Studies on homosexual individuals find more and more that they report being aware that they were "different" from an early age--much like a minority child will report being aware that they are "different" before they fully understand the differences of race. How can this be? Race is often immedietly apparant as it's physical, but sexual preference on the other hand is not.

that thinking is also flawed. the average child is exposed to 1,200 sexual referrances a year. children often relate them selfs to what they see on TV. seeing some thing they don't fully understand and then relate to them selfs can clearly explain why they would feel different.

whether it is environmental or genetic, they are still in control of their behavior. I knew some homosexuals that decided to change, go straight, got married, and have been very happy for years. this behavior is a controlled and conscience behavior. they do this willingly and not out of impulse.

I am offering logical reasons why this could be happening. you could give your reasons to why, but rather you would just disagree with what any one says.

there has to be a logical connection to why this is. it is clearly not genetic, knowing what we know about genetics. what else could it be?

You're looking at genetics in a very limited scope--we don't know everything about genetics so therefore we cannot assume that it is not genetic in nature. We know of so many conditions that have no explanation other than genetics, but we don't have the ability to single out how genetics play into it.

The problem with you argument is you're not taking into account everything we know about personality in general. You're taking pieces of what we know and waving them around like they explain everything.

I'm not just disagreeing with you--I'm filling in what your argument is lacking.

Yes, it is true that some homosexual people have chosen to live a heterosexual lifestyle--but they are still homosexuals. Ask them and they will say that they are not heterosexual. Occasionally I'll vote for Republicans, but that doesn't make me a Republican. We are more than our actions--we are also our thoughts, feelings, emotions.

We are not our environment or our genetics--we are both. You can't just single out one and then ignore the other.

1,200 sexual cues explain why we are as a society more sexual--but if you're suggesting that it's why some are homosexuals then it fails to explain why everyone isn't homosexual. You'll respond with "But they choose to be that way!" No one chooses to be a minority. No one chooses a difficult life.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

The christian church did not originally oppose homosexuality. It wasn't until the Dark Ages when it was believed that sperm were just tiny undeveloped babies that stigma around sex started arising. The church started demonizing masturbation, sex that wasn't for reproduction, etc. They saw every act of sex that wasn't for reproduction as an act of infantcide. Women were just baby incubators.

So that's how it started.

you seem to be a bit off in your facts. disliking homosexuality started 4000 years before the christian religion was started back in the jewish religion. life was view as sacred, in turn, the 'tools' used in creating life was viewed as sacred. the word sacred meaning 'used for special purpose out side of the normal', any use outside of it's purpose would profane it. the sacred 'tools' was only purposed to be used in a holy union between a man and woman called marriage.

most people try to explain these rules in a time era then they were discovered my science. these rules were set in place before they were proven by science.

Yes, it is true that some homosexual people have chosen to live a heterosexual lifestyle--but they are still homosexuals. Ask them and they will say that they are not heterosexual.

did you just not tell me to stop looking at this one sided? I did talk to them and they did say they are no longer homosexual or attracted to the same gender any more. which lead to me questioning the nature of homosexuality. you are under the impression that it is an inescapable condition that forces them to remain homo or bi, but that is not the case at all. that seems to be a big misunderstanding. flaming homos can go pure straight with out ever looking back and the same is true in the reverse.

that is why I question if it is a predetermined condition and not a conscience chose.

Originally Posted by stilettolover

The christian church did not originally oppose homosexuality. It wasn't until the Dark Ages when it was believed that sperm were just tiny undeveloped babies that stigma around sex started arising. The church started demonizing masturbation, sex that wasn't for reproduction, etc. They saw every act of sex that wasn't for reproduction as an act of infantcide. Women were just baby incubators.

So that's how it started.

That, and the Church originally wanted to look after its own and gain support. Love thy neighbour, I've read, most strictly meant love thy fellow Jew - and punish the non-believers! Heck, the "Church" has caused so much misery over the years and witheld so much wealth, is so humanly corrupt, I feel its bad outweighs its good - because, yes, it does offer people shelter, do charity work, provide a strength and hepful sense of community for those who follow it - any day. And of course, you can interpret it as you like now - I personally much prefer the modern version of love thy neighbour.

Specific example? Creation of the English Bible. The Church was strictly opposed to this because it had the country pinned under its thumb, with fear-mongering and indoctrination. Having a Bible introduced that the common folk - ie, anybody who wasn't illiterate but couldn't read Latin - meant they could read it for themselves and make up their own minds about its teachings. Heaven forbid people should be allowed to think for themselves!

Sorry to go off on one. : )

I remember for my GCSE Biology exam - or was it one of the practice papers, well - we had a question about how thinking had changed over time and a diagram of a sperm-baby (oh, and no I have the Monty Python song stuck in my head) as opposed to how its currently understood. It's another side of the belief of male superiority. I love reading about old scientific explanations.

I guess the difficulty in homosexuality comes, in the case of the Church, with scientific ignorance or the firm wish to uphold traditions?

Originally Posted by The Collection

I am offering logical reasons why this could be happening. you could give your reasons to why, but rather you would just disagree with what any one says.

there has to be a logical connection to why this is. it is clearly not genetic, knowing what we know about genetics. what else could it be?[/color][/size][/b]

Actually I think she's presenting a LOT of compelling and articulate reasons for her statements. She *did* disagree with you on some things, but gave the reasons why. (and she's not just disagreeing with "anyone" I dont believe..)

How can it *clearly* not be genetic? When science has barely scratched the surface on how genetics can affect mental function or various other predispositions? They are still debating genetics and homosexuality, so Im very interested to know how it "cannot be genetic" when the scientific community still hasn't been able to get any conclusive proof either way.

proof for still debating; Published January 2007 by Proceedings of the Royal Society;
"However, there is evidence that at some level genetics plays a role. It is known that human twins are more likely to both be gay when compared with non-identical siblings. It has also been reported that male homosexuality is often inherited from the maternal line, suggesting that a gene on the X chromosome may play some role.
There are many theories as to why people may be homosexual. Most declare they had homosexual thoughts and knew no different from when they were very young (and I kinda wonder how it could possibly be caused mostly by how they were raised when so many people from a variety of completely different backgrounds are gay).
..and going back to your ape thing..if it's clearly not genetic, and must be a behaviour of choice, the animal kingdom has a lot more problem solving capabilities than I ever thought.
dolphin; "Mom, I wanna be a GAY dolphin! >:/ gimme your moisturizer, my fins are flaking D:"

As for the Church thing; we must remember that homosexuality was accepted in parts of many other cultures until the christian church got a hold of them D: ..lol

there is an odd thing about the genetics, from what we know, the dominate genes are past on from parent to child, and the more submissive genes are slowly weeded out. the point is what I like to bring out is that the homosexual community is not breeding for obvious reasons and not passing on the homosexual gene, but the homosexual community is slowly been growing over the years.

I read the report about how they claim it is inherited from the maternal line. the claim is that every time a mother successfully gives birth to a male fetus, the mother release a chemical that attacks the brain of the next male fetus, increasing the chance the next male will be a homosexual by 33%. this theory is clearly flawed because it says it is impossible for the first born male to be homosexual or the forth child not to be.

mostly these theories seems like way to justify it. it seems like they are trying to find some thing that can be generally accepted by all. it is often true, if the science community doesn't know some thing, they won't admit that, but rather just agree on the most logically sounding theory until proven other wise.

the catholic church as been corrupt from it's beginning and the public use of the bible clearly effected them greatly. the bible was the first one to suggest that the earth was round, but the catholic church suppressed this thinking for there own, only admitting the earth was around about ten years ago. the corruption has effected the churches, but the teachings of the bible are still good. I never heard of any one resulting in bad because they followed the bible's advice.

also, I'm use to getting into fights when I start to talk about this subject and seeing how no one is arguing with me is throwing me off a bit.

Actually, the dominant and submissive gene theory only pertains to physical characteristics. When it comes to personality traits, it's not pairs of genes that determine them, but sets. There are innumerable combinations of these genes, especially when you figure in mutation.

There is no homosexual gene, but there are sets of genes that predispose sexual preference, just like there is no single gene that controls rage, but many.

Any basic brain and behavior course goes over this stuff.

We still don't know everything about genes. We don't know what they all do or what combinations of different ones do.

its wrong. ok?
there's a little thing thats like.
in the beginning was adam and eve. not adam and steve.
and homosexuality is just weird...
if you're a girl you're supposed to like boys and if you're a boy you're supposed to like girls.
Its just STRANGE!! even though some people say that they can't be different. the truth is that they CAN!! i don't know how it feel sto be homoexual though because i'm not.

I have nothing against it. =/ I mean, there's no rule saying you can't like the opposite sex..I think. Anyways, it's just the way they are. Males could find males more attractive than females. I don't think that's wrong.

And I really dislike people who say "eww, grossss!" or that kind of stuff. Not like I have a grudge against that or anything..but it's not very nice to the people who are gay/bi/les.

we need to start isolating the factor behind this to correct the error.

Originally Posted by The Collection

we need to start isolating the factor behind this to correct the error.

I do not believe for one second that homosexuality is an error. What would that error be? Not being predisposed to being attracted to the correct gender and thus being less likely to reproduce (cause humans just dont have enough babies! D: ). In that way, since I'm female and have no desire to have children, I TOO would be an error xD.
..except for ignorant people who will turn a blind eye to who a person is just because "they are gay" and hate. Fix THAT error!
If you want to study genetics, try some genetic testing on people who just hate gay people to the extreme. Weed out ignorance on a genetic level D8~! That would be so much more productive than figuring out WHY people are gay XD;;...figure out why people some people are shitheads and modify THAT on a scientific level Dx ;;

Originally Posted by The Collection

we need to start isolating the factor behind this to correct the error.

I don't think it's an "error" at all. You still haven't explained what's wrong for it that it has to be weeded out society. Other than it's a "deviation".

I don't know diddly squit about genetics - that's a lie, I know a little - but if there's no homosexual gene, but a gene sequence - as stilettolover wrote above - then does that mean that there's no gene for heterosexuality, and the assumption that that is the starting point purely comes from the fact heterosexual sex - and the infactuation and chemical processes involved with it - ensures procreation. In a poor way of putting this - because I know I'm applying a word that was originally used to represent male-active personality and female-passive by Freud - all children are bisexual. Or not "sexual" at all. I mean, I didn't bat an eyelid till I reached puberty, wasn't even interesting in the "dating game".

If your sexuality is shaped by a little bit of biology and a little bit of experience, then there's little control over WHICH way you'll go. I doubt this is all very accurate, but I think it's high time people stopped seeing homosexuality as an "error", more just a different way of living. I personally wonder whether it's society's stringent need for categorization that leads to such distinction. Stilettolover said homosexuals can still have children through heterosexual sex, and you've said you've seen gays turn straight, so I don't think this is at all fixed as it's made out to be.

But neither do I think it's as flexible as to be turned on and off like a lightswitch as you're convinced, The Collection. The people who asked? Whose to say they're not lying - to you and themselves? If I were faced with someone who thought my lifestyle was an "error" then I'd be a bit economical with the truth. Thinking about the hatered directed at homosexuality, it's easy to understand how people with inklings might be scared and flat out deny them - or, in the case of teenagers, act them up when they'll pass with the coming of age. You can't put much weight on self-report because there are all those subtle social factors at play and the unreliability of the memory for it to be a true account of events.

I'm a gay male and there is nothing wrong with it if you love someone of the same sex then, go for it I know I did. :wink:

all children are bisexual. Or not "sexual" at all. I mean, I didn't bat an eyelid till I reached puberty, wasn't even interesting in the "dating game".

I don't think you were paying attention to the claims offered by your side. they claimed that they knew that they were homosexual before they were even seven years old. years before the natural course would of taken over, clearly adding to the claim this is not genetic at all.

the action is an error, not the people. the action has no purpose, with out purpose it has no meaning, with out meaning, it's existence becomes idol, idol things are wasteful, it adds to nothing and only takes away, wasteful things are errors that need correction.

overall, homosexuality needs to be corrected. it is only logical.

and yes, hatred needs to be corrected too.

but if homosexuality was "corrected" I'd lose my favourite hairdresser and there would be no gay Pride parade which means Maki's quality of life goes down D<!
"Knowing they were homosexual". I think it's more like, "konowing they were different". It's not like they were 5 and wanted to have sex with anyone..it's more like puppylove (and people before age 7, some children, get "crushes"). A friend of mine said he had a "crush" on a male teacher, but in a childlike way that would be an innocent crush.
So the action is an error because it serves no purpose. What purpose should these people be serving? (As I said above..procreation?) If so, do I have an "error" being female and having no desire to reproduce?
Not to mention, who are you to discern what "purpose" is? I think we have come to a point in time where we serve many purposes. A great purpose would be to increase the quality of life for society. Which homosexuals do in my opinion. Whether it be as small as doing my hair (to make me happy and sparkly) , or as large as becoming a key political leader and doing something of great value for the people in that respect.
You should spend some time with Buddhist monks. They're all about purpose, and none of it has to include biological primate activity.

that is a very bias statement if you say only homosexuals can do your hair. my argument is not their ability to do their job or any other task. the thing in question is not their life style, it is their sexual preference. homosexuals are not a alien race from outer space what needs to be described as such. changing their sexual choice will not result in their species being changed. sex should not be their only identity in life. they are wedging this separation within the unity of society because they feel that they are this different. if they remove sex out of it, there is no different with them. we need to correct this rift that separates the people to help them become united. the more people have in common, the less likely their will be conflicts. but since their is no purpose for homosexuality, only to separate the social structure. and don't be like "well, they can't they just accept us?" the majority should not conform to meet the needs of the minority, they should conform to to meet the majority. should we just yield to the whims of every group of people that comes along? no.

as for them knowing they were different and had crushes. every one felt that way when they are little. when you are that young, you are more indifferent towards how others feel and would more likely think they are different and might shun away like that.

Originally Posted by The Collection

that is a very bias statement if you say only homosexuals can do your hair.

Sorry, that was called "humour". And nowhere did I say ONLY GAY PEOPLE CAN DO MY HAIR. I said MY hairstylist is gay. And I like him. That is all. Other than that, you never really answer questions to clarify your previous statements. You just modify and mutate them into a different vein of opposition. So Im not going to bother with this anymore. Have fun!

The people who are creating a wedge between homosexuality and heterosexuality are the people who cannot accept homosexuality. If people were accepting of homosexuality than none of these conversations would have to take place. There would be no seperation between "us" and "them" it'd just be "us".

I believe I said before that all humans go through a period of latency from the age of 7 to puberty--during this time children do not have sexual urges, but they do feel the need to comply to traditional archetypes and gender roles--girls want to be mothers and boys want to be macho. Playing "house" is considered a girls game, but all children play it (boys just don't admit to it xD) and children can recognize when they do not feel right about portraying a certain gender role or being in a certain role situation.

For example, I have a female friend who I have known all of my life. She is a lesbian. When we were children, she did not want a boy to play her "husband". One would assume that this has to do with your typical "Ew boys have cooties" mentality, but it wasn't that--she didn't mind playing with boys, she just didn't 'like' boys. Even though at that age we do not have sexual urges, we still seek out significant others per the standard of society.

We are taught all our lives that men should be with women and women should be with men. During a period of time when our libido is suppressed, if sexual preference is environmentally based, we should therefore seek to match societal standards. However, time and time again people who later identify as being homosexual remember that they did not want to conform the societal standards for any reason other than they were "different".

The fact of the matter is no one is aware of their sexual preference until puberty. It is not that we have not yet decided, but that until our bodies have physically matured and ready, our minds shield us from these urges. We cannot identify as being one sexuality or another until that part of us matures as well.

It's not just a sexual thing, however--it is a personality thing.

You just modify and mutate them into a different vein of opposition. So Im not going to bother with this anymore. Have fun!

sorry, I'm nippy right now =p

If people were accepting of homosexuality than none of these conversations would have to take place. There would be no seperation between "us" and "them" it'd just be "us".

that is a two sided argument, it can just as easily be said if homosexuals stop being gay and change, there would be no conflicts about this. but as long as their any kinds of differences among people, ideas will collide.

complying to traditional archetypes goes with my argument of social peer pressure. kids often rebel against what sociality and their parents think and want.

they may feel more comfortable with the same gender rather then the other gender, as you suggested. and as a result, they would rather build relations with people they are more comfortable with and as they enter into puberty, these feeling of social connections is converted into sexual feelings.

what you are suggesting can readily be explained by what we already know about human interactive relationships and to some extend genetic traits. comparing what we know, to what we don't know and have yet to be explain. genetic vs social, it is clear this is an installed behavior

Actually, people need a reason to rebel against traditional archetypes--they don't just do it for the heck of it. "Teen rebellion" is a product of the identity vs identity diffusion conflict that occurs during that stage and actually has nothing do with rebellion and everything to do with experimentation--which does not explain earlier divergance from so-called "normal" behavior.

Sexual urges are caused by certain chemicals that our bodies produce to cause infatuation--we are attracted to certain people for a reason. Our bodies trigger our libido--our sex drive is set on auto pilot. We do not control who we are attracted to. People who have intercourse with people who they are not actually attracted to don't have good sex. People try anyways because you don't know until you try. Then again, that is no reason to force people to have sex with people they are not attraced to as you are suggesting. And yes, sex is very important to having a good relationship. Bad sex will break up a relationship really fast.

What I'm talking about is the explanation. I'm not pulling this stuff out of no where--it's actual research on child and adolescent development, personality and close relationships. All things that I have studied in depth and done intensive research on. This is what is known about "intereactive relationships" as you call them.

Again and again I'm telling you research, things that psychologists and sociologists and genetists have studied. It can't be any more clear: sexuality is biologically predisposed. There is no evidence to support your assumptions and I can just keep piling on more evidence to support the popular theories.

I have no problem with it but I know that most people still have. My parent clearly stated that if one of us were one, we'll be out in the street. That's a bit hard to hear even when their isn't any risk.
8 people out of 10, when annoucing it to their parent are in the street right after that in france. I don't know if all the country as those stats though

Again and again I'm telling you research, things that psychologists and sociologists and genetists have studied. It can't be any more clear: sexuality is biologically predisposed. There is no evidence to support your assumptions and I can just keep piling on more evidence to support the popular theories.

but that is one of the problems I'm having with this. not all the experts are agreeing on the same thing. there are different groups agreeing on different things. and it seem that instead of hearing both sides, your picking the side that best suits your needs. their are many claims suggesting many different things and some of the things you suggest, you are basing off of the possibility that we don't know. like "well, we don't understand genes and we don't fully understand what they do, but we are kinda sure they are a predisposed reason behind it". it would be different if there were 8/10 experts claiming what you suggest. but their is not enough proof to give a correct answer at this time.

for the time being, both the religious and gay community sound the same to me. I just love arguing the less popular view of things.

me, personally, I have nothing against homosexuals, a few of my friends are. I don't care what homosexuals do, it is not like I can do any thing about what they do. I just find it unproductive and useless.

Im totally with Homosexuality and dislike Homophobics their opinion to think it its natural or not and their choice to like Yaoi/shounen-ai in anime, but anything eles i do not accept.

Originally Posted by The Collection

but that is one of the problems I'm having with this. not all the experts are agreeing on the same thing. there are different groups agreeing on different things. and it seem that instead of hearing both sides, your picking the side that best suits your needs. their are many claims suggesting many different things and some of the things you suggest, you are basing off of the possibility that we don't know. like "well, we don't understand genes and we don't fully understand what they do, but we are kinda sure they are a predisposed reason behind it". it would be different if there were 8/10 experts claiming what you suggest. but their is not enough proof to give a correct answer at this time.

for the time being, both the religious and gay community sound the same to me. I just love arguing the less popular view of things.

me, personally, I have nothing against homosexuals, a few of my friends are. I don't care what homosexuals do, it is not like I can do any thing about what they do. I just find it unproductive and useless.

I choose the theory that looks at all of what we know and not just some of what we know. The problem with everything you suggest is there is a whole gamut of information that you're just not considering.

Of course people are going to disagree--but they too are only looking at a limited scope of research that fits their ideas instead of incorperating it all.

What I am doing--as does a good portion of the psychological community--is looking at all we know about genetics and human behavior and postulating on that.

Whenever the Nature vs Nurture debate pops up it almost always comes down to a combination of both rather than just one or the other. We as humans underestimate the power of both in accordance with the other.

And--we know that certain genes predispose certain conditions, behaviors, etc, but we don't know everything.

I have no problem with homosexuality, and I accept it as I would like to be accepted. They are som things in life that people just need to deal with and tis is one of them. There are and is always going to be people who are diferent. I feel as though if one doesnt accept changes in the end they will die out.

Also I am quite flabbergasted(sp?) at how many in here say that their parents would disown them. No offense to the children who have these parents, but my god isn't that just terrible? I mean throwing somthing that came out of you on the streets because of ho they get turned on by? My lord why does it matter who they have sex with and why do they care? I just can't grasp it.

With the whole bible subject, I'm not really christian, but I do know in one story I read in rvelations I think. There were these bad people chasing down a man wanting to have sex with him. The man ran to a house and the father of the house hold begged the bad people to not have sex with the man and so he offered the bad people a concubine AND HIS OWN VIRGING DAUGHTER. The next morning the father of the household found the concubine dead so he cut her body into 12 peices and spread them out all across different parts of th land. I was like what on bleeping earth did I just read? Did that really come from the bible?? What on earth are these people promoting, and why is the front of this book titled HOLY bible.
I though it was wrather deranged.

Also I am very proud to say I accept gays yet I am completely Homophobic. I think the second the word homosexual pops up people forget that the word homophobic originally ment that you were afraid of just people, not gay people. And I my friends am very afraid of people.

still though I accept them. :3