The Columbus Dispatch interviewed Democrat Ted Strickland and Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Ohio gubernatorial candidates and asked them for their views on issues of faith and values. One question The Dispatch asked was, Is homosexuality a sin, and can gays be cured?

Strickland said, "I am not in the business of deciding who is and who is not a sinner. In answer to your second question...I feel like even as a psychologist I would not want to answer because every individual is an individual, their personalities, their traits are all unique, and so I would not want to say."

Strickland added, ""I think the scientific literature indicates that it is likely that homosexuality is in fact something that is not learned, but I wouldn’t want to say that that’s the situation in all cases."

Blackwell said, “I think homosexuality is a lifestyle, it’s a choice, and that lifestyle can be changed. I think it is a transgression against God’s law, God’s will. The reality is, again, … that I think we make choices all the time. And I think you make good choices and bad choices in terms of lifestyle. Our expectation is that one’s genetic makeup might make one more inclined to be an arsonist, or might make one more inclined to be a kleptomaniac. Do I think that they can be changed? Yes.”

Link

As you might have guessed, Strickland's answer aroused no controversy in comparison to Blackwell's.

The question for debate is:

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?



Edited with nighttimer's permission to revise debate question(s).

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?

Since I'm not gay, it's hard for me to say. I know my sexuality is not a chosen lifestyle any more than eating is a lifestyle. When I see a hot woman, I know what I like. It's not a preference that I believe I could change. I'm guessing it's the same for homosexuals.

I've seen where religious groups have tried to "change" homosexuals, but it really doesn't seem to work. Even if the person claims to be changed, that usually proves to be a front.

Personally I don't think it's changeable, aside of a labotomy or such. I think it's the same with child predators, maybe arsonists or kleptomaniacs....or heterosexuals. I think if you have the desire, you will most likely always have that desire.

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?

It may be learned at a very early age. People's sexuality may be determined by things that happen during early growth. But I don't think you can change it once a person is grown.

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?

Until we find a gay gene or something similar, it's all speculation. But I think it's still an informed decision without precise scientific evidence or proof.

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?
I don't agree, but even if I did, why would I care about changing the behavior of homosexuals? Homosexuals are not committing illegal acts that hurt others, like arsonists and kleptomanics do.

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?
Yes, but as I said, it doesn't really matter.

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?
Maybe is just me, but I seriously don't get this debate at all. "Lifestyle choice" or not, its all the same in the end. Why is homosexuality better or worse depending on the reason for people becoming homosexual. Shouldn't people be allowed to be homosexuals, no matter what reason there is for it?

Why is this topic even discussed on a political level - how is it even a political question, even taking gay marriage into the equation? Is there movement to make a law demanding we have rehab clinics to "cure" homosexuals?

1.) While I agree it is a chosen pursuit, I don't necessarily see a point in taking a stance on whether or not it can be changed. No one is harmed by another person being homosexual like they would be hurt if the person in question were an arsonist, etc. I suppose if someone wanted to change it, they could.

2.) I partially think it is. No one is born heterosexual, they learn that behavior from watching a majority of people around them. The attractions are not enough unless it is reinforced by something.

3.) Not really. Since when has scientific evidence swayed the minds of those with strong opinions on any issue?

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?

While I will admit the idea that in a free society some people could come to desire being homosexual or even come to engage in such, I will also admit in a free society to hold or see no reason why such bias is even being subjugated on anyone that does choose to be or is homosexual. Furthermore that idea is scary, being that person accepts the idea of putting people in socialization camps to make them "correct" or "pure" if you will, sounds a bit nazish to me in all actuality.


2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?

I will agree that much research has pointed towards the idea that homosexuality is not only learned. Many times when people are born with both sex organs they are giving a sex via operation without seeing what sexual preference that person may hold. As far as it being learned, well, puberty let me know I like females, not to be to gross, I really doubt save for the most attention starved people to be able to live a homosexual life if that was truly not them via nature. Though that could be my own perception of it of course being homosexuality exists in prison systems, but in that light there is a reason to the rhyme in that case, but why would you make the choice in a free society to be something that is openly hated for the most part when there is a tons of single women around? Its not only this but homosexuality is also found in other organisms that are sexual in reproduction, maybe its one of those issues of ignorance really.

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?

Most likely, I trust science and the scientific method and science has not reached 100% on that one yet. I will also say that I cannot find any real reason why to discriminate against homosexuality, being it in no way detracts from my own personal liberty in any form.

I have a friend who explained this "nature vs. nuture" idea about homosexuality to me like this. Who would wake up one morning and deliberately choose to become an object of hatred and scorn? Who would choose to have their friends turn their backs, their families disown them, their co-workers make you the focus of their jokes?

Who would choose to give up the safety in numbers of heterosexuality to become a sexual outlaw by "choosing" to be homosexual? The safe move in a culture that fears what it doesn't understand is to be straight or at least fake it.

Even the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 stopped equating being gay with being mentally ill. A kleptomaniac steals because they are compelled to do so. Arsonists set fires that kill people because they get off on setting fires. Who gets harmed if my brother is gay or my sister is a lesbian? Not me and not them.

Ken Blackwell chooses to be a homophobic idiot. Where does he go to get cured for that?

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?
Yes. As a lifestyle, homesexuality is chosen. As a preference, usually.

Exhibit 1: Anne Heche

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?
As a generalization, no. In almost most cases, it is learned behavior. Again, the preference is marginally less likely to be "learned."

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?
The legions of "gay" men who have children provide sufficient information to decide that as a biological fact, homosexuality is irrelavent.

It may be of interest to note some other opinions held by J. Kenneth Blackwell.



The highlighted text is all you really need to know about this candidate. Fortunately, there seems to be an encouraging nation-wide trend against this sub-group of American conservatism. Not only is Blackwell about twenty points behind Strickland in the polls, but we have had voters reject the electoral dreams of Roy Moore and Ralph Reed. This doesn't mean that the American culture is any less conservative, or any less religious. It only means that persons of all kinds of beliefs are starting to wake up to the fact that eroding the separation of church and state would be bad for everyone.

As far as the questions for debate go, it seems a little silly to ask what "causes" heterosexuality or bisexuality or homosexuality or asexuality. Why is it that I like silk and lace, and I hate latex and leather? Why do I think gender bending is fun, but I think BDSM is a huge turn-off? Human sexuality is much too complex for simple answers.

It is certainly possible for the sexual behavior of an individual to change in response to many different factors, both internal and external. In this sense only, one would have to admit that it is theoretically possible to "cure" someone of heterosexuality or any other orientation. But why would you want to? Only in a society which punishes heterosexuality does this make any kind of sense. In such a case, clearly the society needs to be cured.

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?
To a certain degree it is a choice. After all, a homosexual man can either choose to go into a gay bar or choose not to. After all, there's many heterosexual men who don't go to bars and chase after women. Now the desire itself, that's another thing. A homosexual person can choose not to chase another homosexual of the same sex. But nothing can really stop that person from watching Pro Wrestling on Friday night and fantasizing about his favorite wrestler.

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?

No, I do not agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a learned lifestyle. I compare it to alcoholism, in that it has both genetic and environmental causes. Both can be altered, but neither will ever "cure" a person. A person who is homosexual or alcoholic will always have the temptations with them the rest of their life.

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?

Yes, I agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior. The environmental causes of homosexuality is more likely trauma-induced (subconscious behavior), rather than "learned" (conscious choice).

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?

I think there is sufficient information and study to indicate that homosexuality is a disorder caused by a myriad of genetic, biological, chemical, and environmental stimuli. From a purely scientific standpoint, I do not see much difference in the causes of alcoholism and homosexuality.



Edited with nighttimer's permission to revise debate question(s).
[/quote]

Exhibit 1 is a bad example. We can argue that heterosexuality is a sham by stating:

Exhibit 2: Anna Nicole Smith

I agree with the term "preference" because it's very similar to someone who has a preference for soy milk because they're lactose intolerant. Sure they can drink regular milk, they may get sick, they can even pretend to like it if they get paid to say so, but they really don't like it.

Just because Anne Heche moved ahead in her career by saying she's gay, doesn't make her gay.

But regardless, if someone says that they prefer one sex over another, how can you say it's unnatural or a perversion? I know I couldn't "learn" to become homosexual, that's enough evidence for me that maybe a homosexual can't learn to be heterosexual.

Are you speaking from experience Bikerdad? Have you experimented? Just curious if you think you could learn to be gay.

And please provide a link to all these LEGIONS of gay men that have had children.

The fact that gay men act in a feminine manner leads me to believe that there's more to this than just learned behavior, that maybe like women who have different levels of hormones than men gay men also have a different physical makeup than straight men.

Please explain how the case of Ann Heche (a bisexual actress) proves that homosexuality is a chosen "lifestyle". I personally do not remember when I "chose" my sexuality. Do you?



Do you have any evidence to back up this asertion, that homosexuality is a learned behavior? Any evidence at all, or is this just an unsupported opinion, like Blackwell's?

1. I'm not so sure that it can be undone once it has been done, because one could not expect a heterosexual man to "convert" his sexual orientation after a certain point. I'm sure you could re-orient a homosexual person if they are early in their exploration of the practice, though.

2. No, I think that homosexuality is at least partly a choice. I mean, no one is BORN a homosexual. Homosexuality, to me, seems to be derived from who the person hangs out with (example: if a guy has been only hanging out with girls since 1st grade, I really don't see how he could be anything BUT feminine), personal habits (I don't know exactly what those are), and giving in to curiosity. I mean, I do imagine a lot of "What would happen" and "What if" scenarios, but I don't carry out 99% of them. The people that think that Republicans think that homosexuality is just flipping a switch on or off are just wrong.

3. I think we can draw conclusions. But, I think we will discover what part of homosexuality is by choice and what part is buy the pure nature of an individual within the next 10 years.

As an endnote, does anyone know the state of homosexuality before the 1970s? As in, what was the status of such relationships (or were they all suppressed to the point where they forced themselves to be heterosexual?)

In other words, who would choose to buck a trend? Plenty of people. Personally, I would wonder who would choose to disfigure themselves with the most gaudy body-piercing and tattoos. I wonder who would choose to enjoy physical pain, or to do all kinds of other whacked-out things to themselves. But many, many do, often for reasons known only to themselves. The fact that something may seem like a crazy choice doesn't mean it isn't a choice. It's just a fact of life that people do crazy things, even those who act sane most of the rest of the time.


You're starting a new line of inquiry that wasn't addressed by your initial debate questions. You weren't asking if there's harm in homosexuality. You were just asking if it was a choice. Are kleptomaniacs and arsonists "born that way"? Or do they make a choice? And the same questions you asked above could just as well apply to them: Who would choose to do things that only end up getting themselves in trouble?

Who would wake up one morning and decide that they really want to be a heroin addict?

Who would wake up one morning and decide that they would prefer to have sex with small children?

Who would wake up one morning and choose to drink their livers to pieces?

Why do people wake up and choose to be biggots and kooky racists?

My stand on this is that no one really knows what causes homosexuality, but NT, even heterosexuality is a life-choice. I married my wife NEARLY completely at my own free will!

The unfortunate reality of Americans is that we've become sensitive to certain groups due to social pressure that we deem appropriate, while completely still leaving other groups on the fringe by arbitrarily choosing to do so. If gay people decided to have sexual relationships with people of the same-sex, then that was a choice they made. Plain and simple.

I have a theory about homosexuality and the culture relation to mental health that can't completely be substantiated, but does argue the chicken before the egg theory...
Check this site out.

Basically, the information shows that substance dependency and HIV cases in the homosexual population are higher than in the general population. I have a general notion that gays and lesbians tend to be more likely to have problems with depression and anxiety related issues. I have read cases and information that discuss the coorelation to drugs/alcohol and homosexuality, etc. What I'm saying is that homosexuality very well may be a life-choice made when "fitting in" seems to fall out of sight? When normalcy, feeling good, being on an "even keel" isn't an option anymore, maybe (just maybe) finding solace in the gay community works for some people.

Regardless... everything we do is a choice. Even not choosing to do something is a choice... even calling someone a "homophobic idiot" to attempt to prove a point is a choice...

1. There are elements of a chosen lifestyle inside the "gay" scene but the desire and sexuality are only very rarely a learned response. Mostly it is a matter of nature rather than nurture. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...critter19m.html for example shows the recurring nature of this behaviour in the natural kingdom, outside of human concepts of morality or ethics.

2. Given the above as an example? Yes. 99% of the time it is not a learned behaviour though enviroment can affect how willing people are to expose their desires or fears.

3. I think we have substantial information and evidence but that certain groups have substantial agenda and are quick to diminish sensible and articulate discussion of the subject.

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?

Why stop the comparison at arson and theft? Why not extend it into conservatism? Seems to me that conservatives, at least those on the far right, like to blow things up, which is arson on steroids. Seems that they like to take things from the American people, too. You know, such as rights and money.

That behavior can be changed by not voting for the far right wingers. Take the power away, and there you go.

Anyway, so what if homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, as defined by some of the answers (strong tendency with free will decisions)? It isn't illegal like arson and theft. Should we make it illegal? Should we make conservatism illegal? Sometimes I wonder. But let's just say I don't agree with Blackwell at the basis of his argument.

I do agree that any behavior can be modified with sufficient intimidation. Locking them up would be one way. Capital punishment would be another. Brainwashing with torture might work. I don't think any of these things should be done.

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?

Homosexuality is not a behavior. It is a state of sexuality that might lead to certain behaviors, including denial. That's certainly learned.

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?

Oh sure we do. I never made a choice to be heterosexual, but I did learn how to make love to a woman. The basics were built in, but not the effective techniques. That's enough information for me.

I have a strong tendency toward heterosexual activity, and by dawg, I'm a master at it.

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?
Generalities in this debate inevitably fail the sniff test. I do think some people choose to become homosexual or desire to explore that side of the sexual culture. I also think some are born that way. I do not believe this is an either or question. For those innately inclined, I believe the behavior cannot be cured. Though frankly, I don't see this as something requiring a cure. That would imply something wrong with the behavior, and I don't believe that is the case.

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?
See answer 1. I believe both is possible. People with a proclivity to experiment sexually could find homosexuality to their preference after some exploration.

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?
Not really. I think we've learned a lot in this area in the past 20 years, but frankly I think its a moot point. The only thing this debate accomplishes is a continuation of the stigma attached to homosexuality. No one asks if heterosexuality is a choice. Then again, I think it was Plato or another of his like who argued that all children were innately bisexual. /shrug

Good job w/ talking about Arson or Theft, but what about chemical dependency? What about arguing some of the more factual information on this thread as opposed to trashing a political philosophy. We could also make snide remarks about liberals, but it would have nothing to do with the debate.

I believe that social arguments could be made towards behaviors such as drinking large amounts of alcohol (ie alcoholism). Most people don't advocate or feel comfortable with their children spending large amounts of time with alcoholics, and many Americans would also argue this with homosexuals. Is homosexuality a disease? Is Alcoholism? How do we really know? I suppose that all depends on culture. Mormans wouldn't want their kids hanging out with a staunch Cajun family that views drinking as more socially acceptable, just as many strong Southern Baptists (whom often preach against homosexuality) may not want their kids to hang out with a lesbian couple. Right or wrong undoubtedly depends on your place in society...

Maybe physical attraction isn't a behavior, and I'll give the argument that. However, acting upon it is. I suppose this could be likened to someone that likes to pick up prostitutes or any other sexually deviant behavior that sits on the fringe of society. America as a culture (and really western society regardless of what you'd like to believe) hasn't embraced homosexuality as a mainstream idea.

While I feel that biologically I was hard-wired to have an attraction to women, I chose to like Southern Women with lighter hair who are in the 5'3"-5'9"+ range in height. I learned over time to like women with southern accents, with brown eyes, and women who are closer to a size 6 than a 0. These all really I believe are learned, and not innate. This, in my eyes, is most likely what happens to many homosexuals. I believe that homosexuality is more a choice in lifestyle than a sexual preference. In America, if someone doesn't exhibit the "homosexual traits" socially that often are associated with such a preference, we often don't know. Dressing or acting in a manner that society associates with homosexuality is something someone chooses to do... as is having sex with someone of the same gender.

Trying to justify the position that homosexuality is a choice certainly does result in a lot of clutching-at-straws speculation.

I never made a choice to be attracted to women. As far as I know, neither did my sister, who is a lesbian. Your sexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" or a rebellious statement. It's just a description of the gender to whom you are sexually attracted. If a lot of guys turn you on, but no women ever did, then that's your sexuality. I can no more help being attracted to women than I can help hating the taste of tomato & cucumber salad. It was never a "choice".

Has anyone who claims that our sexuality is a choice actually talked to a gay person about it, or done any research? Or is the argument merely a matter of speculation, off the top of your head?

Yes but then you have to say in terms of absolute fact that biologically speaking no single person can ever be homosexual and that it is as some would put in nothing more then a lifestyle. There is already much that can be used to counter that argument really, such as the fact homosexuals in terms of arousal in bodily pheromones do not exhibit those natural inclination to the opposite sex but to the same sex, this is not a conscious behavior, moreover its something that people consciously really never notice save when actually tested in a lab room with sexless bottles of odor(it’s a biological aspect to reproduction with mechanisms such as the immune system)and that is but one aspect from a boatload that can be served up to point to the idea that homosexuality is not simply just a learned or chosen lifestyle. Even so, its not being an arsonist or being drug dependent, its being an adult and choosing to have sex with another adult in your home really that is being subjected to bias, hardly sounds like hitting the mainline that burning a building down, but i can see how such can be confused really

Then on the other end of it you have to accept that this lifestyle should be persecuted from a perspective of the government. So now we would have religion in government persecuting people in the populous? Sorry that does not sound American in the slightest sense to me at all in any form, to accept this means you really should not complain about civil rights when leftists want to take your guns away.

It comes down to the issue that we do not have 100% scientific fact to back up a great many things in our reality, and on that note we have to put ignorance in some form in that x in terms of understanding things, this is common sense to me in so many ways. Moreover even when science does have fact its hard to get it accepted, it took sometime for people to accept the earth was not the center of the universe if memory serves, and you still have so much of that freely breeding in society that its scary, its like taking a science quiz and simply putting some religious idea as the answer for every question, or maybe living in Kansas.

My history may be a little fuzzy, but I don't think it was conservatives who torched the Davidian homestead in Waco, or who want to raise taxes and take people's guns away. But regardless of that little technicality, your point is basically sound, which is that otherwise rational people have been known to do certain things, even compulsively, that are not rational (such as vote for leftists). It doesn't mean that it's somehow hammered into their genetic code.

There are all kinds of reasons why people do the things they do. I don't think there's a single aspect of any person's behavior that anyone can definitively point to and say that the person was born that way, unless it's so obviously necessary to his survival (and even then it's not a guarantee, because it could still be learned), or unless actual genetic studies have shown a clear correlation (and even then, it could simply be a genetic predisposition, not necessarily a genetic imperative).




I'm sure she didn't make a conscious choice, anyway. Likewise, few people make a conscious choice to be anorexic. But that doesn't mean that it's not a learned behavior on some level.

To put it another way, most people who are attracted to people of a given gender are not attracted to every single person of that gender. There's usually some other factor (such as weight) that determines attractiveness. But in earlier eras, men seemed to be more attracted to more heavyset women than they are now. Is that an inborn difference, or a learned difference? I'd have to almost certainly say the latter.

I'm just coming out of the woodwork to comment on this statement, which I think is at the heart of this issue.

You say you married your wife of your own free will. I married my husband of my own free will, too. But that analogy is like comparing apples to rutabagas. That is, sure you choose the INDIVIDUAL you end up with, but did you choose the attraction itself? I've been attracted to all sorts of different types of men/boys in my lifetime, but I didn't choose to be attracted to MEN in general at any time in my life...I just was. I didn't wake up one day in Kindergarten and say "you know, I think I'm going to decide to be attracted to boys", and I'm fairly certain that none of the other straight folks here can pinpoint the time at which they "decided" that they were straight.

My opinion is that it makes the most sense to listen to what the people who ARE GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) say. I mean, aren't they the most likely people to KNOW one way or the other whether or not it was a choice? I've only ever met ONE GLBT (he was "gay") individual in my entire life who said he CHOSE to be gay...that it was a conscious decision he made one day. On the other hand, I've known well over 100 GLBT folks who've said it's NOT a choice they made...that they knew the moment they had any sort of attraction (early elementary is when most people I know have said they "knew") but that they didn't know that they were "GAY" per se until they were older and knew what being "GAY" meant.

I just find it interesting that people can so easily overlook the "opinions" of the "experts"...GAY people. Heck, I've been physically attracted to darker skin since I can remember (my first school crush was on a black boy in my kindergarten class and my first and only real celebrity infatuation was with Michael Jackson, again in kindergarten - before all of his transformations) and I never CHOSE that attraction...it just was. Why should I (or anyone else) believe that same-sex attraction is any different?

Despite the number of times I've debated this issue, I never cease to be amazed by those who proclaim to have insight into something they clearly know nothing at all about. By some evidently supernatural ability, you, and those who argue like you offer in depth analysis of the "gay psyche". Since you are NOT gay yourself, clearly your ability to do so must be supernatural. That aside, I'll move onto the point.

I'm going to share with you my first hand accounting of how I became gay so that you may put your mind at ease once and for all on this matter. Since I am gay, I think I might be a little more authoritative on the subject than you are, sir. Allow me in advance to say that no matter how many studies conducted by "homo-ignorant" (I won't call them homophobic, they're not scared, merely misinformed) straight people you link to, no one is going to provide for you a better insight into this matter than I can... Obviously. If you'd like to argue my credentials as an authority on homosexuality, I'll simply let you talk to my life-partner, and he can detail them for you.

I was born, much in the same way that you were. I grew up, probably similarly to the way you did, in a house with my family, a dog and a cat. I probably played a lot of the same childhood games that you did. Sounds reasonably "normal", I think. I could actually end it here, because that pretty much says it all, but I'll fill you in on what ensued.

When I grew into adolescence and all of my friends were starting to look at girls, and I wasn't, I thought maybe there was something wrong with me. Of course, you can understand how this sort of thing might cause distress in a young teenage mind. Was I stunted in my development? Was there a reason why I'd still be thinking that girls were "yucky" when all of my friends would drool over them? It really gets you to thinking, and can be quite disconcerting, especially given the lack of any sort of information about sexuality other than simple "plumbing" books that are doled to young teens.

The fact was, I had always been fascinated with other males, even from my earliest memories. Not something I'd ever really thought much of, since sexuality wasn't really something we talked much about with the family or with anybody else at that time. As I grew I had begun fantasizing about males, much in the same way I'd imagine that you did about females.(I'm not an authority on heterosexuality, so feel free to correct me if you never fantasized about females.) I never really said anything to anyone about it. That was just the sort of thing one kept to himself, generally.

I had heard a certain 3-letter word beginning with "f" that we need not use here, tossed around very regularly as a youth and at some point asked someone, I cannot remember specifically who at this point, but it's here nor there, exactly what it was and why it was such a bad name to call someone. I'm sure I'd even used the term myself more than once, ribbing friends and such. I don't think I need to explain what it means to anyone reading this, but it suffices to say that I became quite horrified to come to the understanding that I was one of [b]THEM[b]! How could that be?!?!

So, like so many others, I began to withdraw. I became depressed, my grades dropped off, and frankly, I just didn't care about much of anything, except of course, keeping my shameful secret. When you see people tormenting the kid that everybody just knows is gay because he's so effeminate, beating on him, shoving him into lockers, dunking his head in the toilet, spitting on him and such, you tend to become very fearful that someone is going to find out about you, so you really try to avoid such people. When such people are all around you such as in a school in a small town, you tend to avoid everyone. It's a lonely existence, I assure you. I still count myself lucky that I was never particularly effeminate and that those same sorts of torture I detailed didn't befall me.

At about age 15, when my peers saw that I wasn't really much into girls at all, people started to talk, of course. You know, the typical high-school hallway banter. So at this point, I decided that I was going to try to be straight. I started dating a young lady who'd expressed interest in me to a mutual friend. Nothing sexual ever occurred between the two of us, though, not for lack of trying on her part, I assure you. The reason was that she just wasn't a male. I had no physical attraction at all to her, and so, it didn't work out. My dating her had at least hushed the rumors about me for the most part.

In any case, I've since fully accepted who I am, and could frankly care less what you or anybody else thinks about me. The only reason I've taken the time to reply to your blind suppositions about my sexual orientation is so that perhaps, someone out there who may bother to take the time to read this thread may learn from it; Maybe even begin to view "gays" as individual human beings and not just things you see on the news from time to time, or read statistics about while attempting to prove how evil homosexuality is.

I do hope, though, that you've taken note of the fact that nowhere in my account was any sort of choice as to which sex I'm attracted to ever made. The reason it was omitted was that no such choice was ever actually made. So there you have it. Straight from the gay guy's mouth. No longer will you have any need to speculate on the matter.

I call Ken Blackwell a homophobic idiot because he wants to be the governor of my state, but equates thousands of its citizens as belonging to a criminal class just because they happen to have a different sexual orientation than his.

I think Ken Blackwell is a homophobic idiot because he once claimed if Martin Luther King Jr. were still alive he'd be a Black conservative like him but seems to have ignored Coretta Scott King when she said, "African Americans have suffered for too long because of prejudice and bigotry to be parroting the rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups who bash people because of their sexual orientation."

I think you call someone a homophobic idiot if they have engaged in a persistent, systematic and constant war against the human rights of gays and lesbians. Ken Blackwell has.

Becoming a heroin addict is both illegal and damaging to your health. Being a pedophile is both illegal and disgusting. Being a hopeless drunk isn't illegal until you get in a car and kill someone but it is damaging to your health. Choosing to a bigoted racist isn't illegal. It just means you're pathetic and stupid.

What does any of this has to do with homosexuality, Aevans176, because I don't know whether you are implying being gay is the same thing as being a heroin-addicted pedophile alcoholic racist or something else entirely?

I see you got my irony that the same argumentation technique can be used to trash the far right wing. The technique is wrong-thinking.

Yep, the wrong-thinking can be used to trash literally anything one choses to target.

So say homosexuality is all free choice. Now what? Do we make it illegal? Why? Just what is Blackwell getting at?

But most of us know that homosexuality is not all free choice. So, the premise is wrong.

I don't think that, for most gay people, it's a "learned" behavior. I think some people are simply wired that way. It may more the result of genetics, or hormone levels during pregnancy and infancy or something other than that. But the gay people I know have told me that they were "always" that way. It isn't like they one day woke up and decided that it would be a cool thing to do. I'm sure there are a few cases where peer pressure and the influence of a subculture influenced someone into "trying" that way of life. But outside of Hollywood and the strip club / porno scene, I don't think it's all that common.

Can gay people be altered? Well, I suppose that the range of human adaptability is pretty wide and it's possible that one could "learn" to be different. I suppose we could hook them up to a shock collar and "condition" them to be averse to what excites them naturally... or threaten them with death or life imprisonment...but, turning them into "straight" people would truly be a "learned" behavior in contrast to the "natural" inclinations of the individual.

But, at the end of the day, "gay" people have been one of the permutations of man since we walked the earth. Many prominent gays have made huge contributions to our civilization, our culture, and society in general. What people do in the privacy of their sex lives should be private. It's really nobody's business.

The only person's sex life that I care about is mine.

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?

No.

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?

I believe that true homosexuality is not a learned behavior. There are people who experiment with it, there are people who are also truly bisexual and those for whom it is a fancy. But I believe that true homosexuality is not a learned behavior.

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?

I don't have enough information to make a definitive informed answer either way... we don't know enough about sexual development in the womb. Is it hormonal? Is it genetic? I'm inclined however, to believe that it is not necessarily environmental - though, I'm sure that can be a factor. We are complex beings... as just about every form of life on the planet is. Homosexuality is exists among other species in nature, it is therefore, reasonable to assume that it is a natural phenomenon.

Is homosexuality a "lifestyle choice" for bonobos?

It's pretty easy to see what's being "implied": if these other things are not inborn, despite being irrational, then that undermines the argument that homosexuality is inborn simply because it would be an irrational choice to make. Your problem here is that you desperately want aevans176 and others to have an extremist position so you can claim moral superiority over it, instead of addressing with what's actually being said.

Drunks, addicts, and racists share one thing in common with homosexuals in American society. They share a perceived label that puts them on the fringes of normalcy.

I like the notion of biggots in that it obviously enrages people, it envokes an emotion that people often don't rationalize. The thing that connects the two is that obviously there is no biological connection to homosexuality more than to biggotry. Many Americans, not necessarily myself, see both as irrational as the other.

I believe that people have a deep-rooted need to question anyone that doesn't prescribe to the "PC" notion about homosexuality, but moreover I personally am curious about root causes and how things happen.

Personal anecdotes tell half the picture in general, and obviously lack objectivity. I could tell you why people should move to the south, join the Marine Corps reserves, go to college at LSU, play golf, and run to stay in shape... but that's pretty one-sided don't you think? Those are all things I could sell passionately, and possibly even convincingly, but yet still lack an objective source.

The point that I obviously didn't articulate earlier in the thread is that I married a 5'9" brown haired, southern, small waisted/big busted (and of course Christian) woman with big brown eyes because this is the "type" of woman that I've learned to be attracted to. Why? Well, maybe because over time women of this "type" have been attracted to me. Maybe because values, social circles, and lifestyle choices made women of this "type" readily available. Our paths crossed throughout life, and over time it became hard wired... ? The notion obviously bears some truth. I never had any true exposure to dark haired jewish women, for instance, of course until my professional career began. This is also true of Indian women, Asian women, etc. Because my socio-economic status and geography, lighter haired "southern women" were prevalent, etc.

How come this couldn't happen to someone of an afeminate nature? Maybe people that possess certain personality traits end up getting pidgeon-holed? Maybe they attract a certain peer group? Peer groups often fulfill needs, to include those associated with sexuality. Prisons are great examples of how these things happen. Homosexual attractions often appear in prison from men that have never had a "gay" encounter before. Read this.

People are conditioned at levels far deeper than AD can discuss in one thread. My personal feeling is that in my experience with homosexual people, is that it's nearly impossible to label which came first... the chicken or the egg. Was someone born homosexual or did the lifestyle and social grouping gravitate someone towards such habits? How do you explain men that married, had children, then came "out"? This article discusses the notion... there are obvious social concerns, etc... but it's interesting to tout that many of these men whom had children w/ women must've at best been bi-sexual.

I don't believe that anyone that is not homosexual and doesn't prescribe to the notion that homosexuals are born that way are ignorant, just as I don't believe that people who do prescribe to this idea are ignorant either. NT, I also don't believe that because someone doesn't agree with the ever-growing infringement of homosexuality on American society that said person is ignorant or homophobic. I'm sure that in the evolution of Science in the world that there have been those that "disagree", and until someone can prove biological evidence of something that may cause homosexuality, it's hard for me to believe with certainty that there isn't a "nurture-based" root cause.

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?

Don’t necessarily agree with the analogy of an arsonist or kleptomaniac, if I’m not mistaken sexuality is controlled by a different part of the brain. But I don’t believe homosexuality is a chosen behavior and unlike Blackwell’s thinking it can’t be altered through treatment (and this guy wants to govern people???).

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?

I changed my mind on this after a first hand experience. My first sociology class taught that humans are born with one instinct, suckling as an infant, and the rest of our behavior is learned. At that time and for many years I thought that homosexuality was like any other learned behavior and was a choice.

Then I had a first cousin which I was more like a big brother to that went through a similar gut-wrenching experience like Stefan Fargas, he was absolutely miserable. I realized then that it must not be a choice else why would my cousin put himself through such a tough time. Why would anyone swim against the conservative current and be thought of as second class citizen and a sinner?

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?

We certainly can’t wait to find the “gay” gene or other scientific evidence before affording the same rights to homosexuals. There are times when common sense should prevail and considering what homosexuals have to endure should be proof enough.

And nighttimer, I may take up temporary residence just North of the river so I can vote to keep bigots like Blackwell out of office.

As the mother of a gay man, I can say that our entire family saw homosexual traits in my second son from when he was still very young. No one, to my knowledge, planted thoughts in his head to encourage him to act in a more feminine way, yet he did.

We were all surprised when he married a woman who already had a child, and then they divorced, almost inexplicably, after a short time. The official explanation was that the child's father came back to town and the former couple reconciled. I was surprised that my son did not harbor any animosity toward her for this.

Then, a couple of years later, my son formally "came out" to the family. When I asked him about the marriage, he told me that it was a test for him, that he had married her even though he wasn't sure he loved her and he was attracted to other men. He seemed a little surprised when I told him that his grandmother and I had suspected that he was gay for years.

Of course, Curmudgeon (the boys' stepfather) and I love and accept my sons, both of them, regardless of their sexual orientations.* My eldest son is a married heterosexual.

My son tried the heterosexual lifestyle, but it didn't work for him. I firmly believe that sexual preference is hardwired into a person's brain from the beginning. I don't know the source, but I remember hearing a newstory on television that when autopsies were conducted on known homosexuals, their brains did show some differences from heterosexual brains.

Of course, there are some lifestyle choices that we all make, but our sexual orientation is something that we are born with. Why do violent, so-called heterosexual men rape other men? Why do some otherwise avowedly heterosexual men like to dress up as women?

Why do some women dress up in high heels and pantyhose and wear makeup, while many of us (including myself) can't be bothered with all of that most of the time? Certainly there are "lipstick lesbians" while there are married mothers of children who look "butch" when they go to the supermarket.

But it is essentially what we are inside which determines our sexuality. The less true we are to ourselves, the less happy we probably are. We need to feel comfortable with ourselves outside as well as inside, and we should all be able to be honest with our family or friends, whether we are hetero "breeders" (such as I am) or are gay.

Clearly I disagree with Mr. Blackwell. I suspect that he would like to have "don't ask, don't tell" not only as military policy but for our society as well. And that is why there are so many closeted gays, especially some notable politicians, who astonish us when their secret lives are brought into the open.


*But their cigarette smoking is something that I worry about a lot!

Is it possible that a certain amount of masculinity and/or femininity is innate, but not the sexual orientation? If homosexual traits are "noticed" at early ages, what about the man in a homosexual relationship that appears to be more masculine?

I would venture to state that sexuality is something that is developed and is generally innate, but in some cases can be learned. I've thought about this on both sides of the fence, and near as I can tell sexual expression often seems to be a work in progress in most people, changing over time dependant upon experience and neccesity. Is it possible that certain forms of homosexuality arise due to neccessity?

1. Do you agree with Blackwell that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle AND can be changed as the behavior of an arsonist or kleptomaniac can be altered?

I think homosexuality is a spectrum, ranging from people who have made an entirely free choice right through to those who are "born gay", with the vast majority somewhere in the middle. Just like most heterosexuals. Was I "born straight"? I have no idea. Did I choose to be straight? Not really. After some sexual experimentation in late childhood/teens (the kind of prodding games pre-pubescent children often play when left to their own devices) I think I chose not to become gay or bisexual; while I have nothing against such people, I just can't bring myself to find my own gender attractive enough to want to sleep with them.

But is that a conscious choice that I rationally sat down and calculated out, or just a gut feeling of what was right for me? A gut feeling, obviously. Did that gut feeling arise from upbringing or a genetic predispostion to heterosexuality? There is no way could I possibly know; which leads me to the main flaw I see in the argument that homosexuality is a "choice". Even if it is, how many of us choose to feel the way we do? Homosexuality is about who you are attracted to - do I decide to find doe-eyed dark-complexioned women attractive, or does it just happen? Did my parents (both pasty-hued Anglo-Celts) sit me on their knees and tell me I should be drawn to the dusky? (No).

In short, I think the whole nature/nurture argument is flawed. It's a stalking horse for disapproval and rejection. If gays do what they do because they have chosen it freely, they are bad people. If because of their genes, they are poor wretches deserving pity (and treatment). Either way, the subtext is that homosexuality is in itself bad. THAT'S the argument that the conservative right who usually come up with nature/nurture debates are itching to have, but afraid to at the same time because they know that the West generally, and America in particular, is much more hostile to being told how to behave in their private lives than they are to what other people do with the freedom they hold so dear.

I think there is parallel to the way wider society thinks about the other widely frowned-upon manifestation of sexual orientation - paedophilia. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't intend to defend it - it clearly harms innocent victims, where homosexuality does not. (If homosexuals specialised in 'turning' straights by manipulation and/or force it might approach the harm paedophilia routinely dishes out.)

My point is that no lay people really worry about what causes paedophilia. Indeed, the assumption is usually that 'they' are some sort of warped inhuman monsters who cannot ever be fully rehabilitated, and so deserving of punishment anyway that the attempt should not be made. So why those hostile to homosexuality think there is one sort of sexual orientation that is a free choice (being gay), and another that is just warped animal compulsion without hope of a cure? Not to mention another, which is entirely natural and normal and healthy and is born into all 'good' people (heterosexuality).

2. Do you agree with Strickland that homosexuality is not a learned behavior?
Yes and no. I think upbringing can suppress or express mild predispositions, but can't do very much for strong ones.

3. Do you think we don't have enough information to make an informed decision either way?
Yes, I think we do. We do not yet know anything like enough about the influence of environment and genetics on behaviour and brain chemistry to be able to make such judgements. Or even of the relationship between behaviour & brain chemistry, never mind about what causes the chemistry.
I don't say that this is unknowable - we've learned a lot more on the subject in the past 30 or 40 years than in the previous 400,000 - but we are not yet at a point where we can really tell.

Though a report I hear don the news this morning of an MRI study in the USA (alas I can't find a link) had an interesting perspective, apparently when we hear an opinion contrary to our own, areas of the brain responsible for listening objectively switch off and other areas that are responsibile for hostility light up like christmas trees!

In short, I think the whole nature/nurture argument is flawed. It's a stalking horse for disapproval and rejection.

quoted from julian.

The nature/nurture debate is nothing more then an attempt to gain a factual understanding of people and their behavior from those two reduced areas, anything outside of that such as rejection would be left to people serving their interests. I would say though that a absolute understanding of such would aid the debate issue but such does not exist currently because people choose the dark side of the force to live in.

I will say this debate has opened my eyes though to a great many things. Its not only people that will pick up a banner and run with it to gain power but they are trying to gain this power from the people, so if that person agrees that homosexuality is a purely learned behavior and such people should be put in camps he must be saying this because out in society he can find support for such, what a positive thought about America, and I thought you got sent to prison for causing harm like writing bad checks. Moreover such a thought makes me glad I am hetero so I can escape a life of torture and social hang ups and the likes really, or get depressed to the point I become some drug addict because my family disowned me, after all its not like such sacrifices never come to light, or gay kids at public schools being beaten and left to die or what not, sounds like a choice I am hopping mad to make myself. I thought we said other cultures were barbaric for being so extreme, I would put a l o l but I don’t know if that’s something to laugh at in regards to social norms so I will just skip it.