Ignorance and homophobia run rampant

[Powerman]

I see no problems with brothers and sisters forming 'civil unions'...or even 'groups of people' for that matter. I think I'd support a 'civil union' between pets and their owners as well. I mean, really...why 'discriminate'?

Bestiality and homosexuality are 2 completely different subjects. One has consent and the other doesn't. Unless you have a talking dog that fully understands the ins and outs of marriage then the dog can't consent to marry you. I thought you were smarter than this.

 

[manu1959]

Bestiality and homosexuality are 2 completely different subjects. One has consent and the other doesn't. Unless you have a talking dog that fully understands the ins and outs of marriage then the dog can't consent to marry you. I thought you were smarter than this.

my dog doesn't complain :69: ....he really doesn't seem to care whos balls he is licking.....

oh can i marry my sister? she can consent

 

[manu1959]

"This argument is flawed for this reason, how many times have heterosexual couples and even gay couples been tempted to cheat on their partners...That's right too many to count.."

That doesn't make my argument flawed. Most of the time people cheat on their partners it's with the same sex. Heterosexuals don't engage in consensual homosexual sex acts unless they are confused about their sexuality.

confused?.....thought they didn't choose....thought is was genetic....why would they be confused?...unless they were thinking about making a choice!

 

[Powerman]

my dog doesn't complain :69: ....he really doesn't seem to care whos balls he is licking.....

oh can i marry my sister? she can consent

You can marry your sister all you want. Doesn't bother me one bit.

 

[manu1959]

You can marry your sister all you want. Doesn't bother me one bit.

why is it against the law then

 

[Powerman]

why is it against the law then

I don't know. Why is smoking weed against the law and alcohol legal? I never claimed that all laws made sense. If you want to fuck your sister that's legal in plenty of states. For some stupid reason you can't marry her though.

 

[Nuc]

You can marry your sister all you want. Doesn't bother me one bit.

Here's a 60's ska song on the subject.

Shame and Scandal
(Donaldson, Brown)

In Trinidad, there was a family,
with much confusion as you will see.
There was a mama and a papa, and a boy who had grown,
who wanted to marry and have wife of his own.

He found him a girl who was suiting him nice.
He went to his papa to ask his advice.
The papa said, "Son, I've got to say no.
That girl is your sister, but your mama don't know."

Woe is me! Shame and scandal in me family. [ Chorus ]
Woe is me! Shame and scandal in me family.

The weeks went by and the summer came down,
and soon, the best cook in the island he found.
He went to his papa to name a date.
His papa shook his head and to him he did say,

"You can't marry this girl; I've got to say no.
That girl is your sister, but your mama don't know."

Woe is me! Shame and scandal in me family. [ Chorus ]
Woe is me! Shame and scandal in me family.

He went to his mama, he covered his head,
and told his mama what his papa had said.
The mama she laughed, she said, "Go man, go!
Your daddy ain't your daddy, but your daddy don't know!"

Woe is me! Shame and scandal in me family. [ Chorus ]
Woe is me! Shame and scandal in me family.

 

[Bonnie]

I don't know. Why is smoking weed against the law and alcohol legal? I never claimed that all laws made sense. If you want to fuck your sister that's legal in plenty of states. For some stupid reason you can't marry her though.

What states is having sex with any blood family member legal??

Why is it there is no homosexuality in the animal world? Because animals are wired to pro-create it's instinct. That's what seperates us from them we do things by decision and thinking.

 

[Powerman]

What states is having sex with any blood family member legal??

Why is it there is no homosexuality in the animal world? Because animals are wired to pro-create it's instinct. That's what seperates us from them we do things by decision and thinking.

You can do your own research on the state by state sex laws if you like. And there is plenty of homosexuality in the animal world. I believe there are about 300 species in which homosexuality has been found. You might want to do some research before you just arbitrarily make things up because they support your argument.

 

[Powerman]

Hah looks like I'm guilty of my own pet peeve. Apparently you can't have sex with your sister legally. Although it is only a misdemeanor in 2 states but a felony in 48 states. I honestly don't think that this law gets enforced though. I live in the South, trust me the shit happens LOL.

 

[Bonnie]

You can do your own research on the state by state sex laws if you like. And there is plenty of homosexuality in the animal world. I believe there are about 300 species in which homosexuality has been found. You might want to do some research before you just arbitrarily make things up because they support your argument.

Incest is the sexual activity or marriage between close family members. It is a taboo, as well as a criminal offense, in virtually all societies. In many societies premarital sex is allowed or encouraged; in most such societies, the same restrictions to marriage apply to sexual unions.

In No states is it legal.........

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

 

[Bonnie]

. And there is plenty of homosexuality in the animal world. I believe there are about 300 species in which homosexuality has been found. You might want to do some research before you just arbitrarily make things up because they support your argument.

UH OH!!

I am a bit flabbergasted at this article on Alternet (brought to my attention by Jeremy Genovese). It’s also mentioned by Bookslut, who says, “Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow takes on Darwin’s theory that homosexuality is an aberration that will eventually die off."


Darwin’s theory on homosexuality? What? As far as I can recall, Darwin didn’t say anything about homosexuality; if Darwin did say something about it, someone let me know. It’s an awfully peculiar claim to make.

Darwin, whose theory of evolution says that all life originated from a common ancestor, made the other [the first is Biblical] frequently cited argument against homosexuality. The reason the tree of life is so varied is because reproduction is an inexact process. Mutations arise that either help or hinder existence. Helpful ones create new lineages; harmful ones die off. “Survival of the fittest” is an abridged way of saying organisms with mutations that increase the species’ chances of reproduction do better than ones that don’t.
Again, where did Darwin make this argument against homosexuality, and who is citing it? I’m feeling a bit embarrassed—if Darwin had said something along these lines, I ought to be aware of it. Maybe I’m missing something, or maybe the author of this article is just clueless; the clumsy description of evolution above doesn’t give me much confidence in him.

But mutation alone doesn’t explain all the variety in nature. To address that, Darwin developed his idea of sexual selection. Sexual selection is meant to explain how things like a peacock’s ornamental tail—obviously a hindrance to survival (have you ever tried running away from a predator with a kite tied to your ass?)—exist. Darwin figured, simply, that peahens (female peacocks) must like the tail. In fact, Darwin supposes, the male with the biggest tail attracts the most females. So, in Darwin’s theory of evolution, mutations that are not in the service of survival—as are speed, camouflage and opposable thumbs—must be in the service of attracting mates with which to propagate the species.
Hmmm. Well, let’s read Darwin’s very own definition:


This leads me to say a few words on what I have called Sexual Selection.
This form of selection depends, not on a struggle for existence in
relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a
struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males,
for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the
unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is,
therefore, less rigorous than natural selection.
Darwin never proposed that mutation and sexual selection together explained “all the variety in nature”. He even goes out of his way to explain that there have to be other processes in action:

Thus it is, as I believe, that when the males and females of any
animal have the same general habits of life, but differ in
structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly
caused by sexual selection: that is, by individual males having had,
in successive generations, some slight advantage over other males,
in their weapons, means of defence, or charms, which they have
transmitted to their male offspring alone. Yet, I would not wish to
attribute all sexual differences to this agency: for we see in our
domestic animals peculiarities arising and becoming attached to the
male sex, which apparently have not been augmented through selection
by man. The tuft of hair on the breast of the wild turkey-cock
cannot be of any use, and it is doubtful whether it can be
ornamental in the eyes of the female bird; indeed, had the tuft
appeared under domestication, it would have been called a monstrosity.
But back to the Alternet story...

Which puts homosexuality, which is clearly not a reproduction-enhancing mutation, at odds with Darwinism. Which, in turn, has made strange bedfellows out of sworn enemies: Evolutionary scientists and Christian-right literalists both agree, for different reasons, that homosexuality is unnatural.
OK, this is becoming increasingly surreal. This is just nonsense. What evolutionary scientists are calling homosexuality unnatural? I don’t know of any. Most of the works of natural history that I’ve read on this subject discuss at length the variety of sexual practices that are quite common and ordinary in the natural world, and homosexuality is one of them.


But what do I know...maybe all these treatises in biology that condemn the unnatural practice of homosexuality are lurking unread on the bookshelf next to Darwin’s work on the subject.

Now, while the rest of the country is grappling with the issue of gay marriage, Stanford evolutionary ecologist Joan Roughgarden is trying to untangle Darwin’s mess by publishing Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People. Roughgarden’s thesis begins with the idea that since homosexuality is not a reproductive strategy, according to Darwin it’s an aberration that should die off. But instead of deciding that homosexuality is wrong from an evolutionary standpoint, Roughgarden arrived at another conclusion: Darwin’s theory of sexual selection must be wrong. Traveling this path and others, her book marks the first time that a scientist has presented a cogent challenge to one of Darwin’s sacred cows.
I’d be angry at these weird distortions, except that they are so disconnected from reality that it’s hard to get a grip on them. What sacred cows? Darwin has been revised rather extensively (hasn’t the author heard of the neo-Darwinian synthesis?), so it’s awfully silly to claim he has never before been challenged. And anyone who is familiar with population genetics knows that sub-optimal traits don’t necessarily die off, but can be fixed in a population. And it’s an open question whether homosexuality is actually a poor reproductive strategy—gays and lesbians do have children, you know. And finding a case where sexual selection is not operating does not show that “Darwin’s theory of sexual selection must be wrong”...aww, you get the idea. The whole thing is a mishmash of misconceptions.


Maybe it’s just a stupid reporter. Surely the evolutionary biologist who wrote this book knows better. So let’s see what Joan Roughgarden says in her interview:

I knew that my subject of biology taught that something’s wrong or defective in the very people standing on the sidewalks and marching in the [gay-pride] parade. And I felt that if a theory says there’s something wrong with so many people, then maybe it’s the theory that’s wrong and not the people.According to Darwin, the only purpose for sex is the transfer of sperm.
Somebody help me. I’m trapped in the Bizarro World! All of this is simply wrong.


I just don’t understand this mischaracterization of the lessons of biology. Biology doesn’t teach that there’s something wrong with homosexuals. What I’ve learned from biology is exactly the opposite, that homosexuality is common, and besides, we don’t try to draw moral conclusions from the way the world works—that’s the naturalistic fallacy. And this weird “only purpose for sex...” is unreal.


The author goes on to tout her novel idea, that sex also plays a role in communication, social bonding, etc. But this is nothing new! How can she be an evolutionary biologist without familiarity with the concept of inclusive fitness? Read Diamond’s 1997 book, Why is Sex Fun?—it covers the topic of the multiplicity of roles for sex quite well, without having to invent Darwinian straw men.


It’s not just the opponents of evolution who mischaracterize and mangle the theory, it’s also true of some of its advocates. I guess I’ve got to spend some time snarling at evolutionists in addition to creationists now. Nobody is going to be able to stand me.

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/...s_are_the_people_who_claim_to_be_on_our_side/

So which is it?? A little bit of a conflict here??? :scratch:

 

[Bonnie]

Introduction
Both the creationist and evolutionary naturalist world views influence the sex norms and behaviour of their respective adherents. Creationism interprets sex as a biological drive designed primarily for the specific purpose of fulfilling the command to ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ (Genesis 1:28). Creationism also concludes that the male and female sexual organs were specifically designed to be compatible so as to ensure successful reproduction, and that they manifest clear evidence of being the direct result of planning and purpose. Consequently, homosexual behaviour would be seen as a perversion of the sexual organs’ purpose, and a use of the sexual drive in a way for which it was not designed. Misuses such as this could result in negative repercussions, including disease and tissue damage involving not only the sexual organs, but the total sex drive and its associated responses. Whenever something is used for a purpose other than that for which it was designed, a clear risk of damage or other problems exists. In Morris’ words:


‘
In the West, this position has been the majority view for most of the last two millennia. What changed this view to the degree that in some countries homosexuals now receive special protection under civil rights acts and those who object to homosexual behaviour are labelled psychologically maladjusted, namely homophobes? A major factor has been the secularization of society and the teaching of naturalistic evolution. The common evolutionary biological argument to justify homosexuality runs as follows:

‘Homosexual behavior has been observed in most animal species studied, and the higher we climb on the taxonomic tree toward mammals, the more apparent homosexual behaviour we see.’4

Such claims are often made from a limited understanding of the natural world. For example, in response to the above common claim, Symons notes:

‘In Judeo-Christian theology, unlike evolutionary biology, there is no disjunction between ultimate and proximate; on the contrary, ultimate and proximate are intimately and immediately related. What one ought to do, for example, is a direct function of God’s will. Despite the absence of God in most scientific writing, the implicit belief that nature constitutes a moral order frequently persists. Thus writers with tolerant or positive views about homosexuality often begin their discussions by emphasizing the frequency with which non-human animals and preliterate peoples engage in homosexual activities, implying that homosexuality is natural and hence acceptable. Writers with less sanguine views of homosexuality point out that a great deal of mounting among non-human animals is not sexually motivated, that homosexual behavior is more frequent among captive than among free-ranging animals, and that exclusive homosexuality is rare among preliterate peoples, implying that homosexuality is unnatural and hence unacceptable.’5

Further, homosexual behaviour among animals is engaged in for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with sex. In many cases it is only a ‘ritualized form of aggression’.6

Although the full set of causes of homosexual behaviour is not yet understood, a creationist orientation provides a theoretical foundation to both understand and help persons with this problem. The present approach used to understand and help homosexuals adjust to a heterosexual life has obviously not been very fruitful; most studies show a very low ‘cure’ rate.7,8

The creationist viewpoint would also conclude that homosexuality is not due to normal biological factors that differentiate them from heterosexuals. The Creator-designed sexual orientation is heterosexual, and any deviation from this must be due to an aberration in either biological or psychological development. Importantly, this view can provide prevention advice and guidelines for child care so as to facilitate sexual adjustment. In fact, the common belief that one is ‘either a heterosexual or a homosexual’ and that physical or other clear reasons for this difference usually exist is not supported by research.9,10 The empirical research evidence indicates that for most people the sexual drive exists in a diffuse state in the early stages, solidifying only much later. Sexual development occurs primarily between the second year of life and the onset of puberty. During the first few years it is rather undefined and can develop through learning so that it can be stimulated, or at least influenced, by a wide variety of objects, although at first the primary stimulus is tactile stimulation of the genital area.11

Thus children’s sexual development is highly influenced by early experiences in a process similar to imprinting.12 This system enables a person to become sexually attracted to their own race, national group or culture.13 Thus, Chinese men generally find Chinese women most erotic. Black men relate to black women in the same way, etc. This is not to say that people cannot find those in other groups attractive, but that the preference tends to be towards one’s own national and cultural group. Because the original sexual drive is diffuse, it can thus be conditioned in many different directions.14

For this reason, a variety of experiences, many of which have little to do with the person himself or herself, can cause one to become a homosexual, depending on the degree that one’s early diffuse sex drive is conditioned toward persons of the same sex and away from persons of the opposite sex. Holmes noted that

‘In many women, particularly, sexual attraction tends to follow on the heels of strong emotional attachments with partners of either sex.’15

Thus this gradual process can occur if the proper conditions—which are extremely diverse, and not yet fully delineated by research—exist. We are all susceptible to homosexual conditioning, at least until our sex drive becomes fairly solidified.16 The longer an orientation is rewarded and successfully persists, the more difficult it is to change. In addition, if one fully believes that homosexuality is ‘part of me, the way I am’, similar to one’s having black hair, change is obviously going to be more difficult. If one has concluded that most homosexuality is learned or acquired due to pathological biological factors because of a specific set of abnormal circumstances which influence development, as creationist psychology theory would predict, the person will recognize that the homosexual can change, even though it may be difficult.17

The evolution explanation
In contrast, the Darwinian view explains the sexual drive and all behaviour as solely a product of survival of the fittest selection. That is, organisms with a strong heterosexually oriented drive produce more of their kind, and are more successful, and those lacking it produce fewer offspring and are, therefore, more likely to become extinct.18 Evolution teaches that the source of sex is ‘biological … written by natural selection’.19 Since nature would consistently select those organisms with stronger heterosexual drives, it would become stronger and stronger until it would eventually become the all-encompassing human drive, more important than food and other life preservation needs. Evolution would not select for length of life beyond childbearing years, but primarily for the number of offspring that an individual was able to produce.20,21

Reproduction rates are not just of major importance in evolution, but are critical because high rates provide the numbers for evolution to select from—and a greater sample size means greater chances exist that more ‘fitter species’ will occur. Homosexuality would obviously usually not produce higher levels of reproduction than heterosexuality—evolutionary selection would consistently work in the opposite direction, selecting for heterosexuality—and any biological factors positively influencing homosexual feelings would rapidly be selected out. Homosexuality is thus not easy to explain from this world view. Heterosexuality is so critical for evolution that Fox stated:

‘During the course of my own [research] pursuit, Darwin loomed larger and larger He provided the major idea within which all else fits: There is ultimately only one life process—natural selection. This truth, once grasped, changes the world for an observer, as it changed it for Marx for example. But Darwin supplies a secondary theory—that of sexual selection, which is the way natural selection connects with the issues that concerned Freud: incest and aggression. Sexual selection has two sides: the competition between members of one sex (usually male) for mates from the other, and the choice exercised by the other (usually female) in picking mates from the competitors. Through this process, genes are differentially distributed in populations, and this can lead to significant evolutionary changes.’22

Nonetheless, evolution theory would not necessarily view homosexuality as ‘abnormal’ or ‘unnatural’, only a less successful mode of reproductive behaviour. To evolution, nothing is ‘normal’ in the sense of moral or appropriate compared to some universal standard or value. The only ultimate value in evolution is the degree to which a trait produces either a selection advantage or disadvantage. Aside from this, they say heterosexuality is not better, or more or less normal or desirable than homosexuality, especially if they both satisfy many of the same needs such as companionship, association, security, and sexual satisfaction. To a consistent evolutionist it thus makes no difference whether these needs are satisfied within a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. Homosexuality today actually could be viewed as more desirable from a secular standpoint because it could reduce population problems:

‘Whether the result of deprivation or a natural tendency for the organism, homosexuality also serves evolutionary processes by acting as a form of population control … as more gay families emerge fewer children will be born … A homosexual solution to overpopulation, however, will not simply happen by itself… If homosexuality is to have a limiting effect on population growth, we must remove the stigma surrounding gay relationships. For it is this very shame that encourages so many gays to contract heterosexual relationships and have children as a means of coping with or covering up personal deviance. Facilitating greater acceptance will not only provide peace of mind to gay people but will also benefit heterosexuals and indeed the entire world by providing a humane method of controlling overpopulation.’23

Emanating from the pure evolutionary approach would also be the assumption that no behaviour is ‘right or wrong’, ‘good or bad’, and any behaviour that results in pleasure (and does not hurt anyone, most would add) is fully proper. Life has no purpose, at least no long-term purpose, aside from what we give it, nor does our behaviour. Consequently judgments cannot be made, except in terms of survival or reproductive advantage.24 The sexual organs are the way they are solely because they supposedly evolved that way as a result of selection, time and chance; not because they were created for a specific purpose. Thus, no ‘wrong’ way to use them. Painful or dysfunctional ways—but not ‘wrong’ ways. Further, if a selective advantage can be envisaged for homosexuality, it could be argued it is ‘normal’ in the sense that nature selected for it:

‘There is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficent behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organisation. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some mankind’s rare altruistic impulses.’25

On the selective advantage of homosexual behaviour, a model called kin selection, Wilson speculates:

‘How can genes predisposing their carriers towards homosexuality spread through the population if homosexuals have no children? One answer is that their close relatives could have had more children as a result of their presence. The homosexual members of primitive societies could have helped members of the same sex, either while hunting and gathering or in more domestic occupations at the dwelling sites. Freed from the special obligations of parental duties, they would have been in a position to operate with special efficiency in assisting close relatives.’26

This ad hoc explanation, though, has little if any support from contemporary research, and much evidence against it. The major problem is that little evidence exists for any view except that homosexual behaviour was anything but rare or unknown in ‘primitive’ societies. Ruse concludes that all ‘evolutionary explanations’ models of homosexuality are inadequate and problematic, including theories of kin selection, superior heterozygote fitness, parental manipulation, and homosexuality as a maladaptive side of intensive natural selection for superior adaptive male heterosexual behaviour, selected because the maladaptive behaviour comes along with the adaptive.27

Do ‘homosexuals’ exist?
In my decade of working at various psychology clinics, I have queried all of my ‘homosexual’ clients as to whether they were erotically attracted to the opposite sex. All of them said that they were, and most all said that they liked women as friends. I have always found it intriguing that virtually all of them did not fit the common definition of homosexual—a person sexually attracted to their own instead of the opposite sex—but all were to some degree bisexual. Many were once married and most had sexual encounters with the opposite sex. Furthermore, Masters’ and Johnson’s scientific studies of persons labelled homosexual and lesbian have found that both groups consistently listed heterosexual encounters as highly erotic, actually at the top of a list of their erotic fantasies. In one study both male and female homosexuals listed a ‘heterosexual encounter’ as their third most common sexual fantasy!28 This finding also supports the conclusion that most of those persons labelled gay are, at best, in varying degrees bisexual—especially in view of the fact that many also have heterosexual relations, and many were once married and had families. In the words of Byne:

‘To understand how biological factors influence sexual orientation, one must first define orientation. Many researchers, most conspicuously Simon LeVay, treat it as a sexually dimorphic trait: men are generally ‘programmed’ for attraction to women, and women are generally programmed for attraction to men … The validity of this ‘intersex’ expectation is questionable … sexual orientation is not dimorphic; it has many forms. The conscious and unconscious motivations associated with sexual attraction are diverse even among people of the same sex and orientation. Myriad experiences (and subjective interpretations of those experiences) could interact to lead different people to the same relative degree of sexual attraction to men or to women. Different people could be sexually attracted to men for different reasons; for example, there is no a priori reason that everyone attracted to men should share some particular brain structure.’29

Given this, the often unstated but common inference that ‘gays’ in general are attracted to the same sex with the same power that heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex—also sexually repelled to the opposite sex as heterosexuals are to the same sex—is not justified. The labelling process dichotomizes, distorts, and should be rejected by both sides. Studies of homosexuals and heterosexuals have found that the two groups are similar on most traits because most ‘gay’ persons are to some degree heterosexual. The contrast is the label, and this is what has an enormous influence on one’s self-identity, which is a major influence in causing homosexual behaviour.

‘All of us have a wide range of erotic feelings. Societies define some of these as sexual and regulate the degree and the ways in which we are permitted to develop and express them. Homosexual behaviors probably have existed in all societies, but our current perception of homosexuality has its roots in the late nineteenth century. That is when people began to consider certain sexual behaviours to be the identifying characteristic of those who practised them. Homosexuality stopped being what people did and became who they were. As Michael Foucault writes in his History of Sexuality, until that time "the sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species".’30

The research generalization that exclusively homosexual persons who have no attraction for, and are sexually repulsed by, the opposite sex do not exist, but rather homosexual behaviour exists, is supported by other evidence. Studies of adolescents find that many young persons—22% according to one study—involve themselves in homosexual behaviour, especially in early adolescence.31 Further, a large number of prison inmates and males become involved in the so-called tea room trade.32 None of these persons, though, would define themselves as ‘gay’.33,34

Freud concluded that homosexuality was a stage that most boys grew out of, and that adults who involved themselves in homosexual behaviour simply had never matured beyond this developmental stage. This position, interestingly, has been the dominant view in the West. Greenberg concluded from his historical study that the category ‘homosexual’ is a late nineteenth century invention?35 Prior to that time, people did not refer to ‘homosexuals’ as a class of people. There were simply men who did different sexual things, including engaging in homogenital acts. They were viewed—in different cultures and to varying degrees—with puzzlement, tolerance, or often strong disapproval.

The level of the population that is exclusively homosexual has traditionally been placed at 10% , partly as a result of the 1940s Kinsey studies. Numerous new empirical studies in the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Britain and other countries reveal the rate is less than 3% and as little as below 1%.36,37 That the number varies from 0.9% of males in Norway to 2.8% found by the national opinion research centre at the University of Chicago for the United States of America, indicates that cultural factors are likely very influential. Further, according to a Minnesota adolescent health survey, only 0.6% of the boys and 0.2% of the girls surveyed identified themselves as ‘most of 100% homosexual’, 0.7% males and 0.8% females as bisexual, and 10.1% of the males and 11.3% of the females were ‘unsure’. This indicates that many individuals do not have a firm sexual orientation as an adolescent, and reveals the importance of social and sexual experiences in development.38

Although many factors are involved, it is my experience that a person is not a prisoner to his or her sexuality and to a large degree chooses a homosexual lifestyle. The unfortunate factor in this debate is that it is very difficult to reason about this topic with those who advocate that a ‘sexual orientation’ called ‘homosexual’ exists. They simply reject, ignore or distort the enormous amount of empirical data against their position. A clear need exists to understand the reasons why people adopt this lifestyle, and the difficulties of doing so in our, or any, society.

.

more

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp

 

[Gunny]

more

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i1/homosexual.asp

It would be way less painful if you'd just nail him to a tree and be done with him.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry but there are a lot of people who get married because they love each other, yet have no intention, or perhaps lack the ability to have kids. For example every couple who marries late in life can't have kids. What you're saying is simply wrong from a factual viewpoint.

Nope, society created marriage as a basis to form healthy families. Just because a couple cant have kids is no reason to stop them from marrying, it doesnt cheapen the institution one bit. Besides, society has no way of telling if they will have kids or not, its not a plausable test to determine if they are "marriageable" or not. Its irrelevant, too many variables. Adoption, invetro , etc, many who thought they wouldnt or couldnt, wind up doing so.

Homosexuals on the other hand cant conceive amongst themselves. so, by definition, if two homosexuals marry and then have a kid, outside of adoption, adultery would be required.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Bestiality and homosexuality are 2 completely different subjects. One has consent and the other doesn't. Unless you have a talking dog that fully understands the ins and outs of marriage then the dog can't consent to marry you. I thought you were smarter than this.

You think speech is the only form of language. I guarantee you its very easy to find a consenting horny male dog. Havent you ever had your leg humped?

 

[cee_em_bee]

My question is, if Homosexuality is genetic, wouldnt it work itself out of existence? Simple logic would suggest that homosexuals CANT have children and therefore the gene should be removed from the society. This leads me to believe that its not just genetic. Its a product of society as well as genetic. By creating a culture of bi-curious individuals, we continue the spread of the gay-gene through people that should NOT be having children.

Theoretically that would happen. But unfortunately, a sizeable percentage of Homosexuals live in denial for alot or all of their lives and have their own kids, If people were more open to fags(or even embracing) they'd eventually dissapear because there wouldn't be any need to live in denial. Bit of a catch 22 isn't it.

But then again, the other theory of homosexuality is hormone imbalances that can happen to anyone.

 

[Said1]

If people were more open to fags(or even embracing) they'd eventually dissapear because there wouldn't be any need to live in denial. Bit of a catch 22 isn't it.

But what about adoption and those who argue that homosexuality is environmental?

 

[Powerman]

But what about adoption and those who argue that homosexuality is environmental?

Better than a foster home...

 

[Said1]

Better than a foster home...

Thanks, that explains everything.