Homosexuality - Gay Bashing?

[raven_gaurd0]

I'm trying to be more civil. I've decided it's their acts, so I shouldn't be so prejudiced, especially since only a number of gays are really getting on the nerve (demanding religious marriage).

 

 

 

I read through the post, and I suppose it does relatively discard the first one. To an extent. It's a 'speak for yourself' form of issue, and I'm sure he is...but again, Science itself hasn't found anything. I certainly haven't, and I'm taking advanced Biology now :-k

[venomai]

Why so many gays wish to be married by the same church that condemns them to hell is beyond me... :x

[raven_gaurd0]

Yeah...it kind of escapes me too. My theory is that they were born Christian and wish to live it that way...it's sort of a paradox, but in what I've seen...I'm blatantly wrong. :wall:

[doomy]

I'm signing this petition. We don't need a flaming idiot with a superiority complex running around here spouting unreasonable, unsupported, and frankly offensive crap.

 

If anyone finds it offensive I'd laugh, I don't know how many people I've seen flamed because they got offended by these forums.

[Solidus_77]

raven, I've got news for you: We do not choose who we are attracted to. If I find some girl attractive then that's the way I perceive attractiveness. Do I choose to see her that way? No, I "just do". Same for gays, it's not a choice.

[Kashi]

[hide]

I never really thought gay bashing was too big of a problem. Maybe I just ignored it, blocked it out, didn't want to think it really happened. But I was on Facebook today and I found this on a pro gay/bi group wall:

 

 

 

"my boyfriend is bi-sexual, and he gets like made fun of a lot, like people wont take the food he offers them because hes bi. people make fun of me too. I mean its not like he likes every guy hes sees he has a girlfriend so its not like he has a crush on all the guys. And i hate the term [bleep], its completly rude. The proper term is gay, and it should not be used to call someone as a mean name"

 

 

 

That girl's boyfriend, is a very close friend of mine. It wasn't but a month ago that I found out he was bi and it hasn't changed a single thing between us. But here's a shocker, I'm bisexual as well. TIF, you're the second person I've come out to. I've only told 1 friend irl, and things like this make me want to keep it a secret even longer.

 

 

 

After reading this I decided to look into how many pro/anti GLBT groups were on Facebook alone. Of course, there were a lot. Here's a quick list of the ones that grabbed my attention and the number of members.

 

 

 

 

 

Anti-

 

 

 

God Made Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve! - 100+ members

 

Gay Marriage Kill The Dinsaurs - 27k+ members MANY duplicate groups, each with 1k+ members

 

ANTI-Gay Marriage - 5k+ members

 

 

 

Pro-

 

 

 

Allow Gay Marriage - 8k+ members

 

Gay Pride - 3k+ members

 

Against Gay Marriage? Then Shut The F* Up and Don't Get One - Multiple groups combined = 60k+

 

 

 

 

 

Now we know the anti GLBT groups are made up of straight people against gays, but the gay groups are gay and straight people who support them. It really amazed me to see there were so many people against gays. I know a guy who is pretty religious and I noticed he posted in one of the groups addressing the gay bashers who brought religion into the arguement. This is a clip of what he wrote (addressing the main point):

 

 

 

"in the Bible it clearly states that God is without flaw and does not make mistakes,Also he says or so it states in the Bible do not decline any one person for he may be different in his way and belifes but he is of the same image of god."

 

 

 

Now, in my eyes, everyone who is using religion against gays is going against religion in the first place. Supposing they don't use religion in their arguement, isn't what they're saying just prejudice?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering my opinion is clear, what's your stance on GLBTs?

 

 

 

 

 

Let's all be mature about this conversation please

[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

Ha Ha you're bisexual? Whoooo [bleep] alert. :thumbdown:

[warri0r45]

[hide]

You all are pushing limits of ignorance. A few of you I apologize to. Including Warrior, I failed to see his sources. Yet people tend to ignore my humane side and focus on my arguments. I don't see why we can't be civil, here.

 

 

 

In what studies that I personally have seen, surveys and the such, it is largely an admittance that at least living gay is a choice. I'm going to give ground.

 

 

 

[1] This site states that being gay is undoubtedly a choice - admitted by a gay man himself.

 

 

 

The advocates of the pro-gay stance have almost exclusively maintained that homosexuality is not a choice, that gay people are "born that way," and this is an unchangeable, connatural state. This assertion, as any gay person knows in their heart if not their speech, is utter pretense.

 

 

 

Being gay is no more natural than wearing cotton-polyester sweaters, cross-country skiing, Velveeta or Catholicism. Being gay is a choice and I know this for a fact because IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m gay and I chose to be so.

 

 

 

[2] states that there is no clear conclusion, and since science has offered no scientific proof, there is no option to accept, only that being gay is a choice.

 

 

 

The studies which people usually refer to support the existence of a "gay gene" do not offer a clear conclusion. The most frequently cited one was published in 1993 by Hamer and his colleagues at the National Institutes of Health. They examined DNA samples from men who self-identified as gay and other gay family members. They claimed to have found a DNA segment, called a "marker," which correlates with sexual orientation-but only in 2/3s of the men.

This specific piece of evidence is saying that either there is no gene, or 1/3 of all men are gay. Which...frankly, would be weird. :-s

 

 

 

Although Hamer was recently quoted as saying "there is no 'gay gene' and I've never thought there was. Genes play a role and there is probably more than one of them and other factors as well," this statement backpedals from his triumphant 1993 claims of having found "the first concrete evidence that 'gay genes' really do exist," made extensively in the print media and as a featured guest on "Nightline" and "The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour."

 

 

 

None of the results of any of these studies support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.

 

 

 

Even he, later on in life, quoted that he was lying, stretching statistics, and didn't believe in his research. And it is even said that no other researchers managed to find any form of 'gay' gene.

 

 

 

Prentice Hall Biology, Miller Levine, Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D Professor of Biology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, with Joseph Levine, Ph.D. Science writer and Producer, Concord Massachusetts. Said that there were only 46 human chromosomes.

 

 

 

[3] Is said that most of the credibility of 'gay gene' claims are faux.

 

 

 

P.S. NARTH stands for National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

 

 

 

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

 

 

 

Gene Linkage Studies

 

 

 

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

 

 

 

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

 

 

 

B) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

 

 

 

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

 

 

 

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Most of the studies that involve looking for irregular gene traits are not only false, but misled by a combination of genes. According to the Human Genome Project, there could be an estimated 30,000 different human genes. There is sure to be irregularities, especially with DNA coding billions of times over, to only get checked once by polymerase before getting reproduced. Enzymes are not foolproof.

 

 

 

Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

 

 

 

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

 

 

 

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

 

 

 

 

Despite most uneducated (Please, I say this lightly, and when I say uneducated, I mean that they are not AS educated as these top end quality) people claim that they are gay by birth, it is simply because they maybe made the choice earlier on. Maybe their brains thought about it subconsciously (the brain is processing power is enormous; we are only aware of a tiny fraction of what we think about) and immediately imposed the choice onto the character who admitted to being gay. Scientists agree with this, and they are unable to agree with any form of 'gay gene'.

 

 

 

Conclusion: The Gay Gene is an unreliable fall back as a form of excuse of gay behavior. There is absolutely no solid proof that there is any gay gene out there that controls sexual behavior. However, as gays have demonstrated, their IS proof that it is a choice.

 

 

 

EDIT: In my own defense, I wrote that letter when I was upset. I get a lot of taunting at my school for being catholic, and I just put together some...bad dots. I'd rather not be held to it, but you may believe what you must. And second off...there isn't anything wrong with gays. There really isn't. It's not like they're wrong, or I'm right, or visa versa, my only problem is their encroachment on the church's sacred act of Marriage. (Which, by the way, is a Christian sacrament which required Baptism, Reconciliation, Communion, and Confirmation before it)

 

 

 

EDIT SQUARED: Uhm....furthermore I'd like to state that I think we should give gay's the right to marry within the government. Cool, whatever, but a lot of them are demanding religious ceremonies. At the root of it, that's what I'm vehemently oppose to.

[/hide]

 

 

 

For your first source, how can you be so sure that this manÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s experience, if we grant it credence, is the way it is for every gay person? Do you want me to come up with my own anecdotal stories of men stating they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t choose to be gay? (the American Psychological Association [APA] source IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve already presented lays waste to this point anyway) From what IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve read I can hardly call choosing to be gay, if itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s as easy as this guy states, anything but the slim minority of scenarios.

 

 

 

For your second source, it states:

 

 

 

Sexual orientation, like any other human behavior, is experienced in complex and variable ways which are undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors. Since we are biological organisms, of course, virtually everything we do has some biological components. But seeking a definitive basis of homosexuality in genetics risks oversimplifying our view of human behaviors, and ultimately of our world.

 

 

 

Totally agreed. This view aligns with the American Psychological Association source I presented.

 

 

 

By the way your source says that there is no reported clear conclusion of the reality of a single ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâgay geneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ which I totally agree with. This does nothing to harm the view that being of a homosexual orientation is not a choice and that this orientation is contributed to by biological factors. In my sources, homosexuality is said to be influenced by genetics and biology, not determined by them fully and especially not by a single gene.

 

 

 

By the way science does not conclude your view if my view fails. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a false dilemma fallacy and your conclusion that homosexuality is a choice isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t supported, anyway.

 

 

 

Your article concludes:

 

 

 

The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that if we can establish a genetic foundation we will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to our experience. The lesbian, gay, bisexual community does not need to have its "deviance" tolerated because its members were born "that way" and "cannot help it." Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian, gay and bisexual lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, and an acceptance of all human beings. We need to celebrate diversity, whatever its origins.

 

This article never once categorically stated that a biological component was non-existent (it only said that a purely biological basis for sexual orientation was weak, which makes sense given the failed studies that tried to establish that view that were presented in this article), and it does seem to say environmental factors play a part in determining sexual orientation, which is in line with the sources I presented. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think this goes any way to establishing sexual orientation as a mere choice as some people would like to believe.

 

 

 

(by the way, why is the fact that someone said there were ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâonly 46 human chromosomesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ relevant? ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s basic biology and no oneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s disputing that)

 

 

 

For your third source, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m more weary of this one. They encourage reparative therapy ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åtherapy of homosexualityÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[raven_gaurd0]

I agree with you that:

 

 

 

Homosexual therapies have low success rate and failed attempts can be damaging. They are not worth the resources they output, and generally they are just bad for the gay or lesbian undergoing it.

 

 

 

And for the chromosomes thing...I was about to go onto say that there's only 46 and we know what they all do...but we don't know what, like, Chromosome 23 does. All we know is that it causes Down Syndrome (or is it Hunters Disease?) or some form of genetic disease if there's something wrong with it. So I guess I forgot to take it out. :-k

 

 

 

But the thing is, if it's not simply genetic as all my articles say, what specifically causes gayness? Is it a chemical imbalance, or change more or less, in the brain? Because genes outline our entire life when they are assembled. They assort our entire lives from what we like the taste of to whom we are likely to be friends with.

 

 

 

Guess what I'm saying that if genes which do so much don't cause gayness, what does? (Prebirth, of course, seeing as we're questioning whether or not they're born with it.)

 

 

 

raven, I've got news for you: We do not choose who we are attracted to. If I find some girl attractive then that's the way I perceive attractiveness. Do I choose to see her that way? No, I "just do". Same for gays, it's not a choice.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but this is actually just not true. The sex of the person we are attracted to is the question. There is actually a general body ratio that defines beautiful, whether you like it or not. (According to Week it's a 1:0.61 ratio, but I'm calling this from memory and it's a pretty old article)

 

'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is generally just untrue. Beauty and love are all based on fertility. Nature has...pretty much built us that way over time. We look at a person, calculate how fertile they are by their looks, and then go in for the kill. Frankly it works both ways.

 

 

 

Which is an argument for gays...I've heard scientists say (no evidence) that being gay is a change in this region of the brain, that simply shifts attention from females to males. But I don't know.

 

 

 

And I'm sorry if I'm not putting together any evidence with this post; I got up at four in the morning 'cause I couldn't sleep so I went online. :XD: Man I'm weird.

[warri0r45]

I agree with you that:

 

 

 

Homosexual therapies have low success rate and failed attempts can be damaging. They are not worth the resources they output, and generally they are just bad for the gay or lesbian undergoing it.

 

 

 

1) And for the chromosomes thing...I was about to go onto say that there's only 46 and we know what they all do...but we don't know what, like, Chromosome 23 does. All we know is that it causes Down Syndrome (or is it Hunters Disease?) or some form of genetic disease if there's something wrong with it. So I guess I forgot to take it out. :-k

 

 

 

2) But the thing is, if it's not simply genetic as all my articles say, what specifically causes gayness? Is it a chemical imbalance, or change more or less, in the brain? Because genes outline our entire life when they are assembled. They assort our entire lives from what we like the taste of to whom we are likely to be friends with.

 

 

 

3) Guess what I'm saying that if genes which do so much don't cause gayness, what does? (Prebirth, of course, seeing as we're questioning whether or not they're born with it.)

 

 

 

1) Ohk, no worries. It's just a small pedantic point on my part, but Down Syndrome is caused by duplication of chromosome 21 (trisomy 21).

 

 

 

2) As for the nitty-gritty specifics of homosexual orientations, I'm not totally sure to be honest. It's just that any number of sources will indicate it's something deeper than just "oh, I think I'll be gay", which, when you think about it and how you're attracted to females and not males and the nature of that attraction, makes sense. As a basis to look into it deeper, the sources tend to suggest contributions from biological/genetic factors, psychological factors and environmental factors. I'd really have to look into it more to comment specifically, but to answer the question of changes in the brain, I think there may be some between homosexuals and heterosexuals:

[1][/url]":35kj2juz]In addition, two

 

morphometrical studies comparing heterosexual and

 

homosexual men demonstrated statistically significant

 

differences in two nuclei. Of these studies, Swaab and

 

Hofman (123) found that the volume of the

 

suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) in homosexual men

 

(n=10) was 1.7 times larger than that of a reference

 

group of male subjects (n=24) and contained 2.1 times

 

as many cells. The SDN-POA, located in the immediate

 

vicinity of the SCN, exhibited no such differences in

 

volume or cell number. These data hence indicate the

 

selectivity of the enlarged SCN in homosexual men,

 

but do not support the hypothesis that homosexual

 

men have a female hypothalamus. In contrast, Le Vay

 

(120) measured the INAH 1-4 nuclei from three subject

 

groups: women, men who were presumed to be

 

heterosexual, and homosexual men. The INAH-3 was

 

significantly larger in the heterosexual men compared

 

to women and to homosexual men. This finding, in

 

contrast with that of Swaab and Hofman (123) on SDNPOA,

 

indicates that INAH-3 is dimorphic with sexual

 

orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual

 

orientation may have a biological substrate.

 

 

 

Here's a little excerpt of a few findings into different particular brain structures between homosexuals and heterosexuals, namely the 'suprachiasmatic nucleus', part of the hypothalamus, and some of the 'interstitial nuclei', also part of the (anterior) hypothalamus.

 

 

 

This is just a little touch of research. I'm not satisfied - I'm probably going to read over this more some other time so you know, don't take my word for it. All this stuff is pretty easy to research anyway - anyone can do it really.

 

 

 

Of course, there's still a lot we don't know about the specifics of the human genome so perhaps, assuming these changes in the hypothalamus are due to genetic precursors, there are genetic factors not yet known? Dunno, just a little conjecture for you to dwell on.

 

 

 

Just to add, yeah, genes play an important role in who we are but environmental factors can play a significant role, too. It's the old addage of genotype + environment = phenotype. With this consideration genetics don't strictly set in stone all traits - they may be influenced in one way or another during development or perhaps at other times of life.

 

 

 

3) I don't think it's a case of genetics not playing a part or your sources stating that they don't; I think it's the case of your sources and mine both stating that genetics isn't the only cause. There are environmental factors too. It seems it's likely a mix of those factors.

[raven_gaurd0]

Yeah...I'm at school now and I'm talking to a few of the hardcore Democrats. They all say that being gay is a born thing. :-k But none of them have evidence.

 

 

 

On the other hand, I'm arguing with the scientists that say it's not genetic. Maybe the public is misinformed? :wall: It seriously wouldn't surprise me.

 

 

 

As for your point 2), I know it's not a simple wakeup choice. But I don't think it's prebirth. There might be a change in brain function at one point, decided by an unknown factor of subconscious thought. Hell, there may even be volatile gene mutations as you live your daily life. But the root and the very core of our debate now is whether or not is a pre or postbirth that sexual prefernece is decided.

 

 

 

True Origin has a few things about the origin of gayness.

 

 

 

Sigmund Freud who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngsterÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s sexual orientation.

 

 

 

Sigmund Freud was an expert at psychoanalysis, and believed in a theory that he postulated about the unconscious mind that accounted for so much human behaviour. Here are a number of things about Sigmund Freud. He was also an atheist, but the point is, with his experiences with homosexuality he believed it was a post birth process (under influence of the parents.)

 

 

 

Evan S. Balaban, a neurobiologist at the Neurosciences Institute in San Diego, noted that

 

 

 

 

 

the search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history of late. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅdiscoveryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[assassin_696]

With all due respect, I'm losing my temper. Being gay is a choice. There is only a few animals that they have experimented on that can be born gay, and guess what? They're all hemaphrodite, asexual beings. Like worms. And they even had to be stimulated into it, pre birth.

 

 

 

Nothing of my post is 'bunk'. It's a valid logical conclusion. You, unfortunately, still believe that everybody is equal, which is...cabbage. Equality of opportunity in public society, yes...but when it comes to treading on other's private lands, we have every right to turn you away.

 

 

 

Now that you've started having a reasonable debate with warri0r, and backing up your claims i'm willing to take you a little more seriously. Simply making positive statements like "being gay is a choice" and not backing them up is no way to convince anyone, especially when warri0r had already posted a fairly extensively (and credibly) researched base of material showing that it isn't a choice. FYI, I only believe it not to be a choice because that's what the evidence shows. I'm not doctoring the evidence to fit my own opinions, which wouldn't be affected either way whether it was a choice or not.

 

 

 

Since warri0r is infinitely more knowledgable about biology than me, I'll leave that to one side, and simply bring you up the second half of your response. Why is believing everybody is equal cabbage? Even if being gay was a choice, why should that affect your opinion of them? I know you've put forward arguments before, but they were mostly full of emotive crap, start afresh with your new attitude and we can get somewhere.

[Solidus_77]

I'm sorry, but this is actually just not true. The sex of the person we are attracted to is the question.

 

 

 

Why not? We are born liking a certain kind of person with a certain kind of personality so why can we not be born liking a certain kind of gender. Find some sort of logical argument or reliable source.

 

 

 

There is actually a general body ratio that defines beautiful, whether you like it or not. (According to Week it's a 1:0.61 ratio, but I'm calling this from memory and it's a pretty old article)

 

 

 

I'm not specifically referring to body ratio. Guys will go after girls for many reasons such as personality, ethnicity. We have no control over who we like and that's clearly seen, for example some guys will go for shy girls while others despise shy girls and want more outgoing ones. When qualities are on opposite ends of the spectrum there simply cannot be a one-size-fits all definition of what beauty is.

 

 

 

I'm also waiting for you to show where you got the disillusion that beauty is defined as having a body ratio between X and Y :roll:

 

 

 

'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is generally just untrue. Beauty and love are all based on fertility. Nature has...pretty much built us that way over time. We look at a person, calculate how fertile they are by their looks, and then go in for the kill. Frankly it works both ways.

 

 

 

Where the hell did you dig up that insane idea? I'm willing to believe that beauty is in not in the eye of the beholder to the extent that a lot of opinions on beauty converge but claiming it's all based on fertility is just ridiculous.

 

 

 

Oh also, there are obviously people who can choose to be attracted to either people of the same sex or not, we call them bisexual.

[Satenza]

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s also point out that even if homosexuality takes place post-birth then that does not mean whatever subconscious change occurs is brought into a single conscious dilemma at one moment, when we are to choose our orientation as I am sure the majority of people will be in agreement with. I find it very misrepresenting when you identify a subconscious event as being a "choice". In the same way I find all your sources as warrior has mentioned, not to represent any choice or even to falsify that there could be a genetic element to orientation.

[limpbizkit]

Oh also, there are obviously people who can choose to be attracted to either people of the same sex or not, we call them bisexual.

 

 

 

Do you think i decided to be bisexual? No I didn't...

[venomai]

Oh also, there are obviously people who can choose to be attracted to either people of the same sex or not, we call them bisexual.

 

 

 

Do you think i decided to be bisexual? No I didn't...

 

What I suspect (s)he means is that bisexuals have the choice between males or females. Although it's not exactly as easy as "Which do I feel like today?", and also a lot of bisexuals have a tendency to prefer one sex over the other.

[warri0r45]

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s also point out that even if homosexuality takes place post-birth then that does not mean whatever subconscious change occurs is brought into a single conscious dilemma at one moment, when we are to choose our orientation as I am sure the majority of people will be in agreement with. I find it very misrepresenting when you identify a subconscious event as being a "choice". In the same way I find all your sources as warrior has mentioned, not to represent any choice or even to falsify that there could be a genetic element to orientation.

 

 

 

Basically sums it up.

 

 

 

Raven, thanks for the chat but I feel I'll just be going around in circles demonstrating old points. I'm not accepting "true origin" as a credible source (obvious reasons), especially considering it's concerning the whole 'gay gene' issue which I've already adressed. Not really interested in going around in circles.

 

 

 

But as I said on the brain structures point, don't take my word for it. I'm more inclined to stop debating and research that and other specifics more to satisfy myself.

 

 

 

I haven't seen anything credible that would indicate in any significant way that any of my sources are wrong about homosexuality not being a conscious choice.

[Solidus_77]

Oh also, there are obviously people who can choose to be attracted to either people of the same sex or not, we call them bisexual.

 

 

 

Do you think i decided to be bisexual? No I didn't...

 

What I suspect (s)he means is that bisexuals have the choice between males or females. Although it's not exactly as easy as "Which do I feel like today?", and also a lot of bisexuals have a tendency to prefer one sex over the other.

 

 

 

Correct, and btw I'm a he

[limpbizkit]

Oh also, there are obviously people who can choose to be attracted to either people of the same sex or not, we call them bisexual.

 

 

 

Do you think i decided to be bisexual? No I didn't...

 

What I suspect (s)he means is that bisexuals have the choice between males or females. Although it's not exactly as easy as "Which do I feel like today?", and also a lot of bisexuals have a tendency to prefer one sex over the other.

 

 

 

Correct, and btw I'm a he

 

 

 

In that case...sorry.

[raven_gaurd0]

LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s also point out that even if homosexuality takes place post-birth then that does not mean whatever subconscious change occurs is brought into a single conscious dilemma at one moment, when we are to choose our orientation as I am sure the majority of people will be in agreement with. I find it very misrepresenting when you identify a subconscious event as being a "choice". In the same way I find all your sources as warrior has mentioned, not to represent any choice or even to falsify that there could be a genetic element to orientation.

 

 

 

Basically sums it up.

 

 

 

Raven, thanks for the chat but I feel I'll just be going around in circles demonstrating old points. I'm not accepting "true origin" as a credible source (obvious reasons), especially considering it's concerning the whole 'gay gene' issue which I've already adressed. Not really interested in going around in circles.

 

 

 

But as I said on the brain structures point, don't take my word for it. I'm more inclined to stop debating and research that and other specifics more to satisfy myself.

 

 

 

I haven't seen anything credible that would indicate in any significant way that any of my sources are wrong about homosexuality not being a conscious choice.

 

 

 

Alright, I'd agree with that.

 

 

 

Thanks for the chat, too. It's quite rare to find somebody who will put together intelligent arguments beyond 'it just is' (which is an answer I've gotten.) At any rate, we really aren't doing anything more than circling, so yep. Let's leave this topic to the buzzards (...now that I think about it, I might be referring to other players as buzzards...but I actually mean just let it die.)

 

 

 

So, have a good and fruitful life, hope we talk again...which we probably will. :)

[doomy]

Being a [bleep] is starting to look like a horrible genetic screw up atm.

 

Ah well, doesn't take out the fun of laughing at gay people :thumbsup:

[demonfirzen]

Gay bashing is just a side effect of religion. Religion messes up people.

[Rebdragon]

Gay bashing is just a side effect of religion. Religion messes up people.

 

NO.

 

 

 

By Allah that attitude gets annoying.

 

 

 

Anyways... homosexuality has been thought of as very unnatural and odd in the recent past society, so it's really not surprising that homosexuality was shunned a great deal [more] at the time. Ya, religion did play a part (in that people misread religion- no proper world religion advocates any kind of 'gay bashing' whatsoever, or at least none that I've ever encountered), but don't ignore the other factors, m'kay?

[demonfirzen]

religion- no proper world religion advocates any kind of 'gay bashing' whatsoever, or at least none that I've ever encountered), but don't ignore the other factors, m'kay?

 

 

 

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

[Rebdragon]

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

 

Don't go quoting Leviticus on me if you're going to try and cite [modern] Christianity as a promoter of any kind of hate towards gays.

 

 

 

The stance of Christianity is not one that promotes any form of 'gay bashing'; True Christians love and respect homosexuals and bisexuals as they would any other person. THAT is the stance of the Church.

[demonfirzen]

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

 

Don't go quoting Leviticus on me if you're going to try and cite [modern] Christianity as a promoter of any kind of hate towards gays.

 

 

 

The stance of Christianity is not one that promotes any form of 'gay bashing'; True Christians love and respect homosexuals and bisexuals as they would any other person. THAT is the stance of the Church.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, there aren't many "true christians". They are gravely misguided from my experiences. (Eg. Westboro Baptist Church)

 

Also heres a site that displays most of the wrongs in the bible: http://www.evilbible.com/

 

 

 

Didn't your Jesus say not to ignore any part of the bible either?