Topic says it all. Description is a joke, or at least, we hope it is.

I think being gay is only a state of kind and I look at is as a mental disability more than anything else. Check them into an institution or some kind of rehab center.

I was born straight.

But my sweet bod made him otherwise...

Well, Zen, I'd say you're a sexy beast, but hairy beast is more accurate.


Seriously, though, there's no logical reason for homosexuality to be genetic (or for a person to be "born" gay). It doesn't contribute to reproduction of a species. It's something you acquire later in life.

RexEdit: Over the line, Zen. Definitely over the line.

And the fact that homosexuals can't reproduce and pass said gene on anyway.

Some are gay but end up with full families and children and stuff and not until late in life are willing to admit it, thus passing on the "gene".

I don't know that anyone suggests homosexuality is genetic, or hereditary. Although it is worth noting that homosexuals often don't admit their orientation, and go on to marry people of the opposite sex (Like Ted Haggard). However there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that environmental factors in early life play a role in the development of sexuality.

In any case, it's absolutely absurd to think that people choose to be homosexual. I, as most people, am not attracted to the opposite sex. I would imagine that homosexual people are. We cannot choose who we are attracted to, so I see no mechanism by which a straight person could make a decision to be gay.

Jonny, you said you're not attracted to the opposite sex, Freudian Slip O_o?

Screenshot or it didn't happen

That's actually the second time I've done something like that lately. I think I was saying something in the WW thread, and I meant to say "Eastern hemisphere" and I said Western instead. I'm really worried about my mind as of late.

In any case, as a liberal, Canadian atheist, I'd find it quite strange if I was secretly gay. I've certainly been hit on by gay men, so I've had plenty of chances, and no family or social stigma which should influence me to hide that fact (although my girlfriend wouldn't like it, certainly)

EDIT: TOSO, it's still in my above post. Nobody's edited it...

I know it's still there . You might not be hiding it, but you could decide to be gay later.

And here I thought you were going to say something about being brainwashed into thinking that it's normal for people to be gay

Hmm... sounds like Jonny's in denial to me.

BTW, what does being Canadian have to do with it?

It doesn't exactly work that way, Yoshi.

I'd still like you to tell me how this is possible. You can't choose your preferences- just like I can't choose which woman I love, I can't choose if I love a man. Of course, someone could who they physically "love" or who they marry, but that still wouldn't change their sexuality. A person who is attracted towards men, has no attraction towards women, but sleeps with them anyway, is still homosexual. Likewise, a person who is attracted towards women but not towards men, who for some reason decides to sleep with a man, is straight. Sexuality refers to your desires, NOT your actions.



I don't know what you're trying to say with this insult, but I'll assume you're implying I've been brainwashed by some kind of liberal conspiracy to increase homosexuality.

In any case, it certainly isn't normal- what is it, like 10% of the population? And the only gay leader of a country I can name off the top of my head is president Buchanan.

But normalcy isn't what matters, something must be harmful in order to be considered bad. I think homosexuality is quite a good thing- how boring it would be is everyone wanted to sleep with the same people in the same way. Thank goodness we have different orientations, preferences and fetishes.



Homosexuality tends to be a lot more tolerated here. For instance, several of your states have banned gay marriage, and your government even considered a national constitutional ban (which would have ruined a perfectly good constitution). My country, by comparison, passed national law declaring that homosexuals are protected under our constitutions, and provincial governments have no right to stop their marriage.

Also, if you really insist on me being gay, I could pretend to be for you. Honestly, it's something which doesn't really bother me. Look, I'll change my own signature.

EDIT: But Sol, haven't you heard of tremendous success stories like Ted Haggard? For years he hid his homosexuality by forcing young children to be to afraid to express their own. Then he was caught doing meth with a male prostitute. He then had to step down as head of the National Evangelical Association . But he went to counseling- surely when he says he's straight, he's telling the truth this time!

Why is it defined as being entirely mental? Scientifically, it's behavioral. For the sake of simple argumentative compromise, I'd place it as being 50-50 (though I'm inclined to perceive it as being more strongly behavioral than mental).

You can't choose and force yourself to love a woman instantly, but you can (and do) choose which women you pursue and think about. It's entirely possible to train yourself to be attracted to a specific person that fits your orientation. (You're constantly doing that in an healthy relationship, too.) There's no reason it wouldn't be possible to convince yourself to be attracted to someone of the same gender.

Excuse me, but I'm in a healthy relationship, and I certainly don't "train" myself to love the girl that I do. As a matter of fact, I'd say that forcing yourself to love someone is a pretty good indicator of an unhealthy relationship.

Of course, sexuality isn't black and white- it's very rare for it to be. There are various shades of gray, people are more strongly attracted to one sex but slightly towards the other, etc. But if you find your self walking down a hallway, and that person you get a random crush on is of your gender, then you're gay- at least, you're a little gay. Behaviour doesn't factor in at all- sexual orientation refers to desires and preference, but not behaviour.

Here's a perfect example: gay priests. There are many (or at least, several) gay priests (and I'm not talking about the ones who operate outside the bounds of the law). Priests are celibate, they don't have relationships with anyone. However, these priests are attracted to men, and urge which they must fight, just as all straight priests must fight their attraction to women. Despite the fact that they all have the same behaviour- celibacy, they have two different orientations.

Has it been tried?

I'm saying your socialistic society brainwashed you into thinking it's normal to be gay - as opposed to something being wrong in your head. The same can't be said for me. I live in California for crying out loud!

Because spreading diseases is always a good thing.

Are you saying Homosexuals have STI's more than a heterosexuals?

Yes. As a matter of fact, the term "homosexual" originated as a name for a proposed mental illness. And the results have been awful.



That claim has absolutely no basis in reason. The assertion that my opinion is in line with popular belief, and therefore is wrong, is a far more illogical version of the argument to popularity.

"Your society says it's not normal to believe Elvis is dead. You don't believe it's normal to think Elvis is dead, and so clearly you have been brainwashed"



If you'd like to say promiscuity is a social ill, then you're likely right. The only problem is, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything mentioned in my post.

I think the definition of brainwashing is too vague. If a parent teaches their child something, no matter how wrong it is to other people or society as a whole, it's not considered brainwashing. When an idea comes from the general populace, then it's considered culture, and not brainwashing. I think Brainwashing would come from a drastically different source, such as a cult, a doctor with drugs, or some pervert who locks someone up for 15 years as a sex slave.

My only problem with the homosexual movement is that they try to turn their "sexual preference" into their entire identity. Homosexuality is like a fetish, but instead of liking big feet or children, they like people of the same sex. It's not normal and it's not wrong. It can probably be outgrown or "cured." However, there's no reason for there to be a gay movement or a huge push to normalize it.

The gay movement is not a movement to "normalize" homosexuality. The vast majority of gay men and women don't want everyone else to be a homosexual . What they do want, however, is to be able to say they're gay in public and not be assaulted or classified as mentally ill.

No, I believe that Yoshi meant that homosexuality itself was the disease.

Regardless, homosexual men are much more likely to have AIDS (and possibly other diseases) than straight people in the US.

What? Just because a certain thing is considered normal does not mean that everybody follows that practice... So I'm pretty sure it, could, in fact be said that their goal is to normalize homosexuality. And seriously, who is assaulting gays in public? I don't think that's happening in any modernized nations. Maybe in the third world. So by the standards mentioned here they would pretty much already have gotten what they wanted...

Prove it.



http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_re...rime/index.html

Oh, whoops, sorry, forgot the US wasn't a "modernized nation".

Alright then, define "to make normal" and explain why homosexuality becoming normal is a bad thing.



Wow you're ignorant of social problems. You have seriously never heard someone shout "faggot" at a person as they walk down the street? Heck, this site has a regular user base of less than 20 members, and in this thread alone we've had at least one person say that homosexuality should be treated as a mental illness.



No, it's true. That, however, has absolutely no bearing on the morality of homosexuality. If your reason for homosexuality being immoral is that it promotes the spread of AIDS, you encounter serious problems when you find a homosexual couple who do not have aids.

Come on, Jonny. If you're going to make arguments, at least make good ones. Yes, everyone here (probably) has heard someone call someone else a faggot. Yet everyone here has probably heard someone call a heterosexual a faggot. You must accept that in much of Western Society (at least in the adolescent and college-aged demographics), calling someone, or something, gay doesn't actually indicate that the person is a homosexual. If that's assault, then nearly every gamer should be arrested.

Further, attempting to classify homosexuality as a mental illness is not assault either. Obviously you do not think homosexuality is a mental illness, however, there is no reason another person should not think differently... or even if there is, there is no reason to abridge their freedom to express their opinion that homosexuality is a mental illness by classifying that as assault. Now if said person acted on their conviction that homosexuality is a mental illness and began kidnapping and jailing homosexuals, that would be assault.

I may weigh in on the actual issue at hand later, I don't have the time now. I just read Jonny's post and had to keep an individual as intelligent as him from making a mistake as stupid as that.

There are dead soldiers who have had their funerals picketed by radical southern churches because of their sexual orientation. There are gay men and women who have derogatory terms thrown at them by people who really mean to hurt them. Adoption and marriage rights are still denied to gay men and women almost everywhere in the world. I personally know people who have been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation. The statement that there is no need for a civil rights movement among gay people is ignorant and ridiculous.



Of course it's not assault. However, if you had bothered to read my other post from which this line of discussion began, you would notice that it filled my second criteria I threw out as an example:

" What they do want, however, is to be able to say they're gay in public and not be assaulted or classified as mentally ill."

About Yoshi's point on homosexuality not being conducive to reproduction, wouldn't any heterosexual performs any other sexual act aside from intercourse have the same "disease"?

I did not make that statement. I was merely pointing out that your argument against that statement was crap. However, this post provided a much better argument.

Although the right to peaceful assembly can't be abridged because some/most people disagree with the assembly, I still think those churches are particularly stupid for doing that.


The post you were responding to was talking only about assault. Further, individual opinions and the right to speak them are still protected under the Constitution. Some people would classify me as a gaming addict (which I'm not), and, although I may disagree and not particularly like them saying that, they still have a right to say it.

No, it wasn't. The person I was responding to said that the example objectives I gave had been fulfilled, which clearly they had not. And regardless of whether or not freedom of speech is protected, it is still a good idea to point out idiotic speech as idiotic. Or hateful speech as hateful. This is the goal of events like gay pride rallies.

Not quite. The Westboro Baptist Church protests the military because they believe the soldiers are "gay enablers" for fighting for this country. Very few, if any, of the funerals they picket are for actual gay soldiers.

The other problem here is that gays are not allowed in the military. The policy here is "don't ask, don't tell": gays are allowed to serve, as long as they do not let it become known they are gay or exhibit gay behaviors, like having sex with men or looking at gay pornography.

Don't mistake this as me condoning the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church; I absolutely am not.



So? Gay people do this to straight people too. Have you ever heard the term "breeder"? The intent is to insult heterosexuals. I don't find it offensive because of how hilarious and futile it is, but the intent is still there.



No they aren't. A gay man can be married to exactly the same people a straight man can, so there is no discrimination whatsoever.



I personally know someone who was assaulted because of his race. He was white. Can you imagine what would happen if he tried to start a civil rights movement among white people?



Of course it's what they want, but that doesn't make it correct. I'm sure pedophiles would like the same thing.

As it has been stated, there have been "gay brainwashing" camps. The purpose is to try to make people "realize" they love women. Yet at the end of the day it comes down to a personal preference that is probably a combination of conscious and subconscious thought. If someone is gay they are gay. It can be attributed to many things both nature and nurture.
There are other animals that have homosexual tendencies, the two most well documented are those of Gorillas and Antelopes.
My own thought to throw out there is:
What if our society had been designed around the idea of same sex partners being the "norm" and heterosexual couples being the odd ones out, would a larger portion of our community be gay?

No, because they'd be extinct.

Okay...that's much worse. What's your point?



That the policy is in place, or that it is considered necessary, is a clear indicator that your society needs to change its attitude. Although the military certainly deserves a lot more respect than the policy would seem to give them- the majority of U.S. soldiers are good, reasonable people, and this policy appeases a minority who are bigoted. The policy not only is foolish and discriminatory, it is dangerous to the security of the U.S. 58 arabic translators have been dismissed under the policy at a time when the U.S. has around half as many as it should. As a result, intercepted arabic messages can go untranslated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/...r=1&oref=slogin



That is true. The difference is that none of those people hold public office, and none of them have tried to pass amendments which amount to defecating on the U.S. constitution.



Ah yes, this logic always pans out well.

"The disabled can use the same stairs as the rest of society, there is no problem"

"There is no shortage of gynecologists, women can go to the same doctors that men go to, there is no problem"

"Those juvenile criminals can use the same showers as the pedophiles, it'll work out fine"

Just because two groups have access to the exact same institution does not mean it is adequate



I don't know- would it be worse than what happened to the people who first initiated the gay rights movement?



Okay, pedophilia hurts children. That is why it's wrong. In this entire discussion, despite being asked nobody has provided a reason as to why homosexuality is wrong. You haven't even fallen back on "the bible says so".



Oh come on, you must be more comfortable in your sexuality then that. I can't speak for anyone else, but I really like women. A lot! And I have little doubt that I would be attracted to women no matter what was allowed in society. Do you honestly feel as if you would be gay if you were raised in a situation where homosexuality was encouraged?

Interesting argument, considering that earlier you argued that homosexuality was not a choice but rather caused by a person's environment. Now you're saying that it is not? Help me understand how you aren't contradicting yourself, Jonny... Or hey, if you've changed your opinion on the matter, I'm good with that too.

I promise that I will actually get to a point where I have enough time to actually talk about the major issues going on in this topic. As for now, I have to go to class. xD

Homosexuals neither "need" marriage (as a handicapped needs accommodation) nor are they causing harm by not having it (as your pedophiles showering with minors are posing a risk).


I'm going to have to fall back to my religious reasons for an argument (since I only have one legal issue with homosexual marriage), but the reasons are as follows: every person physically capable of reproducing has an obligation to continue fulfilling the commandment God gave Adam to "multiply and replenish the earth." Homosexuality is equivalent to multiplayer masturbation.

I've neither contradicted myself, nor changed my opinion. Homosexuality is very likely caused by environmental factors- none of which are likely societal. Or, if they are societal, which would be unlikely, it would be even more unlikely for the societal factors to be related to societal pressure regarding homosexuality. (Surely, Ted Haggard was not raised in an environment where homosexuality was encouraged in him). It is quite likely sexual orientation is determined in the uterus.



There are some great implications in that argument:

Evidently, condoms and other forms of birth control are considered immoral.

And so would celibacy, or limited child birth. Imagine, a married couple having only one child despite the fact that this would not fulfill their obligation to "replenish the earth". And of course, heterosexual sex for any other reason than procreation would be considered wrong as well, yes?

And of course, couples without the ability to have children should, under this logic, be considered immoral for having sex.

Seriously, getting back to the celibacy issue: If this is your reason for thinking homosexuality immoral, any priest or religious figure who decides to lead a life of celibacy is equally in the wrong.

Moving past the hilarious implications of this argument, the world no longer needs to be replenished. Overpopulation is an incredibly serious issue, and is responsible for a gross number of deaths every year.

Wait, so... you think that environmental conditions... in the uterus... are the cause of homosexuality... ... ... I'm trying to comprehend this because the uterus is essentially a sensory-deprivation chamber for babies... What environmental conditions? I can't think of any that would influence sexual orientation.

Actually, I believe you misrepresented Shattered's argument, but I'll leave that up to him. I will instead present my own argument for why homosexuality is morally wrong. Yes, it is religiously based, but in fact to be valid, all it assumes is a sense of purpose or destiny in creation/nature. Clearly, sexual encounters are meant to be between male and female, not male and male or female and female. I hope we can all agree on this (assuming we agree on purpose/destiny). Male and male, and female and female, sexual encounters are not meant to be. They are a perversion of the way things are meant to be. Does this make sense to you?

I could compare this to pedophilia, but I know you'll just brush it aside with the Non Sequitor argument that pedophilia causes harms.

Also, I would like to see a single convincing argument of why homosexuality is a good thing. I did see Jonny say that it makes things more interesting, but that seems like a particularly weak argument. There are a bunch of interesting, exhilarating things that are still immoral. I'm sure that people get a rush out of stealing, killing, and countless other clearly immoral things. So I ask again, can anyone provide me with an argument of why homosexuality is a good thing to have in our society?

As for whether homosexuality is a choice, I'd like to refer back to something that Jonny said early on in the thread. He said that orientation is not an action, it's how you feel. Shattered countered that it was fifty-fifty. I do agree with Shattered that the mind can train itself to like virtually anything with repetition. However, allow me to go a little further in two directions with this argument. First, I'm going to go completely opposite Jonny and say that orientation is based on ones actions alone, not one's feelings. For instance, someone that feels like killing someone, but doesn't, is not a murderer. I would like to argue similarly that someone who feels like having sex with another member of their gender, but does not, is not homosexual. Second, allow me to bring Shattered's argument back around and take a few things to their logical conclusion. I don't think anyone is truly homosexual unless they (in virtually all cases, unknowingly) train themselves to be. Example to support my point: no boy is physically interested in girls until after puberty. There is no physical reason for sexual or romantic interest. However, some pre-pubescent boys do show romantic (perhaps even sexual?) interest in girls. Why? Perhaps because they feel pressured to emulate what older, post-pubescent, boys are doing, or maybe they, subconsciously, think that showing interest in girls would make them more like adults, and then their minds train themselves in order to be what seems more advantageous. Seeing this, similar things could happen to people who, although puberty goes normally externally, experience no natural sexual urges. They don't like boys or girls. However, they do know from the words and actions of others around them that they're supposed to. Some, of course, would train themselves to like members of the opposite sex and would appear to be heterosexual. Others would realize, again, probably on a subconscious level, that they have no interest in the opposite sex like others around them do, and they know that they aren't heterosexual. Thus their minds instead mold themselves to be attracted to members of the same sex.

This is my theory. I am not an expert on the mind (but then again, is anybody?), and I do not claim to be. However, from what I know and have experienced, this makes sense. This theory would not necessarily mandate "conversion therapy", especially since the psychological changes could be permanent (or at least close enough that any attempt by us currently with our limited knowledge of the working of the human brain would only make things worse).

I wouldn't say this classifies homosexuals as mentally ill either. If this theory is true, then it probably has a role in a lot of things... for instance, a person's favorite color. I seriously doubt that we choose our own solely on aesthetic appeal.

Questions, comments, or arguments are welcome (naturally, since this is a debate thread).

Hormones? >_<. You know, the things that determine the gender of the child in the first place, and have been shown to have a statistically significant correlation with the sexuality of a child?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_horm...ual_orientation

Of course again, that's only one theory. However even if the environmental factors are during the developmental years, there's nothing to suggest that children can be molded one way or the other intentionally.



I reject the notion that there is a pre-determined destiny or purpose in life. However, even working under this assumption, and going back to the question of the thread: if homosexuality is not a choice, if it is beyond our control for reasons genetic or environmental, that would suggest that those people who are homosexual are meant to be homosexual. This claim would certainly be backed up by the fact that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom, with a proportion of homosexual animals comparable to the proportion of homosexual humans.



To think that you consider harm to be an irrelevant factor in decisions of morality is both sickening and disturbing.

Regardless, you cannot make that comparison. There are young children perfectly capable of bearing kids- which seems to fulfill the "purpose" you outline. Is it not wrong to impregnate them?



A society composed of entirely non-Asian peoples would function just as well as a society which has them. That fact is not sufficient to declare that being Asian is immoral. If an argument cannot stand without the support of other arguments, then it is not an argument.

Also, the better question to ask is not "is what we are suppressing good?" but "what are the harms of suppressing it?". There are countless examples, throughout global history of where attempts to limit sexuality has failed- miserably. Take the Japanese ban on pornography, and look what it did to their society. When the ban was repealed, rape rates fell.

And there are clear case studies of where repressing homosexuality specifically has harmed individuals- read Peterson Toscano's story.

However, even though it is absolutely ridiculous to require that something be proven beneficial and otherwise be assumed harmful, I'm sure the ancient Roman army would disagree with your notions about homosexuality. Homosexuality was encouraged in order to strengthen the bond between soldiers.



They are, however, still a psychopath.



You would be wrong. I could argue that an "elephant" is not the largest land mammal alive today, but I would also be wrong. That is the commonly accepted definition of the word. To assert that someone is not homosexual unless they have had gay sex is akin to saying someone is not heterosexual because they have not had heterosexual sex. The intent is there in both cases, perhaps our hypothetical examples are simply very unattractive.



Children often show sexuality before puberty- they frequently masturbate, even before they can communicate clearly.

Of course, I'm not saying that the sexuality of a child cannot be impacted by outside factors- (and usually it's for the worse). However, what I will point out is that your argument could be a textbook example of how not to debate. You start with an assumption, which is also your conclusion, and complete the circle with pure hypothetical conjecture.



This DOES happen! At least, the first half. People who do not develop sexual urges have a sexual orientation to themselves: asexual ( not to be confused with self replicating organisms).

If you're going to parrot the insane ramblings of Mike Gravel, at least get your facts straight. The Spartans did that.

Perhaps I'm making incorrect assumptions and you should correct me. I assume that hormones are genetic. I don't see how they could be considered an environmental condition...

Homosexuality is a choice. See the rest of my argument. I know you don't currently accept that, which is why I'll go ahead and move on to your other arguments and later revisit this if need be.

That's either a complete misunderstanding or a deliberate twisting of what I said. I don't know which. The harm of pedophilia is irrelevant to the comparison between it and homosexuality that impacts the morality of homosexuality. It is, however, relevant to the morality of itself.

Sure I can make the comparison. I have never said that the only purpose of sex is to reproduce. In fact, as the materialist here, I'd assume that would be your argument. If this response makes no sense, it's probably because your argument made no sense to me and I took the best guess that I had as to what it meant. If you wish to further debate the point on terms besides the ones implied in my current post, I suggest you clarify your last argument.

You've mistaken the purpose of that passage. I was not intending to argue that anything not proven good is bad. I was pointing out that you keep asking why we should consider homosexuality bad. I assumed that meant you considered homosexuality good... which is why you are arguing (it seems) in favor of it. I wished to know if you had any reasons for considering it good. So far, I really haven't seen anything that would persuade me that homosexuality is good. If I missed something, please point it out.

I have not advocated any (legal) suppression of homosexuality in this thread, although I do believe it is immoral. (Just like I don't support legal suppression of adultery) I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I dislike the implied support of homosexuality. Although I would prefer for marriage to become a religious/private/non-civic matter altogether. In which case it wouldn't matter. And I would like to see some information on that pornography ban, because I have heard evidence to the contrary. However, if it was actually tested by Japan...

Again, I haven't advocated repression.

I agree with your statement and I disagree with the Roman army. I would also ask when, precisely, homosexuality was encouraged in the Roman army.

I certainly hope not. I have felt like killing someone before. I know several people who have probably felt like killing someone. I certainly know that any father whose teenager daughter gets rapped would feel like killing the offender. That doesn't make them psychopaths. The act of killing, however, would still be illegal.

I'm fine with defining heterosexuals as people who only have had heterosexual sex. It highlights the point I was trying to make anyway.

Umm... evidence for that please? I'm very skeptical. Even if what you're saying is partially true... I'll wait to say anything until I see something substantive.

I'd like to point out that you're misinterpreting my argument. It doesn't begin and conclude with the same assumption... It begins with the assumption that pre-pubescent boys have no physical interest in girls (something I didn't think would be contested... obviously I was wrong). Although you are correct... it isn't the strongest argument. I welcome you to actually attack it by providing explanations other than the ones I provided rather than just stating that it's a weak argument... Weak argument > No argument.

Excellent. So you at least agree with half of my argument. Now you only need to realize the possibility that asexuals are more common than you think and that some might convince themselves that they are gay.

If I missed anything, feel free to point that out to me.

Actually homosexuality was especially prevalent in Sparta. When the person who sleeps next to you is supposed to be your best friend and training buddy certain bonds are created. Do your research in some non-biased history books (I'm at work now, I'll give my own sources later) and you will find in the greek/roman empires homosexuality was highly encouraged, it was a way of showing that you really trusted someone or a show of dominance, much like it is in nature. Especially to the greeks it was almost like a joke. If one guy got drunk and passed out then his friend would have sex with him and they would all have a good laugh about it later. One should consider education outside the internet and school provided books for this type of topic because of the prudence of the American society. All over Europe and even in some of the older cities in the US art displaying "homosexual activity" (I'm sorry that phrase sounds so PC it makes me loose it). For instance when I was in Boston I saw some greek urns showing very clear gay sex.

As for the answer to my question. I didn't say people wouldn't be impregnated it would simply be a tryst for the children and then the parents would go back to their same sex couples to raise the kids. Society could function like that, additionally suspend your disbelief for a second, the purpose of that question is simple, if homosexuality is a choice and our society were based on homosexual couples then everyone here who is vehemently heterosexual would be vehemently homosexual instead. If it is not a choice then things would be the same as they are now.

Honestly for those of you that are purely heterosexual tell me this, did you really choose to like the opposite sex? Guys do you see a girl coming and go "hey thats a hot chick I should choose to be turned on"? or does it just happen? or for girls do you see a hot guy coming and go "hey that dude is sexy I should choose to be turned on" or does it just happen? If you truly can just "decide" to be sexually attracted to someone let me know because that would make the world a much easier place because trust me, I have had a relationship with an amazing person fail simply for the fact that despite everything I just didn't find them sexually attractive, and trust me if I could just make that choice, I would have.

Hormones are released into the body based on your environment. The genetic code of the child has nothing to do with his mothers hormones.



You said that the only assumption your argument made was that there is a purpose to sex- it seems you have now changed your terms. If your argument assumes a supernatural purpose to sex, that is something else entirely.



I am not advocating a sexual orientation (clearly, since as far as I am concerned it is not a choice ). I am advocating a way of interacting with members of a sexual orientation. The orientation itself is neutral.



When Japan lifted its pornography ban, there was a sharp decrease in sexual offenses between people who knew each other. There was also a decrease in all other forms of crime, and so the decrease in crime itself could be attributed to something else, however the age demographic of sexual offenders and victims changed. Sexual assault victims were less commonly pre-pubescent, and interestingly enough, so were the criminals. In 1972, one third of sexual offenders were between the ages of 14-19. A figure which has dropped to 9.6% in 1995. It would seem exposing children to sexuality is quite healthy.



You are not the only person arguing against me in this thread.



I will disregard the straw man example of understandable rage. If you have persistent thoughts of killing someone (not fantasy, but serious contemplation) you are mentally unwell regardless of whether or not you can keep those thoughts under control. It is a recipe for disaster to live with the philosophy that as long as you can prevent yourself from acting on murderous impulses, those impulses do not need to be dealt with. Yes, a person who seriously contemplates murder is a psychopath.



That is not your definition to make . It is a commonly used word in the english language.

homosexual

adjective
1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]

noun
1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex


heterosexual

adjective
1. sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex [ant: homosexual, bisexual]

noun
1. a heterosexual person; someone having a sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex

If you choose to redefine the words to your own liking, then it is a debate about semantics as opposed to substantial arguments. Nobody, ever, will disagree with the statement that being "a person who has consensual sex" is a choice.



I direct you to your Google toolbar. "Masturbation in children".



My mistake- your argument begins by making two assumptions. The first is that pre-pubescent children are not inclined towards romantic attraction, an assumption which has no backing. Puberty is the physical change in the bodies of children- psychological developments parallel these changes often but do not have to. The second assumption is that homosexuality is a choice. Running with these two assumptions, you create a somewhat plausible explanation for the way child sexual development works, if your first two assumptions are true.



This, like your other "argument" is total conjecture. It's an incredibly common type of rationale, strangely, in religiously motivated debates. You have provided no evidence of your claim, circumstantial, statistical, inferential, etc. You have started with an assumption, have described a theory which has absolutely no backing as a possible way for the assumption to be correct, and have tried to hold up this conjecture as proof for your original assumption. There is no logic for me to challenge, no sources for me to call invalid. There is nothing for me to say other than "This is not an argument".

Hmmm.... This topic is long dead, but I feel I want to add my opinion in here...

As a Bisexual anyways...

I'm equally attracted to both genders in the same sense. I can say that I know some guys to be hotter then some girl and vice-visa...

But in my opinion... I don't remember what made me realize I was Bi...Except that I know I have always liked guys and girls... since puberty... so going on this basis on how it's look as


I'd believe that Homosexuality or Bisexuality, or hell even going far enough to say a Pansexual is from a genetic disorder caused by a mistake in the chromosomes. so as to say that.. I do believe it is a illness. but it's likely that some people are homosexual from self repetition. also as what is to be believed as to that. I believe that for some it is a choice. Hence the reason we have Bi-curious people and Homo-curious (Proclaiming towards a friend of mine who thought for the longest time he was homosexual to find out he wasn't.) and for others it's a gene disorder.

As Firon said, this topic is long dead, but I feel a need to reply.
I'm going to start off with why I feel a need to reply.
My name is Katie, and on November 18th, 2006 (three years ago, yesterday) I came out as a lesbian. I have been made fun of, mocked, threaten and even on occasion shoved and hit.
I feel, that I had no choice in the matter of my sexuality. I was dating a boy, I really liked him, but i felt no sexual attraction. So I tried a different boy. And another. However, when a bisexual friend of mine flirted with me, I felt attracted to her. Perhaps it was the situation. I continued trying to date boys, but girls kept catching my eye. It was a non-consenual desire, I wanted to be with boys.

The environment debate, about how you are raised. I don't understand that.
I grew up, being told that girls love boys, and boys love girls. I had a huuuge crush on Bo Duke from the Dukes of Hazard. My grandfathers firm belief in right is right, and the fear of telling my mom that i was gay made me depressed and suicidal.

I didn't want to be gay, so how was it my choice?

There were comments a page back or so, about AIDS, and STI's, and how more gay men have AIDs then straight.

Not. True.

At least, not where I live. The leading contribute to HIV and AIDS in where I live is not the spread of disease through anal sex. It is through sharing used needles, and prostitution. Last time i heard, about two years ago, the majority (about 70%) of cases of HIV/AIDs was females 16-25. The drug addicts and the prostitutes.

Back to the choice matter. I believe, that people are in fact, born gay, straight or bisexual. HOWEVER; they choose to act on that desire. We choose to live as homosexuals, and others, choose to repress it.

You didn't want because of people mocking you... if it wasn't for them you'd be a full-time lesbian. There lies your problem.

IMO, being gay is just a state of mind. Females are supposed to be attracted by guys, that's the way it works. Your body does work but your mind doesn't.