are what your environment nurtured you to be”, be it a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker.

(#18.2) There is no homosexuality in other animal species.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

I am not at all convinced either way. There were a few reports here and there - but none reliable.

Roger Rabbit, all species of life on this planet has the same inherited instinct or trait to procreate. The primary difference between all said species is “what triggers” said act of procreation. With plants it is primarily sunlight, warmth and/or water available, aka seasonal changes. With the majority of animal species it is also “seasonal changes” but also includes food availability that “triggers” the female to entice the male to breed with her via scents, sounds or physical displays. And when the males get a “wiff” of those scents, sounds or physical displays all they got on their mind is to “have sex”, and to some it matters little how they do it. Did ya ever wonder how the animal veterinarians get the sperm they use for artificial inseminations? And I am sure that some would think it was a beautiful act of homosexuality iffen they ever witnessed an act of bulling.

(#19.4) Well, I'm straight and I've seen cows engaging in homosexual sexual behavior so I'm

You’ve seen it, huh? Did you ask those cows what they were doing? Maybe you should have asked the farmer if what you saw was an act of bulling.

(#19.4) You haven't been reading the articles linked, have you? Other species besides humans use sex toys and engage in sex acts with other species.

No I haven’t. And sure other species look like they are engaging in a sex act with other species but there is no actual engaging or orgasms like there is with humans.

(#19.4) Because they can't do those experiments without risking Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. And you're totally leaving out the stress effect in both experiments. That's hard to control for in humans, too, though. I can't imagine pregnant women signing up for that experiment, either.

Ells bells, they don’t hafta do any experiments and pregnant women don’t hafta sign up to do it ….. all they gotta do is check the pregnant females that do it ever day and or night.

(#19.4) What was the point in THAT?

Well duh, is not the “Inversion of Sexual Partner Preference” ….. a strange and/or weird sexual act? Sound to me like an Acey-Duecy bi-sexual act which would be weird far as I’m concerned.

Tell you what, Shannoscubie, why don’t you read this, ….. 30 Strangest Animal Mating Habits …… and then we will discuss it further.

Maybe you should have asked the farmer if what you saw was an act of bulling.

Does it matter what caused it any more than it matters what causes humans or other animals to engage in homosexual sex acts? It was what it was: Cow on cow action.

there is no actual engaging or orgasms like there is with humans.

Yes, there is. In the article. Giraffes, as I recall.

all they gotta do is check the pregnant females that do it ever day and or night.

That wouldn't be a scientific experiment, that's just anecdotal evidence. Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable and I would think even more so for pregnant women drinking.

Well duh, is not the “Inversion of Sexual Partner Preference” ….. a strange and/or weird sexual act?

That doesn't have anything to do with drunks. I think you're misunderstanding me or losing the plot a bit here.

(#19.7) [SamC] Well duh, is not the “Inversion of Sexual Partner Preference” ….. a strange and/or weird sexual act?

That doesn't have anything to do with drunks. I think you're misunderstanding me or losing the plot a bit here.

Shannoscubie, if that doesn't have anything to do with drunks, …….. then best you explain exactly what the first three (3) words means in the following, to wit:

“Ethanol Exposure Produces ……. Inversion of Sexual Partner Preference in Mice”

Shannoscubie, if that doesn't haveanything to do with drunks, …….. then best you explain exactly what the first three (3) words means in the following, to wit:

“Ethanol Exposure Produces ……. Inversion of Sexual Partner Preference in Mice”

You were talking in #19.3 about the weird sexual practices of drunks. That's not at all relevant to the "Ethanol Exposure etc" experiments. Those studied the effects of in utero exposure.

I'm all done with this now, you'll have to carry on by yourself.

See 8.3. Wikipedia cites plenty of studies explaining why simply being non-reproductive is not antagonistic to survival of a species.

See 8.3. Wikipedia cites plenty of studies explaining why simply being non-reproductive is not antagonistic to survival of a species.

Really, and have they tested this in regards to homo-sapiens? Are you implying humans don't need to reproduce to survive? and if that is the case, why has evolution given us the ability to reproduce?

"If" it is due to a chemical imbalance, "natural", would hardly be the word to describe such a thing. Forgive me, but I haven't read most of the comments in this article, what evidence can you provide to support this hypothesis? Any sources you can provide in a link?

Are you implying humans don't need to reproduce to survive?

Not all of them, that would be evolutionary suicide.

and have they tested this in regards to homo-sapiens?

Yes, some of the studies cited tested humans, specifically the one I link below.

Are you implying humans don't need to reproduce to survive?

I'm not implying anything; I'm citing academic literature.

Even so, phrasing the question in that way misses the point. Species survival is not as black and white as reproducing versus non-reproducing. As one of the studies claimed, female relatives of homosexual males have higher fecundity. Thus, while homosexuals themselves do not reproduce, there is a demonstrable positive correlation between homosexuality and their female relatives' fertility - i.e., a reproductive, and thus, biological advantage within the species. I'm sure I simplified the claims as I don't have time to read the study in detail, but that is what I gathered from the abstract.

"If" it is due to a chemical imbalance, "natural", would hardly be the word to describe such a thing.

It would be accurate if the imbalance is not the result of any outside cause. As ubercognizant claims, there are mothers who have taken external medicine that cause the imbalance, but anecdotes are not necessarily the case for every homosexual.

Plenty of differences between babies result from natural causes - i.e., no other external cause can be identified. Certainly the chemical imbalance during development leading to homosexuality might be one of them. It absolutely can still be natural and a chemical imbalance. They are not mutually exclusive to the extent that the imbalance results naturally.

Not all of them, that would be evolutionary suicide.

I think you missed my point, if humans didn't reproduce, we would have never survived.

Yes, some of the studies cited tested humans, specifically the one I link below.

I think you may have missed the point as well, if humans didn't reproduce, we would not be having this discussion.

Thus, while homosexuals themselves do not reproduce, there is a demonstrable positive correlation between homosexuality and their female relatives' fertility - i.e., a reproductive, and thus, biological advantage within the species. I'm sure I simplified the claims as I don't have time to read the study in detail, but that is what I gathered from the abstract.

What are you talking about, advantage? You are implying that homosexuals determine the fecundity of female relatives, but the article you linked states that male homosexuals are usually the latter-born. So the assumption you are making is quite a stretch to say the least, no where in that article did it mention homosexuality is an advantage to the survive of humans. Also, are you implying homosexuals are born that way?

It would be accurate if the imbalance is not the result of any outside cause. As ubercognizant claims, there are mothers who have taken external medicine that cause the imbalance, but anecdotes are not necessarily the case for every homosexual.

Imbalances are not normal or natural, so what you purpose is quite a leap of faith.

Are you implying humans don't need to reproduce to survive?

No. As I've stated elsewhere here, the survival of a species - or any specific group - isn't solely dependent upon the capacity of each individual member to reproduce. The survival of the whole of the species/group depends on each member contributing to the survival of the entire group/species as a whole. And that contribution isn't solely limited to reproduction. In fact, over-reproduction can actually be harmful to the group as a whole if the population increases to the point where its resources can't sustain it.

This also makes sense to me from an evolutionary perspective if in utero humans are subject to the same stress influence as mice. It would be in a longer term way that's similar to females who stop menstruating when their dietary intake is insufficient to sustain a pregnancy.

Not all of them, that would be evolutionary suicide.

I think you missed my point, if humans didn't reproduce, we would have never survived.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I said this, so I won't comment on it.

if humans didn't reproduce, we would not be having this discussion.

Nowhere have I said "humans shouldn't reproduce" - that'd be ridiculous. Yes, homosexuals do not themselves reproduce... yet reproduction is not the only "survival technique" employed by a species. I.e., simply because homosexuals do not reproduce does not necessarily render them meaningless in biological terms. To dismiss alternative possibilities outright based on one factor is not at all scholarly.

What are you talking about, advantage? You are implying...

As I mentioned, I didn't completely read the study, nor do I have the time to. And to address everything you mention would require that I read the study. I summarized the summaries I read; take from that what you will.

Imbalances are not normal or natural, so what you p[ro]pose is quite a leap of faith.

I personally have proposed nothing; I've been tying to faithfully relay what the summaries/abstract claimed. If I did that incorrectly, I apologize.

In any event, terminological problems remain. "Normal" and "natural" have not been defined in this discussion, so while you may claim something to be "abnormal" or "unnatural," it has yet to be demonstrated how homosexuality fits those descriptions beyond assuming that they do. In sum, my claiming normalcy or naturalness is no more a leap of faith than your claim of abnormality and unnaturalness - precisely because there are those who do not adhere to the latter two assumptions.

Related to this point: am I implying that homosexuals are born homosexual? Yes, call this idea the "natural hypothesis" if you want since no other cause outside the mother's body and the fetus's development can be pinpointed. That's as natural as it gets to me. Now, might a homosexual's in utero development be quantifiably different from other children - possibly. But this different development can still be natural in the absence of any "unnatural" cause; i.e., medicine the mother took - and this difference only then becomes "abnormal" insofar as we have a "normal" standard against which to weigh it, which is usually determined arbitrarily by an ever changing society. To be quite honest, the difference between "normal" and "abnormal" is rather easily rendered meaningless.

In quickly skimming the study I cited:

"The results confirm the existence of previously proposed biological predictors that partly explain male homosexuality: (i) the prevalence of homosexuals in the maternal line, suggesting possible genetic factors in the X-chromosome (Hamer et al. 1993)"

Emphasis mine.

Some homosexuals do reproduce. Either through medical tech. or via sexual activity, which is done specifically in order to reproduce.

Nowhere have I said "humans shouldn't reproduce" - that'd be ridiculous. Yes, homosexuals do not themselves reproduce... yet reproduction is not the only "survival technique" employed by a species. I.e., simply because homosexuals do not reproduce does not necessarily render them meaningless in biological terms. To dismiss alternative possibilities outright based on one factor is not at all scholarly.

I agree with much of what you stated, but I don't see evolutionary evidence in support of homosexuality.

As I mentioned, I didn't completely read the study, nor do I have the time to. And to address everything you mention would require that I read the study. I summarized the summaries I read; take from that what you will.

Not to be rude, but it's kind of difficult to make a point with a particular article without reading it in detail.

Related to this point: am I implying that homosexuals are born homosexual? Yes,

Is this your opinion, or do you have evidence in support of your statement? Last time I checked, there was zero evidence to support human homosexual birth. In fact, there is no homosexual gene that exists, if there is one, it hasn't been found as if yet.

I think you missed my point, if humans didn't reproduce, we would have never survived.

Accepting that homosexuality is simply another aspect of natural life will not magically turn everyone gay and kill off the species. So I guess you need to be clearer on what your point actually is.

Accepting that homosexuality is simply another aspect of natural life will not magically turn everyone gay and kill off the species. So I guess you need to be clearer on what your point actually is.

I never implied it would, try reading my comments without bias, my comments were in regards to evolution. Also, why do you believe homosexuality is natural? What evidence can you provide?

What evidence can you provide that it is unnatural? And the fact that it isn't procreative doesn't mean that homosexuality does not occur naturally.

but I don't see evolutionary evidence in support of homosexuality.

The Wikipedia link contains citations.

Not to be rude, but it's kind of difficult to make a point with a particular article without reading it in detail.

Eh, I'm not all that invested. I'm happy with my stance on the issue from both a moral and logical perspective, and I'm not under the delusion that anything any of us says here will change another's mind. So yes, while I agree it's difficult to make the point not having read an article I cite for evidence, I made the effort in finding citation with the time I have - as per the author of this article's request. As far as I'm concerned, I've done what I could.

Is this your opinion, or do you have evidence in support of your statement?

It's a hypothesis that I've seen cited in many places; the citations are featured throughout this topic. Also, see my answer below...

Last time I checked, there was zero evidence to support human homosexual birth.

That's not the case at all. There is a plethora of studies claiming genetic factors; Wikipedia mentions them; the article I cited cites them; there are links contained within this discussion. It doesn't need to be an all or nothing issue, either - many believe it involves an interplay between "genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure" (quoted, end of paragraph 1). Thus, there is a genetic component, among others.

If we are expecting science to find the one deterministic "gay gene" I'm afraid we will all be waiting forever, as it may never happen (since it may not exist). Even if a/some gay gene(s) do(es) not exist, that doesn't automatically make homosexuality "unnatural." To adopt the stance that short of the one gay gene being found homosexuality is necessarily "unnatural" is, in my mind, very naïve.

I look at it from a different point of view: if homosexuality is not "natural" (still undefined), it's necessarily "unnatural" (also undefined). If it's unnatural, "something else" must cause it. At least two crucial questions stem from those assumptions: what is/are this/these "unnatural" thing(s) that cause(s) it?; and how is it the case that every homosexual will have this "unnatural" component/cause in common?

If it's not genetics or some other "natural" development within the mother ("chemical imbalance" included), it's necessarily environmental. Must it also necessarily be the case then that all homosexuals share this one environmental cause? I think that is the stand we would be forced to adopt; the problem is I don't think that's tenable.

I never implied it would, try reading my comments without bias, my comments were in regards to evolution. Also, why do you believe homosexuality is natural? What evidence can you provide?

Homosexuality does not hinder the survival of our species, so I guess your point is, well, moot. And I honestly don't understand how you can think it's not a natural occurrence. No one who has ever actually felt romantic or physical attraction feelings for another consenting adult could possibly think that it is a learned thing and not something that just happens.

Homosexuality doesn't jive with evolution, as evolution is based on survival.

From the way you worded that you are implying that survival means procreation and that's not what survival is. Homosexuality did not wipe out species in the past - natural disasters and human interference did.

What evidence can you provide that it is unnatural? And the fact that it isn't procreative doesn't mean that homosexuality does not occur naturally.

Well according to science, people are not born homosexual, in fact, there is no gene connected to homosexuality, thus homosexuality is not natural.

If we are expecting science to find the one deterministic "gay gene" I'm afraid we will all be waiting forever, as it may never happen (since it may not exist).

This statement pretty much sums up my point from the very beginning of this discussion.

Homosexuality does not hinder the survival of our species, so I guess your point is, well, moot. And I honestly don't understand how you can think it's not a natural occurrence. No one who has ever actually felt romantic or physical attraction feelings for another consenting adult could possibly think that it is a learned thing and not something that just happens.

People are not born homosexual, if that were the case, and scientifically proven, I'd believe homosexuality were natural, but that isn't the case thus far. You need to get it out of you mind that I have anything against homosexuals, I have good friends and relatives who are homosexuals.

From the way you worded that you are implying that survival means procreation and that's not what survival is. Homosexuality did not wipe out species in the past - natural disasters and human interference did.

I never said that. What I mentioned, is if evolution is based on survive, where does homosexuality fit in genetically?

I never said that.

You did.

What I mentioned, is if evolution is based on survive, where does homosexuality fit in genetically?

Evolution is based on adaptation, not survival. Homosexuality has existed for as long as evolution has. It's not new.

I have good friends and relatives who are homosexuals.

Anti-homosexual people always say that and it always turns out to be bull@!$%#. What LGBT person would want to be friends with a homophobe much less have one in the family? If you were one of my relatives I'd disown you.

there is no gene connected to homosexuality,

There's no single "gay" gene, no. There's no single "heterosexual" gene, either. Does that make heterosexuality unnatural, too?

You did.

I didn't, you may have interpreted it that way, but that's not my fault.

Evolution is based on adaptation, not survival. Homosexuality has existed for as long as evolution has. It's not new.

And for what purpose do species adapt?

Anti-homosexual people always say that and it always turns out to be bull@!$%#. What LGBT person would want to be friends with a homophobe much less have one in the family? If you were one of my relatives I'd disown you.

Wow, how stereotypical of you, some of those friends I mentioned happen to be on this very site. Also, why are you so bitter? Am I not aloud to have an opinion of my own without your approval in this free country of ours? I've done nothing to harm you, so why hate on someone you don't know personally?

This statement pretty much sums up my point from the very beginning of this discussion.

That's fine that we agree on that one detail. But the rest of my entire post made the case that, even if there is no gene, homosexuality can still be natural.

Well according to science, people are not born homosexual

Therein lies the controversy. Plenty of studies have suggested that people are, in fact, born homosexual.

Let's look at it from a different perspective: three points to be made. The earliest suggestions of homosexuality date back to around 3000 to 2500 BC. If homosexuality is "not natural," why hasn't evolution weeded it out of the species? I guess if you don't assume homosexuality is genetic, natural selection plays no role. Which is fine... let's assume it's "unnatural" and "externally caused." [But again, even if there is no one particular gene, it can still be genetic ("natural," if you will) if it's still caused by the chemical composition of the fetus as has been suggested, a body chemisty that is determined via genetic factors during its in utero development.]

In any event, assuming it's "not natural," what "unnatural" component caused homosexuality in 3000 BCE that still continues to cause homosexuality to this day? Obviously it's not the medicine that ubercognizant described, so what's the common factor shared by homosexuals throughout history that explains its existence for - as far as we know - five millennia?

Thirdly, we can also disagree on the details, but homosexual behavior has also been recorded in other species. If homosexuality is not natural from birth, what external cause is shared among all the various species that demonstrate homosexuality?

Well according to science, people are not born homosexual, in fact, there is no gene connected to homosexuality, thus homosexuality is not natural.

One of the genes that is a contributing factor to being born left handed was only found around 2007. So you must believe that before 2007 left handed people were not born that way and that left-handedness was not natural as well.

And wow, what you must think of all the people yawning all over the place, since science does not know the cause for that yet, no gene connected to it, it too must be un-natural, right?

You used the word "prefers", most advocates of homosexuality state that it is not a preference (choice) but a hard-wired thing in the brain.

You assume "prefer" implies "choice". If you explain it to a child it would go something like, "Some men prefer to be with men, some women prefer to be with women, and some men prefer to be with women and some women prefer to be with men." That's how my mom explained it to me, and then as I grew older I figured out what she meant by it.

Not every word is meant to be taken literally.

Whether from out-of-balance hormones of the mother or chemical alteration of hormones due to medications taken by the mother during pregnancy (as suggested by ubercognizant), the origin occurs in the womb during development.

Evidence to back that silliess?

Also what "out-of-balance hormones" and "chemical alterations" cause animals in the wild to be gay and engage in homosexual activities?

Still no evidence of HOMOSEXUAL behaviour in animals.

According to you.

Why don't you google Roy and Silo.

Your true colors come out.

So, what you're saying is if you're gay you're also a pedophile? Biologically speaking the condition of being gay is the same as the condition of being a pedophile??? You are now saying that all gays are pedophiles????

No, I did not say anything like what you tried to re-word it as. Yes - talent is the same as sexual proclivity - innate - natural - "born that way". One is either talented or not - one is either gay or not.

Since you do not know every person ever born in the world - and never will - nor do you know their sexual orientation, you have no true basis for your narrow-minded categorization in your final sentence.

You really like to twist words, but I see you don't like it when someone does the same in return.

Me? A liberal?? HA!!! You have no idea.

corrective action

Again, no corrective action is necessary, as homosexuality does no harm. On that notion...

BTW nobody seems to have a problem condemning/discriminating/criminalizing poor misunderstood pedophiles

It's easy to criminalize pedophiles; they are, after all, criminals. They engage in non-consensual sex with children. All else being equal (even accepting a biological source for both types of people), the situations are complete opposites. Homosexuals have consensual sex with adults whom they love. Pedophiles have non-consensual sex with children whom they don't necessarily love. One violates the law; the other does not. One takes away the rights, autonomy and agentivity of another human being; the other does not. There are your differences.

Even if pedophiles "can't help themselves," the law requires knowledge of what is right and wrong to be competent to stand trial if charged with a crime. Whether or not the proclivity to molest children is there from birth through no fault of the person in question, societal awareness is still able to teach some pedophiles that what they do is not acceptable. Thus, while we might not be able to prevent pedophiliac tendencies from manifesting, once someone is found guilty of the crime, beyond jail time, medicine to correct possible chemical imbalances, counseling classes, etc., are all possible tools that punish, and may keep the tendencies under control in the future. However, they don't always work, which is - I feel - good evidence for a (partially) biological/genetic/chemical component. The same can be said of homosexuality. Regardless of how many reparative classes or counseling sessions a homosexual may (be forced to) take, the homosexual desires will remain.

So, on the one hand, some pedophiles knowingly violate the law and bring harm to others. On the other, homosexuals violate no law and harm no one. Even if both are genetic/natural, the former are condemnable, the latter shouldn't be.

Yet one glaring problem throughout this discussion is that you've put forth the innateness hypothesis for pedophiles and serial rapists as an absolute, while requiring that we prove the same for homosexuality. Who says pedophiliac tendencies are entirely natural/in-born/genetic? Certainly that can't be the case 100% of the time; some pedophiles are mentally disturbed, having suffered possible sexual abuse as children, as well.

I agree that perhaps homosexuality and pedophilia may have something in common - both are probably determined by varying degrees of nature and nurture interacting. Beyond that, the comparison ends. To adopt a strict hypothesis that both are 100% nature is, I think, too strong a theory. Given the natural component, there is really nothing to be done to prevent either since we can neither predict nor prevent what will happen to anyone at any given time.

Therefore, if the necessary natural (genetic) and environmental ingredients are present to create a future pedophile or serial killer that probably can't be rehabilitated, we live in a society in which the law is able to prescribe punishment/monitoring. On the other hand, the necessary combination of genetics and environmental ingredients that create a homosexual will result in a human who, all else being equal, does not break the law and does not harm others simply by being a homosexual. So even though homosexuals may be different relative to heterosexuals with respect to sexual desire (and vice versa), this difference is completely innocuous, as it causes no one else harm, and really, as a mere state of being, negatively affects no one else - why should there then be a need to stop this? It's a rather mundane variation really. Why so many are against it is beyond me.

Again - the decision is up to the parents, not homosexuals, no?

What if the parents want to "correct" their unborn child's heterosexuality so that it's born homosexual?

Again - the decision is up to the parents, not homosexuals, no?

Sure, just as it's up to the parents to test for any of the genetic possibilities you list later in your post; just as it's up to the parent(s) to abort the child within the legal parameters of the moment. I simply wouldn't personally feel the need to test for or - if positive - change the homosexuality of my child. That doesn't mean that if a cause and prevention can be found I would oppose the right of another couple from doing so. You'll find no contradictions here.

Tell this 1.5 billion followers of Mohammed.

I don't have their numbers.

And if it is consensual?

The law prevents it from being consensual via age of consent.

How old should a person be to consent?

Whatever the law says the age of consent is.

Why?

Because children's brain development prevents them, at certain ages, from registering right and wrong, from analyzing, from thinking critically, etc. I don't really want to live in a society in which a 2-year-old can be charged with murder; in which a 15-year-old can be coerced into signing away all her/his savings from her/his part time job; etc. If you disagree with or want to have a debate about age of consent laws, that's an issue for another day, I'm afraid.

Rejection of what is considered pedophilia today is a cultural phenomenon

Precisely. Hence my argument about society's ever-changing and arbitrary conception of what "normal" is during my discussion with AK Luahiwa. If pedophiles want to petition the courts and society for approval, they are welcome to, just as homosexuals have the right to petition the courts and society for change on their behalf. I can't control the outcome of either effort, but I can personally accept one without the other without contradiction.

that is Ok, since only YOUR view is the only correct one, right?

Yes. Finally; I'm glad we're starting to find common ground.

they are identical

According to you. Not according to me - "and that is the person whose opinion I trust implicitly." -Mr. Roger Rabbit (I am nothing if not professional in giving credit where credit is due.)

Therefore i[f] we are to determine a pre-natal condition in the fetus

That's a big "if," especially considering the fact that you didn't seem to have such a big issue with the suggestion that it's biological and environmental. That being the case, I'll put forward the following: If a possible biological component is found in utero, that doesn't guarantee a future homosexual, especially in the absence of the future environmental component. I can also imagine many parents being willing to roll the dice, as crude as the use of that expression in this context might be.

It boils down to the fact that I don't see the usefulness/benefit of wasting the time, energy, resources and funds that finding this future "prevention" would take - especially since homosexuality is a far cry from being as problematic as knowing your future child will have Down syndrome, or pedophiliac tendencies, or any other number of suggested genetic differences. Even so, parents seem to love their children unconditionally despite their shortcomings, whether or not those shortcomings could be foreseen.

If it is Ok to abort fetuses if they are girls

You're assuming I believe this outside of other context and details. I do not. Is it legal up to a certain gestation point? Yes, and I am okay with that; it's just not a reason I consider legitimate for an abortion. But if that is a particular mother's reason and it's within the law, so be it - I'd say the same if the hypothetical child in question were a boy. Or a future pedophile (assuming the cure had been found). Or a homosexual (same caveat as above). I'd accept them as legal and as within the right of the mother; I just wouldn't use those same reasons for an abortion myself.

How do you like Roe v. Wade now?

Just fine, thanks.

unlike you I do not see the need for the government intervention

In what sense? While homosexuals are here, it's okay to discriminate against them even though your very next sentence claims that all are created equal (with which, just for clarity, I also agree)? And if governmental grants aren't going to support research in search of the cause and cure of homosexuality, you expect that there'll be enough interest to fund the research privately?

It would be inhumane and cruel to prescribe punishment/monitoring to an innocent

Agreed. I wrote:

Thus, while we might not be able to prevent pedophiliac tendencies from manifesting, once someone is found guilty of the crime

Emphasis mine.

There is this little legal thing, called presumption of innocence.

Agreed.

I sure hope you're not suggesting that we dispence with it because of the advances in the biological sciences.

I'm not at all. I implied this nowhere.

Again - the decision is up to the parents, not homosexuals, no?

I should have added this before: why are the two mutually exclusive? The decision might indeed be up to homosexuals if the parents are in fact homosexuals themselves.

Relating to this entire notion of the biological imperative, homosexuals in fact reproduce, and have the desire to reproduce. Some go through in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc. Some have children with a member of the opposite sex before accepting their homosexuality and coming out. Thus, biological reproduction with a homosexual can, and does, occur. Others adopt (where legal), demonstrating the desire to raise families.

not as homosexuals.

You don't think that would factor into their decision? And as far as it lying with them "morally" as parents, not as homosexuals, certainly it lies with them morally as homosexuals, as well.

You Ok to change the society to suite your beliefs, but you are completely comfortable maintaing the current prejudice which you happen to share against a different group of people.

For different reasons. Hence why it's not hypocritical at all. One groups hurts others - horrendously so - the other does not, thus explaining the difference of opinion.

how about we change it to say ban gay marriage?

If that's what others want, they are free to fight for it, and I'm entitled to continue to fight against it.

I personally support gay marriage

Glad to hear it. We continue forging ahead with common ground.

but I support obeying the law

I do, too. That doesn't mean that laws are themselves infallible and immutable. Personally, I'm glad blacks aren't still 3/5s of a person; that women can vote; etc. etc. That's, in fact, one of the bases for judicial review; to determine which laws contradict precedent, superiority, or are independently unjustifiable.

especially constitutional ammendments, way-way-way above the gay interests).

Not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[pedophiles] have the identical problem

Not according to me.

and you see no reason making laws against them.

The opposite of what you claim: I see reasons for making laws against them (i.e., against pedophiles). I'll say it again: they harm others and infringe on other humans' rights. Homosexuals do not.

What is good for pedophilliac goose, must be good for the whole LGBT gander.

False equivalency.

I think between Mormon church, and John Travolta we can scrounge a few bucks to search for the cure. It is all about how to sell it.

And I support your and whoever else wants to join's right to pursue that.

I'll skip most of the post because, quite frankly, I think we've beaten this dead horse enough. But, ...

enough people to ammend the Constitution

Interracial marriages were legalized via judicial review, not through an amendment. If the only way for gays to have their marriages recognized nationally were through direct constitutional amendment, I'm afraid it would never come - or at least it would take much longer. On the other hand, the job of the courts is to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional. This technique has worked quite well thus far.

both are found unacceptable by the majority of the society

You haven't been following recent polls on homosexual acceptance/gay marriage acceptance then. A 2007 Gallup poll has the former at 59%, the latter at 46% (up 20% from 1996). A 2011 PRRI poll: 51% for marriage. A 2011 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed 53 percent acceptance. The trends over time are only increasing in support. The same cannot be said for pedophilia.

A strongly biased personal opinion, uncorroborated by either fact, logic, or majority vote.

All apply equally to your position.

I do not require your suport, or approval

Nor I yours.

Adiós.

P.S. See 25.2 for the origin of homosexuality; apparently it's divorce. Problem solved! Yet given the divorce rate in this country, that there aren't more homosexuals is nothing short of a miracle.

(#25) My second husband came with a 12 year old son. ……… When he was a teen he realized he was gay.

HA, me thinks the “specifics” associated with your 1^st sentence above ……… would surely shine some light on the “why” of your 2nd sentence above

Divorce causes homosexuality now?

So, children are completely unafffected in any way when their parents divorce, right?

Nope, they are incredibly affected. My parents are divorced.

Does divorce change children's sexuality? Not at all.

sorry Mr. rabbit--- I'm about as far from a Mathematician as possible, I suppose I'm extremely odd to them? Well, I know I'm odd, certainly not dull. (smile)

If we could all choose the ultimate outcome of our children, they'd all be perfect to our own individual ideas. Doubt anyone would have any gay children.... It's too hard of a life style! I'm not talking about acceptance of those that aren't gay, I'm talking about acting on the desire to have the same sex partner for life... Gay passions in men are very physical/visual (normal part of male sexuality) They are supremely attracted to the male form, sound, smell, action--- (not nessesarily the good inside stuff women are usually attracted to) So..., gay relationships don't last-- rampant cheating... Of course, this happens in hetero relationships, BUT NOT NEAR THE AMOUNT IN THE GAY WORLD! they joke among themselves that, one year in a relationship is like a "dog year", namely, 7! This doesn't even scratch the surface on how our bodies are designed, and it's obvious that God designed a woman for a man. Gay sex is awkward, at times incredibly selfish, and at times damaging to the sphincters. STD's travel much easier in the gay community-- very hard for straight people to even get HIV, unless they use needles for drugs. Of course, if many parents designed gay children the population of the Earth would decrease to possibly zero within a few generations (somehow that doesn't seem good) In the end a women's body is designed for a man and man for a woman. The "normal" mechaninations of psycho/sexual attractions of men and women fit, In gay people it's just a physical passion with then, two people of the same sex trying to fit the other into the opposit gender (sometimes that works-- but not often) Just wouldn't choose to have my child gay-- not sure about a mathematician either (they're usually really dull and odd)

That better be sarcasm.

That better be sarcasm.

No that is honesty.

More like plain ignorance.

I like you Mr. Rabbit, you are intellectually honest, and have purely sought an answer to a question. Without the arrogance your incisive thought skills (and written) could demand-- you remain pure in your pursuit of answers. I'm not as accomplished as you, but I love to ask questions on this subject, because I am transgendered and I wanted to know why I feel the way I do. To have discussions like this, you need others to be honest, and put aside presuppositions, and re-exam anew a challenge to personal bias. I'm like that.., I can do that..., that's how I learn. My views are open to challenge, I like to know where I'm wrong, because I'm an explorer of truth. That I have found "gayness" is a product of hormone manipulation in the womb, and concomitantly~~transgenderedness too, I would like someone to say-- "I can tell you- you are mistaken and I can show you why"; I love stuff like that, people that can support their views with 'REAL' apologetics. I can change my views, but as it stands in my heart now-- I've got a birth defect caused by DES--- I praise God for the life HE gave me, and live in abject joy and happiness.