Homosexuality

[Cadetak]

Hello I'm Cadetak ::waves:: and I like to claim to be half skeptic and half believer...not an atheist or theist, not a republican or democrat, neither for or against abortion, etc. Mostly because I can see the reasoning and justifications for both sides. But when it comes to this debate, the homosexuality debate I see no logical, reasonable, justifiable or good reason to be against homosexuality. So why should I view homosexuality as wrong, bad, or immoral? Here are the top answers to that question and why they are silly.

1. Homosexuality is Unnatural-Homosexuality isn't anything new, it has existed throughout human history and is observable in many other animal species. Even so for this stance to have any validicity we must first equate Unnatural to bad or wrong. Something that is unnatural is something that doesn't occur naturally or something that is artificial...like your computer and your medicine. So if anything that is unnatural is automatically deemed bad...then anyone against homosexuality is hypocritical for using and doing other unnatural things(I never saw a tree produce an ipod, ipods are not naturally occuring). The entire human species can be considered unnatural for its disturbance of the natural order. One could say worshiping a two thousand year old ghost carpenter is unnatural. The thing is though homosexuality isn't unnatural because well it occurs naturally. Is it a defect? Could be, I don't know...but if it is does that make it wrong, bad, or immoral? Why would homosexuality being unnatural be wrong anyways? As far as I know there is nothing that says Natural=Good and Unnatural=Bad. This whole stance has no basis because the stance of unnatural being bad has no basis.

2. Man is meant to be with women/The Parts don't fit-Is again a hypocritical stance. Anal and oral sex exist amongst heterosexual couples as well as homosexual ones. Homosexual physical activity cannot be viewed as wrong because they do all the same things as straight people do. If your against homosexual physical activity then you must be against similar heterosexual activity...but of course most people don't reason that way. Yes man is designed to be with women....but that doesn't mean it has to be like that. With divorce rates as they are you can't really say that straight couples are better then gay ones.

3. Can't Reproduce-So not having kids is bad, wrong, and immoral? By this logic people against homosexuality should also be against straight people who choose not to reproduce or use both control but as we know most people are not. Also a heterosexual could adopt or go through artificial insemination and would be fulfilling his or hers 'moral obligation' to have and raise kids...but for someone reason this doesn't count.

4. Damages Society-The 'reasoning' behind this is that somehow the people we choose to fall in love with and what we do in the bedroom somehow effects the economy, security, and the way other people live their lives. Even though heterosexual people are the leaders and the majority...homosexuals are somehow responsible for social ills. To say that homosexuality is bad for society is saying that being against homosexuality is good for society. How exactly is homosexuality bad for society? In truth it isn't, its just a sad excuse.

5. Religion-Or as I like to say the "Because God said so" line of reasoning. God tells us that being gay is bad. He also tells us that we should kill people who divorce, don't believe, and disobey their parents and is also okay with slavery...yet nobody follows these little rules anymore. Of course the general default answer to these rules is that they have to "be put into context for the time they were created for" which ends ups meaning that the rule of killing non believers is no longer relevant to today. Which is fine and dandy but then if all those rules were only for that time period and no longer relevant then why is the homosexuality still relevant? Does the Christian religion not preach tolerance,not to judge, and to love all? If so then why are christians so dedicated to putting down homosexuality? Is this not intollerance, judgement,...how is it loving?

Being against homosexuality makes about as much sense as being against women or other races. Yet any nation that claims itself to be free no longer discriminates against women, ethnic races, or belief most people these days are against racism and sexism. Of course this seemingly doesn't apply to sexual orientation. Why does the whole freedom and equality thing not apply to homosexuality?

Is homosexuality wrong, bad, and/or immoral? Better yet is being against homosexuality bad, wrong, and immoral? How can being against it be considered right, good, or moral?The big question is should we tolerate homosexuality...but I ask should we tolerate anti-homosexuality? If your against homosexuality then you are in some way hypocritical.

Why do I even have to post this.....is it not pathetic that we still pass judgement on such things? That we look down upon one another based on something as trivial as sexual orientation.I have a dream...a dream that one day we will not be judged by our sexual orientations but by the content of our characters.

And by all means anyone who is against homosexuality please post how you justify your position. Something that makes sense, is reasonable, logical, something good.

[InnerSpace]

Is homosexuality wrong, bad, and/or immoral? Better yet is being against homosexuality bad, wrong, and immoral? How can being against it be considered right, good, or moral?The big question is should we tolerate homosexuality...but I ask should we tolerate anti-homosexuality?

What a fantastic and well thought-out OP Cadetak.

Let the healing begin.

Let compassion show its face.

IMO...it is completely immoral to hold such beliefs. It breeds hatred and ignorance.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Inner Space

[veledran]

IMO...it is completely immoral to hold such beliefs. It breeds hatred and ignorance.

Which also makes people easier to control.

[Schnaffler]

Brilliant post!

Totally agree with everything you say, well thought out and put together.

Thanks!

[InnerSpace]

Which also makes people easier to control.

Agree!!

[Marby]

Wonderful post, Cadetak!

[brave_new_world]

Hello I'm Cadetak ::waves:: and I like to claim to be half skeptic and half believer...not an atheist or theist, not a republican or democrat, neither for or against abortion, etc. Mostly because I can see the reasoning and justifications for both sides. But when it comes to this debate, the homosexuality debate I see no logical, reasonable, justifiable or good reason to be against homosexuality. So why should I view homosexuality as wrong, bad, or immoral? Here are the top answers to that question and why they are silly.

Congratulations on such a superb post Cadetak. I agree with you 200%. There is no logical or moral reason as to be against homosexuality. It is a natural sexuality which is compatible with that of the highest ethics. It is good to see younger people like you with the intelligence to see through senseless prejudice.

You rock!

[chaoszerg]

homosexuality is not wrong.

Love is not some object that can be assigned to specific people.

[hairston630]

Indeed!. We are learning more and more every day that homosexuality is biological and not a choice. Its no different than me waking up and realizing that im attracted to women (im only thinking of one right now though ). A recent scientific study has shown that male homosexuals have the same brain makeup as a straight female and homosexual female has the same brain makeup as a straight male. It makes sense and IMO deals a very big blow to some of the christian fundamentalist beliefs.

Edited July 28, 2008 by hairston630

[Ozi]

oops repost

Edited July 28, 2008 by Ozi

[Ozi]

Hello I'm Cadetak ::waves:: and I like to claim to be half skeptic and half believer...not an atheist or theist, not a republican or democrat, neither for or against abortion, etc. Mostly because I can see the reasoning and justifications for both sides. But when it comes to this debate, the homosexuality debate I see no logical, reasonable, justifiable or good reason to be against homosexuality. So why should I view homosexuality as wrong, bad, or immoral? Here are the top answers to that question and why they are silly.

1. Homosexuality is Unnatural-Homosexuality isn't anything new, it has existed throughout human history and is observable in many other animal species. Even so for this stance to have any validicity we must first equate Unnatural to bad or wrong. Something that is unnatural is something that doesn't occur naturally or something that is artificial...like your computer and your medicine. So if anything that is unnatural is automatically deemed bad...then anyone against homosexuality is hypocritical for using and doing other unnatural things(I never saw a tree produce an ipod, ipods are not naturally occuring). The entire human species can be considered unnatural for its disturbance of the natural order. One could say worshiping a two thousand year old ghost carpenter is unnatural. The thing is though homosexuality isn't unnatural because well it occurs naturally. Is it a defect? Could be, I don't know...but if it is does that make it wrong, bad, or immoral? Why would homosexuality being unnatural be wrong anyways? As far as I know there is nothing that says Natural=Good and Unnatural=Bad. This whole stance has no basis because the stance of unnatural being bad has no basis.

LOL, to try and justify being gay by suggesting its about as unatural as an ipod being unatural is so stupid, but typical. When most people say its unatural, they mean that, for men to seek parterners of the same sex is unatural, because the natural pairing is a woman. Infact everything from plants, to you, and me, have been created by god in pairs, female, and male. There is no evidence suggest that being gay is a biological state, from birth etc, infact there is more evidence to suggest its achoice, a lifestyle choice that many make in adulthood or at adolecsant age, and the main factors are envirmental. If it was genetic, surely it would be heridatory. The stance is not that everything unatural is bad, the stance is that to seek same sex partners to gratify some sick sexual perversions is unatural, the natural stance would be to seek the right compatible partner.

2. Man is meant to be with women/The Parts don't fit-Is again a hypocritical stance. Anal and oral sex exist amongst heterosexual couples as well as homosexual ones. Homosexual physical activity cannot be viewed as wrong because they do all the same things as straight people do. If your against homosexual physical activity then you must be against similar heterosexual activity...but of course most people don't reason that way. Yes man is designed to be with women....but that doesn't mean it has to be like that. With divorce rates as they are you can't really say that straight couples are better then gay ones.

Oral sex is ok in my religion. *spam filter* is a big no no, whether gay or hetro, it does not matter, *spam filter* is forbidden. Again is it the natural area of a body to be inserting your penis, i dont thinks, thats your poop hole, and increases chances of sexual diseases. Straight couple are always better than gay one, gay one are a minority and dont benefit society, two men, unable to produce a child, cannot benefit mankind in the long run, i know they cannot adopt etc, but if they wanted a child,then they should not have chosen to be gay. A wheel is designed to be round, but it does not have to be like that, well if aint, then what is supposed to be like.

3. Can't Reproduce-So not having kids is bad, wrong, and immoral? By this logic people against homosexuality should also be against straight people who choose not to reproduce or use both control but as we know most people are not. Also a heterosexual could adopt or go through artificial insemination and would be fulfilling his or hers 'moral obligation' to have and raise kids...but for someone reason this doesn't count.

Ofcourse, gay men and women cannot reproduce between themselves, they will need help, a hetro couple are naturally able to produce, but those who cant, but want to, have help, but those who dont want have children, in my opinion are often selfish, self centred people. Neitehr they are right or the gays.

4. Damages Society-The 'reasoning' behind this is that somehow the people we choose to fall in love with and what we do in the bedroom somehow effects the economy, security, and the way other people live their lives. Even though heterosexual people are the leaders and the majority...homosexuals are somehow responsible for social ills. To say that homosexuality is bad for society is saying that being against homosexuality is good for society. How exactly is homosexuality bad for society? In truth it isn't, its just a sad excuse.

Your right, hetro is majority, homo is about 1% or maybe more, yet why is it they are very represented in media, music, politics, econimics, etc. Because high rollers, have sick sexual desires, that need fulfilling. The reason homos, effect society is that it becomes even degenerated, sexually promiscious, rise of peodophilia, teenage pregnancy etc for the hetros, increase in sexual disease and clouded morality. The result is what you have today in the west at large. I could go on, but i think you get picture.

5. Religion-Or as I like to say the "Because God said so" line of reasoning. God tells us that being gay is bad. He also tells us that we should kill people who divorce, don't believe, and disobey their parents and is also okay with slavery...yet nobody follows these little rules anymore. Of course the general default answer to these rules is that they have to "be put into context for the time they were created for" which ends ups meaning that the rule of killing non believers is no longer relevant to today. Which is fine and dandy but then if all those rules were only for that time period and no longer relevant then why is the homosexuality still relevant? Does the Christian religion not preach tolerance,not to judge, and to love all? If so then why are christians so dedicated to putting down homosexuality? Is this not intollerance, judgement,...how is it loving?

For me my religion says a big no no to being gay. I believe my holy book is the word of god, the creator, and if there is anyone worth listening to,its him. As for the rest of what you say, religion tells to kill people, yes it does in the context of good and evil, like the war on terror. it says dont disobey your parents, which is good, but in todays society, kids have no respect for parents or elders, clearly visible to see. Ofcourse most of your accusation need to be put in context not only regarding time, but variables too. If god has created us in pair, men and women, then obviously to seek the same sex is the wrong route. For me, my holy book and everythign it has to say, was relevant 1400 yrs ago and is relevant today. In order to dismiss such notions based on religion, you have to first prove that the religion is false and incorrect.

Being against homosexuality makes about as much sense as being against women or other races. Yet any nation that claims itself to be free no longer discriminates against women, ethnic races, or belief most people these days are against racism and sexism. Of course this seemingly doesn't apply to sexual orientation. Why does the whole freedom and equality thing not apply to homosexuality?

No being against women, or race is silly we are the same and equal. Being against homosexual practise is another thing altogether, and being against those who practise such acts is different too.

Is homosexuality wrong, bad, and/or immoral? Better yet is being against homosexuality bad, wrong, and immoral? How can being against it be considered right, good, or moral?The big question is should we tolerate homosexuality...but I ask should we tolerate anti-homosexuality? If your against homosexuality then you are in some way hypocritical.

I am against homosexuality, its not bad or immoral, those who are gay are sinful and immoral. They have chosen to practise a lifestyle and sex which is unatural and non beneficial, besides graitfying sick sexual desires and their own whims. Homosexuality should only be tolerated to the extent that, what they do at home is their business, but there is no room for it in public, media, etc etc. There is nothing hypocritical about my view.

Why do I even have to post this.....is it not pathetic that we still pass judgement on such things? That we look down upon one another based on something as trivial as sexual orientation.I have a dream...a dream that one day we will not be judged by our sexual orientations but by the content of our characters.

You see that the problem, is that for you sexual orientation is trivial, as is sex before marriage, adultery, fornication, alcohol etc. For me these are not trivial things, but problems in society which degenerate it and break up the nuclues of society, a family.

And by all means anyone who is against homosexuality please post how you justify your position. Something that makes sense, is reasonable, logical, something good.

I just have and trust me, I held back a little, because i was addressing similar stuff in another forum on the same topic.

[Rosewin]

In some religions, not just the Christian faith, it is still a sin, in other religions, like Santeria, one cannot reach the highest level of priesthood if one is a homosexual. People can do as they wish but they should not expect these faiths to change their stance. Well there are many other sins too. Now I am sure there are many 'normal' looking and acting people who are homosexual or even bisexual. But what of those who act and look like the opposite sex, some even talking in an accent, that is not normal, they were not born like that, and it must take much energy to keep up the fake accent. So not everyone belongs to these faiths or paths that frown on homosexuality so it should not concern them really. And just as others are allowed to use the public space to voice their opinions on homosexuality, in a positive favor, then others should be allowed to voice their opinions in a negative favor. This business of hate speech, prosecuting people and such, for even reading out the Bible where it calls it a sin, is just stupid. I guess when crying for tolerance some forget to show it themselves. And if you are in one of these religions then you will have to reconcile that with it but I do not think demanding to change the religion is the right way to go about it, and some can change, they will not be the same for it, they will be something else. Outside of religion, people should be allowed to do what they wish behind close doors, love who they want, be affectionate to who they love in public, but I am not so sure about tax breaks and such. I definitely think they should be allowed to visit each other in hospitals and the like. Civil unions are OK but marriage historically has had a specific definition and I would like the word to stay the same. A man and a woman.

[Ozi]

Indeed!. We are learning more and more every day that homosexuality is biological and not a choice. Its no different than me waking up and realizing that im attracted to women (im only thinking of one right now though ). A recent scientific study has shown that male homosexuals have the same brain makeup as a straight female and homosexual female has the same brain makeup as a straight male. It makes sense and IMO deals a very big blow to some of the christian fundamentalist beliefs.

there are major faults with that study, should you want me to enlighten you, i can. The fact that the brians that were studied for the gay men, had aids, which near death reduces levels of testosterone greatly and affected the brain, which made it similar to a female brain, which we know have less testosterone anyway. I could go in to more detail, but its stuff like this, which gets me, people see anyting and beleive it.

Like the canadian doctor who said he found the gay gene, it was front page news, a week later they found out he doctored the results and he was gay himself, they published it a week later in the middle of the paper, a small paragraph, see the difference, incomparison to when he claimed he discovered it, it was front page news, a week later he gets caught, they make sure, less people read about it.

Your not born gay, you become gay as a matter of choice. How does one determine who is gay, even on a genetic level, we know some is gay, when they carry out the actions associated with homosexuality, until this point you cannot determine who is gay and who is not. Therefore its choice, people decided to be gay.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Ozi

[Rosewin]

People can rewire their brain. It is not a surprise scientific studies has shown the make up of the brain can be closer to the opposite sex among homosexuals. That does not mean they were born like that. It just means they rewired their brain to function that way. I definitely believe that many sins when a habit can rewire the brain in other ways too. It is tied into spirituality somehow. It is a spiritual condition IMHO and highly based on nurture and not nature.

[hairston630]

"They have chosen to practise a lifestyle and sex which is unatural and non beneficial, besides graitfying sick sexual desires and their own whims"

Ozi, Have you read recent scientific studies on homosexuality? There is no reason to assume that homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay. Heteros wake up and they automatically like the opposite sex. It is the exact same thing for people that are gay. The "its a choice" card is the bottom leg of a house of cards and science is the wind behind it. Religion and churches propogandize the idea that homosexuality is a choice because it goes against their system of theology. I dont see any reason to name their biologically engrained sexual preference a "sin".

[Ozi]

People can rewire their brain. It is not a surprise scientific studies has shown the make up of the brain can be closer to the opposite sex among homosexuals. That does not mean they were born like that. It just means they rewired their brain to function that way. I definitely believe that many sins when a habit can rewire the brain in other ways too. It is tied into spirituality somehow. It is a spiritual condition IMHO and highly based on nurture and not nature.

i agree, but the studies most of them refer to when making this point about the brain and the difference in size in certain areas of it, is from a flawed experiment, which has been discredited, its just gay propaganda. A bit like when you do have such discussions about it, they accuse you of having gay tendencies, just because you oppose it, its a the simple way out " oh your so insecure, you prob gay too". thats the logic they apply

[Rosewin]

I would not doubt it Ozi. They are a minority and within that minority is a very vocal group that has an agenda that wishes to change society. They can do so, but they will never change the heart of the church, the real church. Like all sinners they can simply attempt to change for the better if they decide to convert. If not they can remain in the world. That is my view. We are all sinners anyways so it is not like any of us are better or different when it comes down to it. We are all the same. But the difference is some want to change our views where it is not a sin. Not going to happen.

Through the media message though they have already won over the younger generation. It matters not. Those who know and care will teach their children right. Even if those children go off to sin like the rest of the world they will always know the truth as we see it.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Clovis

[Goblin-5]

Hello I'm Cadetak ::waves:: and I like to claim to be half skeptic and half believer...not an atheist or theist, not a republican or democrat, neither for or against abortion, etc. Mostly because I can see the reasoning and justifications for both sides. But when it comes to this debate, the homosexuality debate I see no logical, reasonable, justifiable or good reason to be against homosexuality. So why should I view homosexuality as wrong, bad, or immoral? Here are the top answers to that question and why they are silly.

1. Homosexuality is Unnatural-Homosexuality isn't anything new, it has existed throughout human history and is observable in many other animal species. Even so for this stance to have any validicity we must first equate Unnatural to bad or wrong. Something that is unnatural is something that doesn't occur naturally or something that is artificial...like your computer and your medicine. So if anything that is unnatural is automatically deemed bad...then anyone against homosexuality is hypocritical for using and doing other unnatural things(I never saw a tree produce an ipod, ipods are not naturally occuring). The entire human species can be considered unnatural for its disturbance of the natural order. One could say worshiping a two thousand year old ghost carpenter is unnatural. The thing is though homosexuality isn't unnatural because well it occurs naturally. Is it a defect? Could be, I don't know...but if it is does that make it wrong, bad, or immoral? Why would homosexuality being unnatural be wrong anyways? As far as I know there is nothing that says Natural=Good and Unnatural=Bad. This whole stance has no basis because the stance of unnatural being bad has no basis.

2. Man is meant to be with women/The Parts don't fit-Is again a hypocritical stance. Anal and oral sex exist amongst heterosexual couples as well as homosexual ones. Homosexual physical activity cannot be viewed as wrong because they do all the same things as straight people do. If your against homosexual physical activity then you must be against similar heterosexual activity...but of course most people don't reason that way. Yes man is designed to be with women....but that doesn't mean it has to be like that. With divorce rates as they are you can't really say that straight couples are better then gay ones.

3. Can't Reproduce-So not having kids is bad, wrong, and immoral? By this logic people against homosexuality should also be against straight people who choose not to reproduce or use both control but as we know most people are not. Also a heterosexual could adopt or go through artificial insemination and would be fulfilling his or hers 'moral obligation' to have and raise kids...but for someone reason this doesn't count.

4. Damages Society-The 'reasoning' behind this is that somehow the people we choose to fall in love with and what we do in the bedroom somehow effects the economy, security, and the way other people live their lives. Even though heterosexual people are the leaders and the majority...homosexuals are somehow responsible for social ills. To say that homosexuality is bad for society is saying that being against homosexuality is good for society. How exactly is homosexuality bad for society? In truth it isn't, its just a sad excuse.

5. Religion-Or as I like to say the "Because God said so" line of reasoning. God tells us that being gay is bad. He also tells us that we should kill people who divorce, don't believe, and disobey their parents and is also okay with slavery...yet nobody follows these little rules anymore. Of course the general default answer to these rules is that they have to "be put into context for the time they were created for" which ends ups meaning that the rule of killing non believers is no longer relevant to today. Which is fine and dandy but then if all those rules were only for that time period and no longer relevant then why is the homosexuality still relevant? Does the Christian religion not preach tolerance,not to judge, and to love all? If so then why are christians so dedicated to putting down homosexuality? Is this not intollerance, judgement,...how is it loving?

Being against homosexuality makes about as much sense as being against women or other races. Yet any nation that claims itself to be free no longer discriminates against women, ethnic races, or belief most people these days are against racism and sexism. Of course this seemingly doesn't apply to sexual orientation. Why does the whole freedom and equality thing not apply to homosexuality?

Is homosexuality wrong, bad, and/or immoral? Better yet is being against homosexuality bad, wrong, and immoral? How can being against it be considered right, good, or moral?The big question is should we tolerate homosexuality...but I ask should we tolerate anti-homosexuality? If your against homosexuality then you are in some way hypocritical.

Why do I even have to post this.....is it not pathetic that we still pass judgement on such things? That we look down upon one another based on something as trivial as sexual orientation.I have a dream...a dream that one day we will not be judged by our sexual orientations but by the content of our characters.

And by all means anyone who is against homosexuality please post how you justify your position. Something that makes sense, is reasonable, logical, something good.

Excellent post!

[Ozi]

"They have chosen to practise a lifestyle and sex which is unatural and non beneficial, besides graitfying sick sexual desires and their own whims"

Ozi, Have you read recent scientific studies on homosexuality? There is no reason to assume that homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay. Heteros wake up and they automatically like the opposite sex. It is the exact same thing for people that are gay. The "its a choice" card is the bottom leg of a house of cards and science is the wind behind it. Religion and churches propogandize the idea that homosexuality is a choice because it goes against their system of theology. I dont see any reason to name their biologically engrained sexual preference a "sin".

LOL, you dont get it do you, the science and the study you refer to is flawed and discredited. As for the gay gene, there is non. And there is not a single person in the world born gay, they either become gay at adolescant age or adulthood. Hetro is the norm and natural, as science shows, that every thing living is created in pairs, from plants to humans, female and male. You obvioulsy dont get the point, which is, the studies your refer to have problems and faults their not definitive.

When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. As William Byne noted, LeVay’s work

has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray (1994, 270[5]:53, emp. added).

Additionally, of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Byne continued his comments on LeVay’s work.

His inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death, virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. To date, LeVay has examined the brain of only one gay man who did not die of AIDS (270:53).

Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. In addition, bear in mind that he had no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. LeVay has admitted:

It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).

Deos that Help......................................

[hairston630]

LOL, you dont get it do you, the science and the study you refer to is flawed and discredited. As for the gay gene, there is non. And there is not a single person in the world born gay, they either become gay at adolescant age or adulthood. Hetro is the norm and natural, as science shows, that every thing living is created in pairs, from plants to humans, female and male. You obvioulsy dont get the point, which is, the studies your refer to have problems and faults their not definitive.

When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. As William Byne noted, LeVay’s work

has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray (1994, 270[5]:53, emp. added).

Additionally, of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Byne continued his comments on LeVay’s work.

His inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death, virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. To date, LeVay has examined the brain of only one gay man who did not die of AIDS (270:53).

Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. In addition, bear in mind that he had no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. LeVay has admitted:

It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).

Deos that Help......................................

First of all...Post the source from which you got these sources as I KNOW you didnt read all of these seperate books at one time. Second, please stop using so many commas where they are not needed. Thirdly...You are using an outdated study. The study im referring to is from 2008. They need to do larger group studies to confirm but the evidence thus far lends more credibility to nature than nurture and im ALWAYS open to being wrong (I am still christian though im very liberal) where as you seem to be pretty closed minded because of your religion.

Here are the links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun...ence.psychology

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/291745

http://www.ajc.com/health/content/shared-a...rai/616554.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...men-848640.html

Edited July 28, 2008 by hairston630

[Marby]

Many find it comfortable to hide behind religion when expressing bigotry.

Those same people expect people who don't necessarily believe that religious view to agree with it because their god says so.

Keep in mind that religion has been utilized to justify a lot of evil in the world. This is not a slam at religion in general, though religion not my thing, but simple fact. Those who use religion for the positive are not the problem, even if they feel homosexuality is a sin. However, that is merely the belief of a religious group, and it is belief that is relevant only to those within that group. You're entitled to those beliefs, but don't expect people to necessarily agree or care until you tread on someone's rights because of those beliefs. Every human being is deserving of living their lives as they see fit so long as they are not hurting others.

Clovis mentioned Santeria. Let me put that into context. It is true, that a babalao cannot be homosexual. However, you would be hard pressed to find any Santero who is filled with so much hatred or would refuse to help a homosexual based on their homosexuality. I know this because Santeria is a big part of my family's culture and I grew up around it. One of my second cousins is a priestess. It's kind of funny given the machismo prevalent in the Cuban culture, where Santeria originated, but those Santeros are among the most tolerant people I've known. Also, there are rituals/positions in the religion that bar men or women, depending on what's being done. It's not something based in hatred or intolerance for the people themselves. No one is shunned due to sexual orientation, and homosexual men, as well as women, can hold position in that religion that is just as relevant as a babalao's position.

EDITED to clarify that Santeria does not hate the homosexual.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Marby

[SunDogDayze]

Ozi, for gods sake, do you have a little favorites file where you keep the same 4 articles on homosexuality that you keep reposting over and over again?

Here's some newer stuff to add to your collection, although I am sure that you will delete them without even reading them

A 2007 article from discover magazine.

It explains how environment and society cannot be responsible for someone "turning" gay, and it also explains why it is so hard to get funding for research in the field of homosexuality and genetics.

William Reiner, a psychiatrist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, explored the question of environmental influences on sexuality with a group that had been surgically shifted from boys to girls. These boys had been born with certain genital deformities; because it is easier to fashion a vagina than a penis, the boys were surgically made into girls at birth. In many cases they were raised as girls, kept in the dark about the surgery, and thought themselves female long into adulthood. Invariably, Reiner found that the faux females ended up being attracted to women. If societal nudging was what made men gay, at least one of these boys should have grown up to be attracted to men. There is no documented case of that happening.

You can't teach someone to be attracted to a particular gender.

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, in the Apr. 21, 2007 article "Homosexuality and Bisexuality: Is Homosexuality Genetically Determined?" published on its website, explained:

"Religious conservatives often point to studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised independently. If one is gay, then the other twin is found to be gay only about 55% of the time. They reason that: since identical twins have the same genetic structure, then if homosexual orientation were determined by genes, 100% of the other twins would be gay... [This is] based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics. Genes have a property called penetrance, which is a measure of their effectiveness, or power... The penetrance of the gene which causes Type 1 (early onset) diabetes is only 30%. So, if one identical twin has the allele that causes diabetes, then the other twin will have the same allele. Both will have a 30% chance of developing the disorder. Both twins will have the same genetic structure. But it may or may not be triggered by something in the environment, and cause diabetes. If one identical twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin has about a 48% chance of also developing the disorder. If one twin develops bipolar affective disorder, (formerly called manic depression) the other twin's chances are about 60% of having it as well..."

I know it's complicated, Ozi, but try to understand that no one is claiming that there is one gene that is like an on/off switch for "gayness." There is a multitude of factors, all of them genetic, that can lead to someone being homosexual.

Have you ever talked to someone that is homosexual? Did you ask them why they chose to be gay? Did they laugh at you, and tell you that they knew they were gay from a very early age? That they tried to hide it, or fight it, because they knew it would be a very hard life, but they had to make a choice at some point whether to be unhappy and unsatisfied by being with a member of the sex they are not attracted to, or face ridicule and hate from people like you to be able to live a fulfilling life with someone in their same gender.

The choice to be gay is non existant. The only choice people who are born gay have is whether to act on it. If you want to consider it a sin to want to be happy and to have a chance at the same quality of life that everyone is afforded rights to, then you must also think it's a sin for someone who has COPD to be on an oxygen tank, or for someone with a missing appendage to have a prosthetic limb. These people did not have the choice to be the way they are, but they were allowed to make the choice to better their quality of life.

You know what IS a learned trait though, one that is not born in people? Hate. Too bad we can't turn your hate switch gene off.

[Ozi]

First of all...Post the source from which you got these sources as I KNOW you didnt read all of these seperate books at one time. Second, please stop using so many commas where they are not needed. Thirdly...You are using an outdated study. The study im referring to is from 2008. They need to do larger group studies to confirm but the evidence thus far lends more credibility to nature than nurture and im ALWAYS open to being wrong (I am still christian though im very liberal) where as you seem to be pretty closed minded because of your religion.

Here are the links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun...ence.psychology

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/291745

http://www.ajc.com/health/content/shared-a...rai/616554.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/...men-848640.html

I have seen these reports in papers, and i have seen them before, often front page news, and then a week or so later when new evidence comes to crush their notions, the papers dont print them.

But looking at those, they dont indicate that your born gay, your simply looking at brains, which belong to practising gays or hetro, and the brian has plasticity, it can grow and rewire and remould, its not a static hardwired job, as once thought, so maybe the gays they checked, had their brains effected by their new lifestyle choice.

LEvay, is also quoted in the article as though his study was credible and we know it was not. Savic says its does not mean that homosexuality is inherited or or result from abnormally high or low exposure in the womb to sex hormones such as testosterone.

The point still stands, if its genetic, its inherited by future progeny, there is not evidence of this.

Six years earlier, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study stating:

Before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual (see Nicolosi, 2000, 86:1071).

Dr. Simon LeVay, in 1991, had strong personal and political reasons to pursue his research The “Hypothalamus Study”. LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. According to a 1992 Newsweek story, he stated: “. . . if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether”. In 2001 Simon LeVay, admitted that the study was inconclusive.

In 1993 Dr. Dean Hamer at the NCI reported that a “gay” gene seemed to be maternally linked and could be found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome. But Hamer’s study was discredited as both biased and corrupt. Even an article in the same-gender sex magazine, New York Native, was titled: “Gay Gene Research Doesn’t Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.” And the NIHO alleged that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (that he ignored data that didn’t support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined).

In October 2003, Dr. Qazi Rahman, Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson said they found sex differences in the eye blink in response to loud noises. The authors found that women blinked more readily than men, and that lesbians blinked less readily than other women. They used small samples, and found no difference between homosexual men and heterosexual men. Yet they gave the impression that their findings indicated that homosexuality is a pre-born condition. And they themselves introduced cautionary notes in the study: “Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variations between heterosexuals and homosexuals may be due either to biological factors or to the influence of learning.”

Overall, i think your grasping at straws, with the above studies etc, they really dont mean anything, but presented in such a way that people think being gay is hardwired.

[TheKnight]

5. Religion-Or as I like to say the "Because God said so" line of reasoning. God tells us that being gay is bad. He also tells us that we should kill people who divorce, don't believe, and disobey their parents and is also okay with slavery...yet nobody follows these little rules anymore. Of course the general default answer to these rules is that they have to "be put into context for the time they were created for" which ends ups meaning that the rule of killing non believers is no longer relevant to today. Which is fine and dandy but then if all those rules were only for that time period and no longer relevant then why is the homosexuality still relevant? Does the Christian religion not preach tolerance,not to judge, and to love all? If so then why are christians so dedicated to putting down homosexuality? Is this not intollerance, judgement,...how is it loving?

Homosexual behavior is an action not a person, a person is not his/her sexuality, but is who he/she is based on the quality of his/her character. In Judaism, practically all sexual activity is prohibited except for that which is done within the context of marriage between a man and a woman who are married. And even then, sex in their marriage is prohibited for two weeks of every month.

Why is God so strict concerning sexual behavior? The main reason is because when a married man and woman have relations, they are partnering with God in the act of Creation. That is the primary reason for sexual union. God desires that this partnership take place under certain pretenses and circumstances such as a marriage between two members of the opposite sex when the woman is not on her period. Any other sexual union is against that which God desires that we do. If you don't care what God desires, than don't worry about God's prohibition of homosexual behavior.

It's not as if religion discriminates solely against homosexual behavior (at least not in Judaism). People who m********e, people who have pre-marital sex, people who cheat on their spouses, people who have sex when the wife is on her period, people who have sex with animals, and people who have sex with family members are all sinning in doing such actions.

In all honesty it doesn't make sense to define one's self by the actions one does. You don't see people calling themselves, m********ors, fornicators, adulterers, people-who-have-sex-with-women-who-are-on-their-period-ers, beastialists, and incestrous people, so why should we even call a person a homosexual as if that desire in their nature makes them who they are. People are people, sexual preference does not define a person. God is aware that we as humans will desire to do particularly sinful acts. Desiring to sin is not prohibited. Acting on the desire is what is prohibited.

I believe it must be wondered which is worse...My believing that homosexual behavior is prohibited, or your believing that someone could be defined by their sexual preference. As if that's all there is to a person.

[eqgumby]

This has been done to death. LT Ripley and I had a long discussion here, and I think came to the conclusion that we could go back and forth forever, crediting and discrediting references, studies, anecdotal evidence, etc.

Bottom line is, there is no "smoking gun" for homosexuality, pro or con.

As far as the OP...I personally am ambivalent. More gay men means less competition...then again, those pesky lesbians cutting into my potential harem...well that sticks in my craw!