Humans, the kings of the planet are obviously of a higher quality than mere animals, we are in our most basic makeup animals but yet really essentially different. My opinion however is that this great specie is falling fast, fallen from having control into being controlled. Humanity seem to have surrendered, we have given up being master and seem to be enjoying being slaves and to our own peril.

Chief among our new masters is the master called desire. How great is the percentage of our society that is addicted and greater yet is the percentage of us who are on our way to becoming addicts to something that our desire demands.

Addicted to sex, pornography, hard drugs, alcohol, religion …. just to name a few.
Homosexuality, elicit sex, child pornography, etc. are just some of the lifestyles that result from such a surrender. How long is it going to take us to find some very good reason why it should be OK for us all to have sexual relations with multiple partners. If we think hard enough we could come up with some very good reasons, even some scientific and historical ones.

I believe the real question here is what is truth, not just what is easy or who or what I am attracted to. If you feel a desire for sexual relations with an animal control yourself do not give in to it, to do that would be wrong. If you feel a desire for sexual relations with someone of the same sex control yourself do not give in to it, to do that would be wrong.

Care to explain why it would be wrong?

Is it wrong because you disagree with it or because there is no reproductive purpose to it? Is it wrong because you perceive this to be some additional surrender to what you call "our new master... called desire"?

Desire is nothing new. Since the Agricultural Revolution and the emergence of commerce, desire has been a major factor in civilizations. We have seen wars rage, and empires rise and fall as results of desire. Whether it is the desire for sex, money or power, I assure you such desire is not new.

Sexual relations with multiple partners has been a practice since the origin of life on this planet, practiced throughout the entire history of our species. This has been a part of nature seen in all forms of life from the lowest up to humans. Only in trying unsuccessfully to deny nature have there been movements to prohibit multiple sexual partners, homosexual partners, etc.


We are pursuing the truth in all discussions, but the real question here is whether or not homosexuality is the product of nurture or nature. All people can choose who they engage with sexually whether they are attracted to them or not. There does, however, seem to be evidence that the attraction to those of the same sex can be based upon nature, namely genetics.

However you might try to separate the human species from the rest of the animal kingdom based upon your idea of "quality," we are still very much bonded by our biological makeup. Without designating the capacity for consciousness to most lower life forms, other organisms are presumably controlled exclusively by nature via their genes. Manipulation of these genes has allowed scientists to essentially program homosexuality in test subjects.

There are certain genes scientists suspect may be behind homosexuality in humans, but they can not be verified through manipulation on the basis of medical ethics. As I said before, humans may choose who they engage with sexually regardless of attraction, whether it be with a person of the same sex or an unattractive member of the same sex. But if there are naturally hardwired attractions to those of the same sex then there certainly is a natural component behind the presence of human homosexuals.

A few questions, if I may:

How do you explain bisexual, transgendered folk - like me? Do I have the gay gene or not? You can't really say that I've "chosen" one or the other - I haven't, as a moment's thought would make plain.

I'm not trying to be a wiseacre, either - I'm totally sincere. If you met me, you couldn't discern my gender at all. The reason for that is very simple - I don't have one. There are quite a few more just like me - no gender identity.

This issue is a lot more complex than one would think. You really do need to step outside your "comfort zones" to see the issue clearly. I may very well be an exception, but I'm not the only one.

Basically, I just wanna know how you'd explain the situation I'm in.

Welcome, xyzzy! I am very glad to see representation here of the many, many people who do not easily fall into the neat categories of male/female and homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual. It is a reminder that human sexuality is extremely complex, and the "nature vs. nurture" debate is essentially a false one. There is no one "explanation" for an individual's sexuality. It may be interesting to study the countless factors involved, but it should have no effect on our acceptance and celebration of our diversity.

Careful, truth, I think you may have succumbed to the desire that everyone believe as you do. This desire is a cruel master, indeed - the addiction to which has lead to some of the greatest tragedies humankind has ever known. Would you care to tell us why you feel that your addiction is any less harmful than those you have decided to target? Or, like alcoholism, is your addiction "a disease that convinces you it is not a disease"? Was the desire which apparently controls your life the result of nature or nurture - do you believe you were born knowing what is best for everyone else on the planet or is this something you learned? Either way, do you feel there's some means of curing your addiction or are you going to be a victim of this controlling desire all your life?

Think about it, truth...

Humans are animals, albiet highly developed ones.



Sorry, but I I can tell you that you are wrong. There is no choice. Gene, or whatever the cause may be. There is no choice. None.

It is illogical to hold the view that it is a choice, as expressed very well here:

The "perks" of such a "choice"

It would be illogical in the extreme to choose such a thing.



Completely impossible.



Do you have any proof of these statements?

Especially considering that you hold an outside view, and cannot understand, nor have a motivation to.



It would not be. Although notably there is a severe overpopulation problem, but that is a side-issue.

I never heard anyone asking for the whole planet to become homosexual.

It would be impossible to do that in any case.



Being a Christian, I can tell you that it is also wrong to judge, as well as be a busybody in other men's matters.

I'm sure you are also very well spoken about how women must cover their hair and never speak in church or else they will have their hair cut off. Not wearing cothing of two different fibers.

And people who curse must be stoned, and it's ok to take slaves as long as they are from other countries. And so on.

But enough on the extemities of the Bible in some places. Those parts were written by men. Not God.

God would not judge people for being what they are. Christ would not call people abominations. Leviticius (the main book that condemns it) was the tribal laws for the tribe of Levi. If you are to hold it to your heart, then give me the head-up on when your next Bull sacrifice is.

You're welcome, Victoria.

I'm glad to see that you're open minded enough to accept us transgendered people as people. The fact that I have no physically obvious gender doesn't change that.

In this conformist society of ours, being "different" from the norm is a good way to wind up ostracised - or, in some cases, dead. All for the so called "sin" of being "different".

If you only knew just how difficult it is to be in a transgendered state, perhaps they'd be a bit more inclinod to sensitivity. Unfortunately, it seems that so many people would rather have their ignorance. Sigh...comfort zones are easier to deal with than reality, I guess.

Please pardon any typos in this post - I replaced my QWERTY keyboard with a DVORAK one, and I am still learning the layout of the keys!

I wonder why you feel such a strong need to defend yourself and lash back at me. If you read closely you will discover I am not targeting any individual, I am instead targeting a lifestyle and a specific act i.e. homosexuality. To be trapped by such a desire I believe is unfortunate but I sympathize with those who are driven by it.

I believe it could be a result of nature and, or nurture. Where it is nature I believe something went wrong in nature. Where it's nurture I believe someone encouraged an un-natural desire.

Whatever the case I do not think homosexuality should be encouraged.



Is it truth we are pursuing in these discussions or a reason to legitimize our actions?

Would you feel better if somehow science could come up with a gene that legitimizes homosexuality. If that is your hope, I understand, but what if it doesn't?

Think about it Wertz and Abs like Jesus

Homosexuality is an act that occurs not just with humans but also within the broad spectrum that is the animal kingdom. The only reason homosexuality is looked upon as wrong or evil is because of some bigot sentiments of some religous practices, take away that miser and you don’t have anything to base an opinion on, thus leaving you to think for yourself. I feel a lot of the problems homosexuals, gays/lesbians, face in America is the lack of acceptance they receive from such racist ideology. They are never allowed really to just be a human, i don’t want to say this can lead to suicide, banishment from family, drug use, anxiety and a whole slew of things most humans do not want to go through, that’s a lot to throw away for a choice of being one or not in regards to sexuality. I think the more society brings and even field to its entire people the better life will become, and the more productive lives people will live. With all the real problems in the world, i always found it funny that this was such an issue, says something about the nature/nurture of humanity.


there is not a requirement to being something less then desirable. In the heteros commit crimes, abuse drugs and more things along those lines, and to get more in depth, watching a television show about homosexuality in America showed me the difference in the people, and most of it had to do with being accepted. Was the show bias to making this point, maybe, but it still made the point none the less.

To get into even more, people who come along and know that such a lifestyle can be bashed and play that wound either have to be sadists or just plain old mean people. Its like picking on some kid in class because his/her parents could not afford the child a backpack, its just sick and somewhat like a vampire, nothing against vampires, and in thruth the only reason people still bash it is in their own want of acceptance and i feel sorry for the people trapped and or driving by that dim lifestyle.

As I said, I for one don't claim to know, nor do I particularly care what causes it. It does no harm to anyone, why should it be discouraged.
Suppose there is no natural cause, does that excuse prejudice, discrimination, violence... all of the things that are currently done to (unsuccessfully) "discourage" homosexuality?

What would be the point of my harassing other people for enjoying something I don't? Should I start harassing people as they come out of the theater after seeing the latest action movie?

I don't at all understand this stance.

Treat others as you would wish to be treated in their situation. That's a cornerstone of our religion.

If you were born with a genetic defect that made you a certain way, or a physiological disorder, would you like people calling you, "wrong", or, "to not be encouraged"?

You would take offense, no doubt. It's the way you are.

And that's just your softly kinder words.

I've heard far more horrible statements made from others.

Unnatural human behavior or ability to do something unnatural would be a human that could breathe underwater, or fly or something of that nature. The lifestyle in question is able to happen by nature, not just in humans but animals. things such as murder out of passion, anger, jealousy, survival, these things are all natural, they are unwanted for the most part by a group of people, that make crimes of them and such. The horrid act of rape is natural, should that just flow in society! I doubt the natural clause attached to this argument can stand very long. Without the full ability to understand humans yet, though we have many fields working very hard on such, its rather difficult to define natural to unnatural human acts, more to the point we just get info on such from something that tells us what to think. I doubt a crack abuser is something that happened by natures definition, but something lead that person to do such a thing that is possible in reality, so is that natural or unnatural.

The point i guess i am trying to make is the natural state of mind that can lead to bias, such as a person that does not get a job because of AA requirements and so on, the impact society has on people at large based from the thought in your head that is there by that society, its language and so on, your parents, family and all the little parts in a persons development. How much of a spike did 9-11 lead to crimes against Muslims or people of Arabic decent in America?

For most of the things that people use to speak out against the lifestyle in question, the same exact "problems" occur in its absence, or more to the point I doubt the base of the lifestyle is the cause of the "bad" or "unwanted" behavior, but most likely would find itself based in other reasons. Such as a ethnic person that gets bashed all though his/her life for being ethnic, that might lead to despair and what not you think?

Overall the lifestyle in question does not affect by itself the person’s ability to be successful, and lead a full and happy productive life that does not hurt anyone. The other side of the spectrum is you get people like john Wayne Gacy, who covers up his "problem" by tricking and killing people to satisfy his sexuality, of course mr.Gacy was also a pillar of the community, and a diligent blue-collar worker. Mr.Gacy is not the only person to go through such extremes to cover up his homosexuality, the only reason such things occurred is because the shame or want to be "normal" i guess.

Jeffery Dahmer, whom grew up in a "normal" and religious home. He even attempted two years of celibacy at the local church with his grandmother. I doubt many people would really enjoy mr.Dahmers mind to find why he did what he did. He also was a homosexual man.

The sad part of it is the fact that others of that lifestyle don’t become like that, and the reasons the turn out to be "normal" people is most likely a problem of society. Though an intense study would have to occur, the results of which most would probably not like or even care about.

Hetero- and Homosexuals are both driven by the same desire for sexual gratification regardless of whether it is in pursuit of reproduction. To engage sexually with a member of the same or separate sex doesn't mean one is necessarily "trapped by such a desire" unless we were perhaps referring specifically to sexual addicts, who come in all sexualities. Homosexuality in itself is not some desire warping the thoughts and actions of otherwise decent citizens.


Homosexuality has been observed thus far in over four hundred species of animal. Besides this, scientists have been able to isolate and manipulate genes within other species allowing them to program homosexuality. They have gone so far in recent years as to program a link between sexual preference and environmental conditions. In regards to "something wrong in nature," there is no set scheme nature is following for it to error. Homosexuality is widespread among all life forms and appears to have been since at least the beginnings of written history.


The truth of the matter is that there already have been genes isolated and manipulated revealing there to be a genetic component in the sexual preference of other organisms. Whether the moral police choose to acknowledge it or not, this means that there is almost undoubtedly a similar genetic foundation for sexual preference in humans. It can not be conclusively shown only because of the medical ethics prohibiting scientists from isolating and altering the genetic makeup of fellow citizens.

Between zoology and advanced genetic studies, sexual preference has already been shown to be dictated by nature rather than nurture. While this doesn't mean hetero- or homosexuals can't engage with the sex opposite their natural attraction, it does provide a natural foundation for the presence of homosexuality in our society. Of course, whether it is nature or nurture for a particular individual is irrelevant to "legitimizing homosexuality." There is no reason other than personal distaste to discourage or demonize the sexual preference of any separate individual.

No defense intended, truth, as I see none needed. If you feel that targeting millions of people is somehow superior to targeting an individual, I guess that's just another part of your belief system. And has been pointed out here several times (as you would know if you had the courtesy to review the thread), homosexuality is neither a "lifestyle" nor "an act".


Neither. If you are seeking absolute truths, you've come to the wrong place. We are here for the purpose of discussing issues; to express points of view and, if pursued, to do our best to back them up. This is a political discussion board, not a pulpit.

You've stated your beliefs - with nothing to back them up. That's fine as far as beliefs and pure opinion go. Okay, we get you. You stated that you believe that homosexuality is wrong. Cool. I responded by stating that I believe that judging others on the basis of nothing more than conditioned beliefs is wrong. Might I now suggest that you actually read the thread to which you are contributing - and get back to us if you have anything to add to the discussion.

And what causes heterosexuality?

I've always wondered that.. .what makes a guy drop his jaw when he sees two incredible boobies? what makes straight guys love women's *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and not men's *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***? What makes guys be sexually aroused in the presence of a naked female body? There has to be something wired inside straight guys that makes them feel attracted to females.

However that wiring is being put into place, whatever is the procedure that determines one's orientation, the procedure is the same for every single human being but with different outcomes for every individual. As observation suggests, such procedure has as an outcome individuals with different orientations or attractions: men, women, childs, old men, old women, maybe even animals, being the most common outcome that of individuals attracted towards the opposite sex.

It seems then that heterosexuality is just another form of sexual orientation and it would not exist without homosexuality. The same way around, homosexualy couldnt be happening unless heterosexual orientation was present.

Please note that I'm not trying to explain what causes heterosexuality, but rather raise the point that whatever that procedure is, its the same that leads to all sexual orientations.

Actually, it is a tad more complex than even that- this is an area of study that is heavily supported by private industry- how to atract the opposite sex, so we do know some functions of this. We also know from a recent Netherlands study spanning a long period of time dealing with transgendered males that there is some brain patterns that actually make them think they are a woman vs a man- this all based on autopsies of volunteer transgendered folk with a fairly large sample base, especialy considering the subjects are such a tiny minority. I am sorry I dont have any links to post, this stuff comes across my desk at work and I read it and throw it away eventually. We do know that sex is very much chemistry- for instance, there is a bonding hormone that is produced in a relationship that is the same that stimulates contractions in birth- oxytocin- and both men and women demonstrate levels of this until four years after the birth of thier last child- so this is the given reason that so many divorces and splits happen right around that four year mark when research is done- because it is the time that chemistry is left behind and cerebal mature love MUST take over for the relationship to continue. Funny thing, lesbianism and bi-sexual behavior in women have no real chemical stimuli like in men- to elaborate, when a sexy woman enters a room, our testosterone levels increase. If we are homosexual, and we are actracted to a man, our testosterone levels increase. There is no such mechanism in women, but they have some very subtle chemical markers for choosing thier mates, but none of it related to women! For instance, a Danish study I believe (or Sweden) had men wear white sterile tee shirts for four days, without washing, take them off, and had an equal number of women come in, smell them, and then attempt to say which men by the smell of thier Tshirts were good mates. Amazingly, women picked the genetic best compatability to thier own for this choice, except fo the women with histories of birth defects somewhere in thier family!

So, so far, there are genetic and chemical markers in Men that suggest a reason for homosexuality, but so far, none for women's homosexuality, other than men like that kind of thing

Thanks, CruisingRam, for sharing some of the info you get on your desk. It is certainly more entertaining and informative than what used to be passed on as knowledge of homosexuality in the 1960's, namely that homosexuality was due to a domineering mother and an absent father!

The brain studies do seem to weigh in on the nature side of the argument. In a way, that's somewhat comforting, considering how commercials and other media devices portray what we are somehow supposed to believe is a desirable sort of sexuality. Before I was married, I had never seen a mature, totally naked man, not even in pictures. Needless to say, I was really a little shocked about what I saw, and more than a little put off, even though I'm solidly heterosexual.

Sorry, David, but humans are indeed animals. I happen to think we are pretty special animals (but then I'm probably biased), but we are animals nonetheless.

I note that later you indicate that you believe in an entity called a soul, but I believe this entity to be fictitious (and irrelevant), so debate on this subject may be impossible.



I'm homosexual. I didn't wake up one day and decide that it might be a good idea to choose a sexual orientation that would cause me grief for the rest of my life. If it was a choice, then so what? The human species will continue regardless, men will love men, men will love women - I can iterate many permutations, but I won't - and we will all die, eventually.

Please forgive my boldness but I have a point that I would like answered.

If Homosexuality is indeed a genetic trait, 1 of 2 conclusions must be drawn. A: The number of homosexuals should be decreasing. or B: An outside influence is causing a mutation in the gene structure to cause homosexuality.

The basis for this is pretty simple. Homosexuals have a tendency to reproduce significantly less than the Heterosexual population. Therefore the gene of homosexuality should have eventually been eliminated from the gene pool or become so inisignificant that it would be as rare as a person with an extra nose. My support for this fact is Basic Genetics and The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

For example... If there were a gene that has been around forever that caused men who had the gene to lose the ability to ejaculate, wouldnt that gene eventually die off from the natural selection process?

However I do believe that homosexuality is not a bad or good thing, it just is. I dont celebrate it any more or less than hetrosexuality. But from a pure genetics standpoint it cannot be 100% natural. As homosexual numbers would be decreasing or would not exsist by now.

I realize you debated this earlier, and came to the conclusion of recessive traits, my argument would be that the number should be decreasing not increasing... or completely gone... Unless an outside influence is causing the gene to mutate

As they say in genetics 1 + 1 doesnt add to 2.
First of all saying that there is no such thing as a 'gay gene'. Sexual orienation is probably determined by many factors, and likely one of them has a genetic basis.
In your reasoning you say that if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on in less quantity to the offspring as homosexual human dont procreate as much. Good.. that is of course if gay people where the only ones that had the gay gene.
Like you can be right handed and have kids who are left handed, or have brown eyes and have kids who have blue eyes.

I don't think that explains the increase, such an increase should not be steady unless this genetic determinant offers an evolutionary advantage (which clearly it doesn't)

It may not be a single gene, but if we are to argue that homosexuality is largely a natural phenomenon it must be more than simply a vague "genetic trait" with no definite effect. Eye color for instance is a single gene, if I'm not mistaken. There must be one strong biological factor to alter the very basic reproductive behavior (a relatively old and simple part of the brain similar to that of many animals and hence not apparently easy to alter) it would help to know the biochemistry of it...

First of all, it most certainly could offer an evolutionary advantage for a clan to have non-reproductive members who would provide more than they take...
Secondly, the "increase" you speak of is entirely due to the gradual lessening of the violent homophobia in our society- it's a lot easier for me to be openly gay now than it would have been 40-50 years ago. There aren't any more of us, we're just more visible.

I've suspected as much, what remains to be seen is whether it continues at the present rate, maybe an international comparison might be useful. I suppose I could check.

As for offering an advantage, how would homosexual members of a clan "provide more than they take"?

By not having children, yet bringing in an equivalent supply of food the clan has more food per capita than another clan where all adults reproduce. From Ugg the caveman to Sally-Mae the southern "Maiden Aunt" the idea holds true.

But then children are a sort of provision as well. I doubt cave men had child labor regulations...
They have their uses

Certainly, a tribe would not survive without reproductive adults. But a tribe with a small number of non-reproductive adults would be by-and-large better off. Children, even in the most primitive conditions, go through a period of being a drain on their family unit.

Well, of course this caveman stuff is pure speculation, but my wild guess is that homosexual cavemen probably did reproduce anyway. Although, a few bucks can seed a whole lotta does...

In many indigenous cultures, I think homosexuals often were shamen. I know that in Navajo culture, homosexuality has been accepted for many many centuries, and was often associated with being "touched by spirit."

The fact that homosexuality appears in every culture, and at every stage of development is a strong support for the nature side, whatever the specific genetics may be.

As pointed out earlier, a gene does not neccesarily make for "either-or" type traits, I think the best example is Huntingtons Corea- a very fatal and nasty nerve degenerative disease that is a double recessive- such a nasty one in fact, for years it was wondered how the disease survived. Of course, it had the positive effect of allowing us to see how a even truly fatal horrible disease could survive what should be an obvious dead end genetically- proving, in genetics, 1+1 NEVER equals 2 LOL

And only until recently did homosexual really "decide" not to have children, when in fact, they did thier "duty" of continueing the family name etc.

I dated a (closet) homosexual for three years. He was definitely capable of reproducing. We had sex once every two months....certainly be enough to continue the species, though disappointing to the average eighteen to twenty-year-old.

There are many advantages for a species to have non-reproductive members. Sadly, while there's plenty of evidence that homosexuality exists in most, if not all, higher mammals, as well as many lower orders *especially birds), little study has yet been done on whether those members of the population have nay specialized role.

In homo sap, however, there are many clear advantages to having non-reproductive members, once human siceties have been formed. Quarkhead mentioned the shamanistic role (what do you think convents and monasteries are all about? or a "celibate" priesthood?), Grendel has mentioned the fact that the homosexual members of a community often produce more than they consume - to say nothing of innate population control (mentioned quite early on in this debate by Cyan). Other professions have distinct advantages when its members aren't encumbered with familial obligations: the military (think of the Spartan army), education (again, moanstic teaching orders, the Greek academies), the arts (which can be ridiculously labor intensive - and which have always had a superabundance of gay practitioners).

Another area in which the genetic/evolutionary argument against homosexuality falls flat is this: if homosexuality were a mutation which was not fit for survival, surely it would have disappeared from the genetic pool way before we reached the stage of our current species. There would be no gay spiders or fish, never mind ruffed grouse or giraffes.

people are born homosexual link

The above is an interesting link suggesting nature over nurture.

It puzzles me that after studying Genetics and the works of Darwin you could have overlooked recessive genes. A gene can exist in a population at a low frequency for a long time, even if it prevents the individual from reproducing.

Only about 4% of the male population and 3% of the female population is gay, but according to the Hardy-Weinberg equation (assuming that the "gay gene" is a single gene and completely recessive) the allele frequency of the gay allele could be as high as 12%, meaning at any given time one out of ten people carry a gay allele even though they're straight. And, in a population with random matings (although it would seem that being half gay could get a man many more women) allele frequencies don't change much.

This is an oversimplified example as I'm sure it's not just one gene but a combination of genes which lead to homosexuality.

People see what they want to see. If you look at genetics with the goal of proving a point, invariably, that's what you'll prove.

From everything I've read on the subject, the "gay gene" is likely a series of variably recessive genes. The more of these factors that are "on", the more you'll be attracted to the same sex. The more that are "off", you'll be heterosexual. Somewhere in the middle lies attraction to both sexes. This is particularly difficult to study as we really don't understand the human genome completely yet, much less the interaction between genes at this level. Plus the fact that it isn't a visible trait, it isn't a binary trait, and there isn't much money in researching it have put research and study far behind the curve.

When I was raised, I was not exposed to the gay community whatsoever. The closest I came to it was one of the characters in the movie "Mannequin" was a flaming queen. I just figured he was funny. I never knew that he was gay when I was growing up. As a member of the LDS church, I was told of sexual desire to the same sex and that it was evil.

What is my point? A couple reasons... first, being gay now, I would like to pose the question of exactly what "nurture" is. Is it your environment? If so, I was raised in a conservative household with a mother and father, two sisters and a brother. No abuse whatsoever, aside from the occasional spanking (although that's another topic of discussion altogether).

If it is nature, which is a good possibility since my father informed me he was bisexual but did not engage in same-sex activities, then there is no discussion to be had. Is this topic regarding equal rights, civil rights, marriage rights? There doesn't seem to be an answer that can be given with adequate back-up to prove one way or the other.

If, as many people claim, it is a choice, then prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying is still prejudicial and discriminatory. Beastiality, cannibalism, rape, and all the other additional acts that are oftened named in tandem with homosexuality are absurd--none of them involve two consenting adults. Incest is sometimes included in this, but due to genetic deformities in off-spring from incestuous relationships, this is also illegal. No off-spring results from homosexual activities. The comparisons are not equivalent.

If there is an equivalent, it would be more appropriate to compare homosexual marriage to interracial marriage. If marriage is intended for the production of children, then those adults who are biologically incapable of having children should not be allowed to marry. If marriage is intended to raise a family, then it is proven two men or two women can raise a child as well. Whether or not this is detrimental to the child is up for debate, since most states will not allow this.

So what is the argument with Nature vs. Nurture? Science has not proven without reasonable doubt that it is a result of nature or nurture. All we have are our feelings. It would seem, as proposed by the Declaration of Independence, that if two people feel they should get married, then let them. In the pursuit of happiness, sex and sexuality should not be a discerning factor.

Increase? uh? That homosexuals are less afraid to come out of the closet does not mean that they have always existed. Greeks, romans had little problem with homosexuality and that was 2000 years ago.

Speaking as one who use to be gay and at the age of 22 changed through the power of Christ. ( 18 years ago ) I have really thought about this subject.

It is my strong belief that there are many contributing factors that play a part in one being attracted to the same sex. And I can totally understand the struggle that these people go through.

# 1 being ones temperement. those who have a sensitive temperement who are very analitical, artistic, giving, et. pretty much a meloncoly temperement tend to be the most prone.

#2 upbringing, needing approval from one of the parents usually casued by over dominace and abuse.

#3 Peer influence, boys who may be to effeminate are teased a lot therefore feel they cannot attract a girl and look for thier own sexes approval. Men tend to experiment a lot more then girls and it is usually with the same sex at an early age. Many are abused by older boys or men many times who are pediphiles.
Also many gay men are very attractive therefore tend to attract pediphiles.

Women seem to be more tom boyish or very mascualine and many times over weight. Probably found it very hard to get boys or men. Therefore turning to other women for vakidation and emotional support. Developing stronger emotional ties with women. Where men are usually more interested in getting into a womans pants.

There are many reasons why. But the Bible is clear that the ACT of homsexuality is wrong. ( hard to say feeling attracted to the same sex is wrong but the act is )And the fact that I and many others have changed shows that it is a perversion not a norm. Not something you are born with like skin color.

It can also be listed in the same catagories as Lying, Stealing, murder, rape, pediphilia, et. just because we feel strong about wanting to do something doesn't make it right to do so.

And are you sure you have changed? The fact that you are no longer having 'homosexual acts' means nothing if the feelings that you had when you were 22 are still there. Choosing not to have sex with men is not change.



#1. what does being analitical, giving ... has to do with being homosexual?
#2. This is an stereotype. its funny that almost all the homosexuals I know, and I know lots of them, grew up in loving and normal families like everbody else. Even then I fail to see how needing approval or abuse could make someone switch sexual orientation.
#3. lol, another sterotype. To start with, most homosexual men are not effeminate and you would not know they are gay if they didnt tell you. Agree on that where guys experiment more with sex, but again I fail to see how abuse makes you gay, why? why when you are abused you go and, bam, start liking your same sex?


If you need a book to tell you what's right or wrong you need some help buddy.
The fact that you claim you have changed does not mean others can, nor does it mean others want to change. Can you prove me ALL homosexuals can change their behaviour? Can you prove it? if you can't, you can't make any assumtions on sexuality mutability.


Ok, quiz for you here. From the following terms spot the one that does not belong to the group:
LYING, STEALING, HOMOSEXUAL ACTS, MURDER, RAPE, PEDOPHILIA
you got it! Lying, Stealing, Murder, Rape and pedophilia are all NON CONSENSUAL acts. A homosexual act is on the contrary consensual and wanted by both parties.
Do you really think a kiss between two men, or two men snuggling in bed equal to murder?? uhm.

Nice of you to avoid mentioning them.


Addressing the thread:
I once discussed the nature and nurture thing with my girlfriend. She's bisexual and because I'm a bit, well, a lot effete, she frequently teases me on what she calls my "denial". I was convinced that it couldn't be natural, because of how it would offer no advantage to the species. I equated it (and I really don't need mean to sound disparaging, but with the absence of any reason for innate homosexuality, this was how I rationalised it) to a sort of fetish. Fetishes, I don't believe are nurtured by their environment. I've seen a male dog go for a male dog, but I've seen a male dog also go for a male cat. I've also seen a human go for a dog. My guess was that this was something that arises from subconscious associations in the mind from an early age, like, say, a predilection for a particular food or colour. Not technically nurture, since we can grow to think differently than our peers and parents.

This thread makes me think otherwise, however, with some excellent reasons for how and why homosexuality can occur naturally.

I'm not sure this logic applies. There is certainly no advantage to the species to be gained from heart defects, preconditions for cancer, conjoined twins, etc. etc. Yet all of these things occur genetically.

That is the stereotype, sure. I'm far from convinced of it's validity simply because so many gay men I know don't really fit that stereotype.
I know plenty of gay men who faced abuse from their families after coming out, but I honestly don't know any who were abused as children in any way. I myself had a happy childhood, my boyfriend's family are some of the nicest and most supportive people I've ever met.
I've always been quite effeminate, and I've had women throw themselves at me. Trust me, if I wanted to have sex with women I wouldn't have a problem finding interested partners.
I'm not so sure about that. Girls mature faster than boys.
I don't see how being abused would make someone "turn gay".
Pedophiles are attracted to children, who have yet to develop any secondary sexual characteristics, not to men or women (or even male or female, from what I've read pedophiles go for readily available children no matter what the gender).
The bible is far from clear on the subject. Jesus, the new covenant, replaced the old rules. There are only two commandments given to us by Jesus, Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. I find it interesting that some Christians break that second commandment in favor of defending whitewashed tombs.

The things you listed are all things that hurt people. Love hurts no one.

Yet those are mainly disabilities or debilitating diseases (or lead to them). There's nothing debilitating in homosexuality unless you're fond of stereotypes and think gay men all have "limp wrists". Even then, that's made up for by "good fashion sense".

What next PEDOPHILIA ?

Romans 1:18-32. clearly mentions along with other things that Homosexuality is
UNNATURAL and a PERVERSION. And will be judged.
Whether you believe or not in God or his word, does not change the fact that he does exist and that his word is true and everlasting.
Meaning ALL truths, for ALL people, for ALL times.

It is sad that the Liberal Media through the years has succeeded in convincing people to think that this PERVERSION is normal, when in fact it is not.
Feelings of Homosexuality and acting upon them are two different things. It is the act that is wrong. Just like stealing, lying, murder et.
Hating Homosexuals is wrong too. You need to hate the sin but love the sinner.
For all have sinned and fallin short of the glory of God.

My question is now that Homosexuality is pretty much accepted ( at least in the media ) What is next PEDPHILIA? God forbid.

I don't care what Romans 1:18-32 says. My morals are not based on what someone wrote 2000 years ago.
How can be homosexuality so 'unnatural' when its so pervasive in Nature that God created? What's the perversion in two human beings loving to each other? Where does in the bible say that YOU will not be judged for discriminating and not loving your brothers!?



You say homosexual feelings are not wrong, the act is what is wrong. Why shouldnt two people act on their feelings specially when its something that they BOTH want?
You must have some problem understanding that in lying, murder, stealing and PEDOPHILIA there is always a party that gets hurt. When two men are having sex they are enjoying each other. Enjoying <==> Hurting, different! Consensual <==> Forced, different!!

Congratulations on conquering homosexuality.

You have rightfully pointed out that as God does, we must love the sinner and hate the sin. Tell me, which drew you to Christ first, the message of God's love or the message of God's condemnation?

I am sure you remember the story of Zacchaeus, a tax collector who climbed up into a tree in order to see Jesus better. Jesus walked by and said, "Zacchaeus, come on down, for I'm having dinner at your house today."

Zacchaeus, who was hated for his occupation, was delighted. He had Jesus and the rest of the disciples dine with him. It isn't documented when he had a change of heart and decided to leave the tax collecting business. But it is documented that he would pay back double anyone whom he had cheated. Jesus said, Today has salvation come to a son of Israel. And he didn't let anybody's murmurings discourage him or change his message.

It is important to note a few things. First, Jesus sought Zacchaeus out when he saw him in the tree. He offered his love and acceptance before Zacchaeus even got a chance to respond to him.

Secondly, he ate with Zacchaeus while Zacchaeus was still an avowed tax collector. Again, Jesus accepted him before Zacchaeus changed his ways. At the time, tax collectors, not only vilified for working with the Romans, were known to cheat those with whom they dealt.

Thirdly, Jesus didn't care what the others thought. His mission was to invite Zacchaeus to accept and follow him. He did not worry about the reactions of those around him because he was hanging out with such a profound sinner.

My point is this: God presents the invitation to us as we are. God invites us to come as we are. He doesn't say that we have to clean up our act first, whatever that act is. That means gays, too.

It is then God's business to let the person know what things need to be changed, after a person experiences conversion. In Zacchaeus' case, he knew he had to leave his occupation and make things right with the people he had cheated.

Homosexuality may or may not be genetic in origin. Whether or not it is genetic or largely environmental, gays deserve to be treated with dignity. They are souls first. They are gays second.

Not every Christian considers every jot and tittle in the Bible as literally having been put there divinely. There were several books that were not included in our present-day Bible, and the Catholics have more books in their Bible than Protestants do. It is your choice to take everything the Bible says literally or not.
But the acceptance of every word being divinely inspired is not universal.

My position is, until we know the nature of homosexuality, it would be premature to judge. What if the Bible passages merely reflect the Apostle Paul's own prejudices?

But we do know that we are commanded to love one another as Christ has loved us, and we can accept homosexuals whether we approve of their sexual orientation or not.

Hey, you know what else Paul hated? Women!



Why is it that some people insist that homosexuality goes hand in hand with pedophilia? You.. uh... do know that most pedophiles are heterosexual, right? And a lot of priests have been guilty of it too? And that pedophilia can mean - and this has happened - a woman having relations with a boy, as well as a man having relations with a girl?

On to the actual purpose of the topic, I'd like to just add to my earlier comment about how homosexuality could well be natural, and say that it can also be nurtured. The Romans and Greeks were big on homosexuality, and not only was it considered socially acceptable, but It encouraged unity within an army.

I worship a god called Reason who is placid and reasonable, but still manages to punish those who transgress against Him, as their folly dictates.

Tisk. I'm sorry if you are so biased as to equate it with that.

That is a very bad analogy. Homosexuality is a consensual relationship between two people. Pedophilia is a nonconsensual relationship based on rape, coercion, and 1 member dominating the other.

So, please be more focused and clear in your analogies.



Alright, a few points on this.

1. I do not consider Paul's personal letters as Divinely inspired scripture. They are seperate from the Gospels, and in my opinion, are slightly incosistent with Jesus's personal sayings and even a few lessons he gave. Also, I believe this is evident by contradictions within Paul's letters, such as misquoting of Exodus in a number given of how many people died in a plague after the Jews began worshipping Aaron's calf. Also evident by how he curses and blasts his enemies within his letters. That was not God speaking.

2. The Bible is not the law of the country. We have a seperation between Church and State, and thus the entire foundations of your argument are moot.

3. I have examined the original book homosexuality was condemned in, and I doubt you follow half of what is written in it. Leviticius was the tribal laws of the priests of Levi. Homosexuality was condemned due to it's connections with the pagan Caananites, and the Jews were very much afraid that their culture would mix in with their neighbors.



I am Christian.

Do not confuse the words of Jesus with the words of men.



You are in error about the ideology in Paul's statements on the subject.

In listing sins that will keep one out of Heaven in his opinion, he simply says, "Those without natural affections".

Not, "the act", but in fact, "the affections".

So you are slightly wrong based on your own sources.



...Liberal media?

Go to any European, or anyone not American, and ask them what type of media America has. If you tell them "liberal", they will laugh in your face.

And I'm sorry that you have convinced yourself that it is not in fact normal. Do you have an inside view? Or any scientific frame of reference? Or any frame of reference at all?