I think we can remove genetics from the question. As I said before, it is most likely the result of a hormone triggered around puberty (which explains why people are confused throughout puberty before coming out of the closet, and can also explain bisexuality). And this hormone would be the product of a maladaptation, look it up.

 

 

 

My experience with people who are homosexual is that they knew they were at around age 6-7. The only confusion they felt was from society telling them they were supposed to think differently. 6-7 is long before puberty would have even begun starting.

I think we can remove genetics from the question. As I said before, it is most likely the result of a hormone triggered around puberty (which explains why people are confused throughout puberty before coming out of the closet, and can also explain bisexuality). And this hormone would be the product of a maladaptation, look it up.

 

 

 

My experience with people who are homosexual is that they knew they were at around age 6-7. The only confusion they felt was from society telling them they were supposed to think differently. 6-7 is long before puberty would have even begun starting.

 

 

 

Hmm, my experiences were around age 10, or US sixth grade.

Hmm, my experiences were around age 10, or US sixth grade.

 

 

 

So it is your belief that people are born straight, and then during puberty a hormone is triggered that makes them homosexual?

I know we cleared that thought up between us Vik. I was just restating the conclusion for Satenza since I guess he didn't see our dialogue earlier on the topic.

I personally think people are born with natural inclinations but these natural inclinations are not written in stone which is what would happen if it was purely genetic. Just because someone had the natural inclination to have a short temper and want to beat their head against a tree when they got mad doesn't mean "God made them this way so we should just accept how God made them and let them be." It is the same concept.

 

 

 

agreed..

 

 

 

just like any other sexual immorality or temptation....certain ones are more appealing to others. the difference is giving into those temptations or ignoring them

 

 

 

let's be blunt...things defined as "sin" are fun...

Hmm, my experiences were around age 10, or US sixth grade.

 

 

 

So it is your belief that people are born straight, and then during puberty a hormone is triggered that makes them homosexual?

 

 

 

I really can't answer that question. I would assume no, but I haven't the knowledge to give it the thought it's deserving of.

 

 

 

Magekillr, the problem is, (and you wouldn't know this) but homosexuality is more tempting then any sexual immorality. It's a preference, not acting on it is almost pure torture, I'd rather be stabbed in the back and left to bleed to death in an iron maiden then resist these types of preference.

Hmm, my experiences were around age 10, or US sixth grade.

 

 

 

So it is your belief that people are born straight, and then during puberty a hormone is triggered that makes them homosexual?

 

 

 

I really can't answer that question. I would assume no, but I haven't the knowledge to give it the thought it's deserving of.

 

 

 

I'm just curious because it is my experience that a large majority of children show interest in the opposite sex long before puberty. It seems strange that it would just be "reversed" like that.

I agree, but I cannot respond any further. I'm sure scientists know for sure the answer to that question regarding heterosexuality.

I agree, but I cannot respond any further. I'm sure scientists know for sure the answer to that question regarding heterosexuality.

 

 

 

You agree that your own theory doesn't really make sense? Does that make sense for you to do that?

I agree, but I cannot respond any further. I'm sure scientists know for sure the answer to that question regarding heterosexuality.

 

 

 

You agree that your own theory doesn't really make sense? Does that make sense for you to do that?

 

 

 

I agree that my own theory is incomplete and needs major reworking.

I agree, but I cannot respond any further. I'm sure scientists know for sure the answer to that question regarding heterosexuality.

 

 

 

You agree that your own theory doesn't really make sense? Does that make sense for you to do that?

 

 

 

I agree that my own theory is incomplete and needs major reworking.

 

 

 

There's good material in Wikipedia on 'coming out'.

 

 

 

I'll quote a paragraph:

 

 

 

Coming out has an etiquette of its own, developed through the experiences of people who did it in a way they later decided was inappropriate and more stressful than it had to be. It is generally suggested to avoid coming out during holidays and at other stressful times, such as during an argument.

 

 

 

Coming out is a process, and often a gradual one. It is common to come out first to a trusted friend or family member, and wait to come out to others. Some people are out at work but not to their families, or vice-versa. Still, one does not typically "come out" and have it done with; they must continue to make the choice to out themself upon making every new acquaintance and in most new situations.

 

 

 

It is also common to hear the phrase coming out to oneself, meaning to acknowledge to oneself that one is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. This is the very first step in the coming-out process; it often involves soul-searching or a personal epiphany of some sort. Many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people go through a period prior to coming out when they believe their sexual orientation or behavior, or their cross-gender feelings to be "a phase", to be malleable, or when they reject their own feelings for religious or moral reasons. Coming out to oneself ends that period of ambiguity and begins the process of self-acceptance.

 

 

 

Some studies have found that the degree to which a person can be out in a large number of life situations seems to correlate strongly with lack of stress and freedom from neurosis.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_out

 

 

 

XplsvBam, do actually have an issue with homosexual people or just the idea of it? And is it because of your religious beliefs or just personal sentiments?

Neither, its not my battle. My problem is people trying to convince everyone they need to be accepting of homosexuals. Which isn't right. They should respect other people's opinions. I feel homosexuality is wrong, so I'm not going to allow it in my society. Those are my beliefs.

 

 

 

Practice what you preach, friend. If you don't like it, don't go around saying it isn't right or it shouldn't be allowed in society while preaching to respect other peoples opinions when you clearly don't care what thier opinions are.

 

 

 

Did I interpret his comment correctly? because such a blatant conflicting idea seems too wierd a mistake...

If you would read what I was posting you would realize that I was saying that people that think homosexuals should be more accepted should take a leaf out of their own book and respect other peoples opinions. Thats I'll I was saying.

 

 

 

Nah mate, I don't buy it. Here you are telling others to be more accepting of those who are of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, which is fine, BUT then you seem to forget this in the next scentence when you say that you're not going to allow homosexuals in your society, which seems to me that you, yourself are not accepting of those who don't fel the same way as you. I don't buy it and doubt anyone else does because no, that's not all you were saying.

 

 

 

There is nothing in the universe that has the power to take away your free will. Not even God can do this, so when people say they do not have a choice and God made them that way (yeah God made them to sin on purpose, counter-productive), its a lie. Its a excuse to cover up their lusts. The whole "I can't help it thing", doesn't exist.

 

 

 

The jury is still out on whether it's chemical or genetic, defender. Anyone could see it's not all rosy moments in the shoes of a homosexual, but do they just change back to being hetero? No, anyone could clearly see that there is some overriding resistance which is best explained by something beyond will - some sort of chemical imbalance etc. See what I'm saying? I'm not saying it definately is, I'm saying it's more than something that can just be turned off and on at will, like a choice.

 

 

 

 

In the same way, a person saying he is for homosexuality, is not because of a gene, its because of choice. He had to accept homosexuality first before he could act on homosexuality. He or she always has a choice in the matter.

 

 

 

Ah dude, you're making it sound so simple and trivial. Yes there is a choice, no it is far from easy. Why do you think some people need anger management? It's not so simple like you say it is, clearly.

I agree, but I cannot respond any further. I'm sure scientists know for sure the answer to that question regarding heterosexuality.

 

 

 

You agree that your own theory doesn't really make sense? Does that make sense for you to do that?

 

 

 

I agree that my own theory is incomplete and needs major reworking.

 

 

 

Then it's not a theory. It's speculation.

Whatever it is I appreciate Vik having the guts to just flat out say he wasn't sure.

Whatever it is I appreciate Vik having the guts to just flat out say he wasn't sure.

 

 

 

Which is a first... :P

Whatever it is I appreciate Vik having the guts to just flat out say he wasn't sure.

 

 

 

In normal circumstances I would agree with you, however I feel that it is dangerous to be making posts like Viktor is. To sum it up, he is making up his own theory and passing it off very confidently on this public message board until someone questions it. A "theory" that is as loose as it turned out to be should never have any place in a real discussion because it throws off any chance at intellectual debate.

 

 

 

Nothing against Viktor personally, I just believe that such speculation should never pop up like it did. It just doesn't make any sense.

Whatever it is I appreciate Vik having the guts to just flat out say he wasn't sure.

 

 

 

In normal circumstances I would agree with you, however I feel that it is dangerous to be making posts like Viktor is. To sum it up, he is making up his own theory and passing it off very confidently on this public message board until someone questions it. A "theory" that is as loose as it turned out to be should never have any place in a real discussion because it throws off any chance at intellectual debate.

 

 

 

Nothing against Viktor personally, I just believe that such speculation should never pop up like it did. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

Actually, the hormone part is from a report filed by some religious Baptist leader, and the maladaptation came off Wikipedia.

Actually, the hormone part is from a report filed by some religious Baptist leader, and the maladaptation came off Wikipedia.

 

 

 

Isn't that the same guy who said one day we'd be able to put patches on pregnant women to control the baby's gayness? By suppressing the hormone with the patch or something.

Actually, the hormone part is from a report filed by some religious Baptist leader, and the maladaptation came off Wikipedia.

 

 

 

Of course it is. But you don't know enough about it to ever bring it up in a discussion - as shown by how you answered my questions. Which is why you should never have proposed it as a valid theory.

Well the topic seems to have deviated significantly from the creator of the thread's topic. I dont feel like sifting thru 14 pages of arguments either...

 

 

 

As for the "is homosexuality acceptable" topic running around, and the countertopic "why wont u accept my belief that it isnt", it has all become just too convoluted for me, i wont even try to sound smart here. I say stop word games with this topic. Let ppl think what they want, and if one refuses to listen, leave him alone, let him be.

 

 

 

But back to the main topic. I think those (note that i said those and not we) christians are deluded and they are taking the good old religion far, far too extreme. As a christian myself, believe society should accept homosexuals. Not that i think its good, but i consider it like a birthmark. If one was born that way, let him be, and thats that. I mean, i dont see the logic in excluding them from what all other heterosexuals are allowed to do, seemingly the 'correct' group. They are humans, just like everyone else.

 

 

 

And as for God and homosexuality...For Pete's sake, God is not homosexual. He doesn't have a sex. We call him a 'he' because we live a male-dominated society, and most ppl are uncomfortable with God being female. And we cant call God 'it'. Not cool...

 

Anyway, i believe that God is completely accepting of homosexuals, just as with heteros. If Jesus came to renew the rulebook and included sinners into salvation, im sure he included homosexuals along with everyone else.

Well the topic seems to have deviated significantly from the creator of the thread's topic. I dont feel like sifting thru 14 pages of arguments either...

 

 

 

As for the "is homosexuality acceptable" topic running around, and the countertopic "why wont u accept my belief that it isnt", it has all become just too convoluted for me, i wont even try to sound smart here. I say stop word games with this topic. Let ppl think what they want, and if one refuses to listen, leave him alone, let him be.

 

 

 

This is a debate. That's how debates are. And this is the only relevant thread (any new ones would probably get locked) for debating this issue.

I know we cleared that thought up between us Vik. I was just restating the conclusion for Satenza since I guess he didn't see our dialogue earlier on the topic.

 

 

 

One homosexual male has given an opposing unsound (as Locke pointed out) theory that says it is not genetics. Thats not cleared up.

I know we cleared that thought up between us Vik. I was just restating the conclusion for Satenza since I guess he didn't see our dialogue earlier on the topic.

 

 

 

One homosexual male has given an opposing unsound (as Locke pointed out) theory that says it is not genetics. Thats not cleared up.

 

 

 

Satenza's right, I'm not a scientist. Sorry for making my opinion sound like more than an opinion.

I know we cleared that thought up between us Vik. I was just restating the conclusion for Satenza since I guess he didn't see our dialogue earlier on the topic.

 

 

 

One homosexual male has given an opposing unsound (as Locke pointed out) theory that says it is not genetics. Thats not cleared up.

 

 

 

Satenza's right, I'm not a scientist. Sorry for making my opinion sound like more than an opinion.

 

 

 

It should not even be labeled as an opinion. What would you say if someone proposed a random theory in a different scientific field without any support for it, calling it "their opinion?" You would laugh at them because that's silly. Science is science. You don't have "opinions" about science, you create theories based on facts. There is no room for opinions in science. Period.

Let's just take Bubsa's advice and call it "speculation".