It's not possible for some one to be born gay.

I don't think that sexuality is determined by genes. I don't think anyone is born gay either. I think that sexuality is shaped during the course of one's life and continues to be shape through the course of one's life. I'm can't say what factors are involved in shaping the sexuality but this is what I think. Afterall if homosexuality is passed on genetically then it would die out.

Genes just want to be reproduced, to be passed on. Sexuality has obviously evolved in many ways, but
we still end up with the need for propagation. Homosexuality is certainly not passed on by genes.

Simply a sexual orientation.

bawomolo:

how do you know it would die out though.

Because homosexual sex cannot procreate.  Every gay got his genes from an heterosexual couple.  

bawomolo:


what exactly do you mean by control?  You mean like say controlling the urges of a craddle-robber?  You are in the realm of bioethics here.

I mean that if for instance we find that exposure to a certain factor at a certain time in life can make one a cradle-robber, then we can act to mitigate the factor.  It is known (I'm not 100 per cent but I've heard it somewhere) that people who have been the victims of abuse often end up being abusers themselves.  So if you stop the initial abuse you can reduce the abuse in the general population, break the chain as it were.

Let's not bring ethics into it.  If a gay guy for any reason, maybe religious or for procreative reasons, would rather not be gay and there was a method by which he could change then by all means why can't he make the change.  That is his own personal preference and not a matter of social ethics.

bawomolo:

how do you know it would die out though.

Actually I've just had a thought. Maybe if it was caused by a certain combination (or permutation, I can't remember which is which) of genes from the mum and the dad then it will always keep popping up in the population. Kinda like the mule. Mules can't procreate but as long as horses can and will mate with donkeys then you'll always have mules.

Not to be a skeptic but that's purely presumptuous isn't it?

And even if it is indeed a defect, then all the more reason to term it a disease

I swearrigawd, if Y'all took Nigeria's problems this seriously, where would we be now? tsk tsk.

Gamine:


Our 'sexuality' is primarily geared towards reproduction, it doesnt matter what
you do inbetween.

oh you mean humans have intimacy primarily for reproduction? This is strange considering how prevalent BC pills and condom pills are. who would have thunk it. i guess sexual positions like anal, oral intercourse, 69 are geared towards reproduction too.

So called homosexuals have been forced to pass on their genes

how were they forced?  you mean in-vitro fertilization is being forced to pass one genes?

in one way or the other because the long and short of the matter is Living things
MUST reproduce.

the species as a whole must reproduce but not every MEMBER of the species.  barren people can't reproduce, hermaphrodites and intersex members of the human species can't reproduce. the list goes on and on.

You say we arent facing extinction, i'm sure thats what the Tasmanian thought.

the tasmanian devil is facing extinction due to disease and not because they aren't getting busy.

cease reproduction and lets see man survive.

the population of homosexuals isn't large enough to cause a dent in the human population.  Statistics show this.  advances in in-vitro fertilization and test tube babies nullifies your point.

Since the beginning of time, man has
always battled man for resources, nothing new today. Survival of the fittest. . .ever heard of that?
LWKM! 

yeah survival of the fittest from the comfort our gas guzzling SUV's, air conditioned rooms and HD TV.  Homosexuals pose no extinction threat to humans or other animal species.   An often ignored people are bisexuals (i guess they are forced to pass on their genes too)

Genes just want to be reproduced, to be passed on.

not all genes are passed on, have you heard of this thing called evolution?

Pastor AIO:

Actually I've just had a thought.  Maybe if it was caused by a certain combination (or permutation, I can't remember which is which)  of genes from the mum and the dad then it will always keep popping up in the population.  Kinda like the mule.  Mules can't procreate but as long as horses can and will mate with donkeys then you'll always have mules.  

makes sense.

mama-gee:

It's not possible for some one to be born gay.

mama-gee, its not by force to post outside the romance section 

bawomolo:


mama-gee, its not by force to post outside the romance section 

LMAO!! Ok, that was funny.

chiogo:

LMAO!! Ok, that was funny.

Very funny indeed.

Pastor AIO:

Actually I've just had a thought.  Maybe if it was caused by a certain combination (or permutation, I can't remember which is which)  of genes from the mum and the dad then it will always keep popping up in the population.  Kinda like the mule.  Mules can't procreate but as long as horses can and will mate with donkeys then you'll always have mules. 

Add to this the possibility of a gene staying dormant in the "carrier" parent and becoming active in the child.

You raised some serious questions earlier. Some of them, I believe, are addressed in Sexology, by Dr Vladimir Antonov. I think it's available online.

the ONLY person who can answer this question honeslty is a gay person. everyone else is just making assumptions based on information and or misinformation/propaganda/dogma. if you truely want to know the answer to this question then i sugest you speak to several homosexual people POLITELY and RESPECTFULY about how/when they knew/became gay. as in did they always know or did someone brainwash them in some cult like enviroment to become gay.

agathamari:

the ONLY person who can answer this question honeslty is a gay person.

How so?

H2O2:

How so?

how does anyone truely know what is going on in someone elses mind? unless your argument is that you have been told by a/many homosexuals the answer to said question which still is getting the info originaly from a homosexual.

Pastor AIO:

Because homosexual intimacy cannot procreate. Every gay got his genes from an heterosexual couple.
I mean that if for instance we find that exposure to a certain factor at a certain time in life can make one a cradle-robber, then we can act to mitigate the factor. It is known (I'm not 100 per cent but I've heard it somewhere) that people who have been the victims of abuse often end up being abusers themselves. So if you stop the initial abuse you can reduce the abuse in the general population, break the chain as it were.

Ahunnitt% right.

MyJoe:

Add to this the possibility of a gene staying dormant in the "carrier" parent and becoming active in the child.

I don't personally think there will ever be conclusive evidence that homosexuality is caused by a gene. As complex as we are as human beings, what are the chances that different genes scattered all over are responsible for the behaviors we exhibit? If they "find" the gay gene why stop there? where's the gene for alcoholism? for rapists? for drug addicts etc? Where do our personal choices come into play? has nature already decided everything for us? and we're just living out what we've already been pre-programmed to do?

When I started the thread I was hoping people would attack the issue from a[b] spiritual perspective[/b], as it is obvious the war in regards to the biology will never end, or at least not anytime soon.

agathamari:

how does anyone truely know what is going on in someone elses mind? unless your argument is that you have been told by a/many homosexuals the answer to said question which still is getting the info originaly from a homosexual.

Truly or untruly, paint it however you like, but that argument will be shredded to pieces, bro.
We have brains and minds that help facilitate our thought processes and aid us in rationalization. You can't simply conject that only they [the hormos] have the thinking capability to understand their abberation. On what basis? Basically, you want to think that in a few short seconds, you have managed to solve a befuddling issue that has taken scientists eons to explicate.

What then would you say about case studies? You can't tell me that behavioral psychologists are utterly useless.


you this agathamari sef

Sorry for deviating,
Even though i believe we can't really axe Biology in discussions like this

Still, from a Spiritual perspective, i'd say Homosexuality is equivalent to any
other 'Sin'.  Our Salvation doesn't mean we are 'sin-free', as long as we are
still in this flesh. So i don't understand why there should be much more focus on it.

The only really damaging effect of Homosexuality i see is from the biological
perspective. I surely don't like or understand the behavior but then there are lots in this world i will
never understand or like.

H2O2:

Truly or untruly, paint it however you like, but that argument will be shredded to pieces, bro.
We have brains and minds that help facilitate our thought processes and aid us in rationalization. You can't simply conject that only they [the hormos] have the thinking capability to understand their abberation. On what basis? Basically, you want to think that in a few short seconds, you have managed to solve a befuddling issue that has taken scientists eons to explicate.
What then would you say about case studies? You can't tell me that behavioral psychologists are utterly useless.
you this agathamari sef

what am i trying to prove or disprove here? that the only person who can honestly answer the question of why a gay berson is attracted to the same gender is a gay person. this is a fact just as a man who is attracted to fat women is the only one who can answer as to why. or a woman who only dates blonds or whatever thier preferance is. no scientist has ever figured out why any person is attracted to any particular group/feature. this is a fact, and untill we truely understand the human brain we never will. But the scientific and medical comunity as a whole agrees for over 40 years now that homosexuality is not a mental condition but a personal preferance. the people who have the issues with homosexuals are doing so out of religious dogma or lack of education, this includes behavioral THERAPIST employed by the church or church groups.

agathamari:

what am i trying to prove or disprove here? that the only person who can honestly answer the question of why a gay berson is attracted to the same gender is a gay person. this is a fact just as a man who is attracted to fat women is the only one who can answer as to why. or a woman who only dates blonds or whatever thier preferance is. no scientist has ever figured out why any person is attracted to any particular group/feature. this is a fact, and untill we truely understand the human brain we never will. But the scientific and medical comunity as a whole agrees for over 40 years now that homosexuality is not a mental condition but a personal preferance. the people who have the issues with homosexuals are doing so out of religious dogma or lack of education, this includes behavioral THERAPIST employed by the church or church groups.

Negative. Your implication was that a gay person is the lone star capable of explaining if indeed they are born that way - gay. Dont begin all that twistaroo crap, I ain't got no time for all that. Keep your points compact if you will.

Anyways, case in point, you already submitted your thoughts on the matter. . . I have nothing further to discuss with you. As you said, it's a preference.

Revisiting your argument once again @ agathamari.

That point you made in reference to homosexuality being a preference really tarnishes your argument in support of homosexuality in a way. In the sense that homosexuality being the preference that it is, can be cured just like other preferential anomalies.

Considering the stigma attached to homosexuality, why would anyone wanna have a gay proclivity?

H2O2:

Revisiting your argument once again @ agathamari.

That point you made in reference to homosexuality being a preference really tarnishes your argument in support of homosexuality in a way. In the sense that homosexuality being the preference that it is, can be cured just like other preferential anomalies.

Considering the stigma attached to homosexuality, why would anyone wanna have a gay proclivity?

your making absolutly no sence. a preferance is an inate fondness for a particular thing. inate as in not of concious choice. a man who is sexualy attracted to redheads doesnt wake up one morning and go "you know what i think redheads are nasty im only attracted to blonds now" a man who has a sexual preferance to large women doesnt sit there at 16 and go "i wonder what im going to be attracted to, you know what i chose to be attracted to fat chicks". but according to you they do. when you hit puberty you find yourself attracted to what you personaly find attractive, not what someone has talked you into. i suggest you go and POLITLY and RESPECTFULY talk to some homosexuals without judgment or distain and hear them tell you themselves.

agathamari:

your making absolutly no sence. a preferance is an inate fondness for a particular thing. inate as in not of concious choice. a man who is sexualy attracted to redheads doesnt wake up one morning and go "you know what i think redheads are nasty im only attracted to blonds now" a man who has a sexual preferance to large women doesnt sit there at 16 and go "i wonder what im going to be attracted to, you know what i chose to be attracted to fat chicks". but according to you they do. when you hit puberty you find yourself attracted to what you personaly find attractive, not what someone has talked you into. i suggest you go and POLITLY and RESPECTFULY talk to some homosexuals without judgment or distain and hear them tell you themselves.

you are daft beyond repair. This is why I didn't want to thread down this road with you to begin with. you've done it before and you're doing it again. Everything flies over your head.
since all preferences are innate, by this daft logic of yours, I think we can also argue that thieves with preferences to steal have an "innate fondness for stealing". And since this fondness is "innate" it would be unjust to kill them for something naturally-occuring that they have no control over - by your absurd definition of preference. Gosh you are extremely daft. I suggest you brush up on your reasoning skills.

Your argument is simply that sexual orientation is innate, and that's all you had to say, instead of coughing up daft sentences that destroy the arguments you are trying to bring forth in support of homosexuality.

I don't need to hear the words from the horses mouths themselves before employing my perspective and reasoning abilities to formulate my own thoughts on the matter. There's a surfeit of information available out there for anyone who's willing to read and learn. Again, I repeat, I don't know how you think you've magically solved a problem that has taken scholars superior to you, eons to figure out. It's not as simple as "just ask them", and we won't just take their words for it. We have a brain we use to think, unlike yourself.

I'm done here, since your mind is too thin to perceive the possibility of this not being hereditary.

H2O2:

you are daft beyond repair. This is why I didn't want to thread down this road with you to begin with. you've done it before and you're doing it again. Everything flies over your head.
since all preferences are innate, by this daft logic of yours, I think we can also argue that thieves with preferences to steal have an "innate fondness for stealing". And since this fondness is "innate" it would be unjust to kill them for something naturally-occuring that they have no control over - by your absurd definition of preference. Gosh you are extremely daft. I suggest you brush up on your reasoning skills.

Your argument is simply that sexual orientation is innate, and that's all you had to say, instead of coughing up daft sentences that destroy the arguments you are trying to bring forth in support of homosexuality.

I don't need to hear the words from the horses mouths themselves before employing my perspective and reasoning abilities to formulate my own thoughts on the matter. There's a surfeit of information available out there for anyone who's willing to read and learn. Again, I repeat, I don't know how you think you've magically solved a problem that has taken scholars superior to you, eons to figure out. It's not as simple as "just ask them", and we won't just take their words for it. We have a brain we use to think, unlike yourself.

I'm done here, since your mind is too thin to perceive the possibility of this not being hereditary.

please learn the differnce between preferance and choice.  save kleptomaniacs, a person who steals isnt driven by an unconcous desire or preferance to steal things.  they choose to steal.  your referance is daft as you so put it.

as for your insultive claim that i am stating i am superior to scholors.  i am using the same ideas and information and reaching the same conclusion of medical and psychiactric professionals over the last 40 years, save those who work for the church.  you are the one chooseing to hold on the beliefs from 2000 years ago.  no where did i ever claim it was an inherited (herditary) condtion, dont put words in my mouth.  by using your personal prejudice over thier first hand knowledge to form a conclusion about thier lifestyles or manner of thinking, you are the only one choosing to act superior to anyone.   if you choose to wallow in your bigotry and hatred then so be it.  its of no consiquence to me

JeSoul:

    I don't personally think there will ever be conclusive evidence that homosexuality is caused by a gene. As complex as we are as human beings, what are the chances that different genes scattered all over are responsible for the behaviors we exhibit? If they "find" the gay gene why stop there? where's the gene for alcoholism? for rapists? for drug addicts etc?  Where do our personal choices come into play? has nature already decided everything for us? and we're just living out what we've already been pre-programmed to do?

  When I started the thread I was hoping people would attack the issue from a[b] spiritual perspective[/b], as it is obvious the war in regards to the biology will never end, or at least not anytime soon.

I did not mean to convey that genes are responsible for homosexuality. I am hardly qualified to make that assertion or any similar one. The point I was making was that we do not know that genes are not responsible – there is already so much militant misunderstanding of homosexuality about. What we do know is that homosexuality is mostly not something you pick up at all-boys school or decide to go into for recreation as many believe. It appears most, if not all, homosexuals grow up to find that their sexual orientation is inverted. There are several possibilities and the gene theory is one of them, though not a particular strong one.

I personally would pay closer attention to the theory that it is a congenital disorder which may, in some, be amenable to drugs, psychotherapy or hypnotism and not be in others. People exhibit signs of homosexuality early in life. To drive home this point, I think we need to consider the case of transvestism. This problem occurs with or without of the sexual orientation. There was a popular story of the kid in, UK, I think, who had this problem – the boy thought he was a girl. (I heard this on British radio over a year ago, so I hope I recall it right.) Growing up he slipped into girls clothes, played with girls and behaved like them. Unfortunately the law in his country did not allow him to have what is called “gender reassignment surgery” until he turned 18 to CORRECT his system. So he was flown to the US where he was given female focal places and he now lives a NORMAL life. I believe it is easily deducible that hermaphroditism is a physical manifestation of a similar disorder.

The congenital nature of homosexuality is backed up by scientific studies which found that the female-type sexual behavior can form in genetic males and the male-type sexual behavior can form in genetic females as a result of hormonal misbalance during a certain stage of embryogenesis. This problem with all the scientific studies that have been conducted on this subject, though, is that they have found no single factor, such as the one above, explains all cases of homosexuality.

So a 1976 study throws more light. Can homosexuality be acquired? That has not been ruled out.

Permit me to quote Dr Antonov:

Basing on examination of homosexual men in 1976, we pointed out different origins of the active and the passive forms of the disease.

The observations of homosexual patients that we conducted during the next several years allowed us to classify homosexual people not into two, but into three groups — by the mechanism of the origin of the disease:

1) Men with the passive and women with the active form of congenital homosexuality. Such men and women felt themselves respectively girls and boys since their childhood; they preferred to play games and wear clothes typical of the opposite intimacy. Many men had congenital feminine features, while women — congenital masculine features. In sexual relationships, the men felt themselves as women, while the women — as men. A high percentage of them have some kind of hereditary anomalies and report pregnancy pathologies or premature birth.

2) Men with the passive and women with the active form of acquired homosexuality. These patients do not have congenital homosexual mentality and perverted feminine or masculine features. Their attraction to the same intimacy forms on the basis of conditioned reflex during the stage of adolescent intersexuality.

3) Men with the active and women with the passive form of acquired homosexuality. Such men look masculine and possess male-type sexuality. Correspondingly, the women possess feminine features and female type of sexual behavior. Their pathological attraction to the opposite intimacy forms also on the basis of conditioned reflex, usually at the juvenile age. Later on their homosexual attraction either a) transforms into regular but then reverts to homosexual as a result of mental traumas caused by heterosexual contacts or impossibility of heterosexual contacts due to various reasons, or b) moves on to their adult life either totally displacing the regular-type sexual attraction or coexisting with it. A significant fraction of patients of this group report hereditary abnormalities, various serious somatic diseases in their childhood as well as pregnancy pathologies and premature birth. Such anamnesis indicates an influence of some injuring factor, which could impair the brain structures that regulate the congenital component of one’s sexual orientation.

It follows from the above stated data that homosexuality represents a disease of polymorphic origin, which accounts for the difficulties that exist in its treatment. This is why there can be no universal method applicable to all those who want to be cured of homosexuality; the specific treatment has to be chosen depending on the etiologic group that the patient belongs to. Apart from psychotherapeutic measures various medications can also be used.

Spiritual perspectives on homosexuality? I do have some materials on that, but they are not 100% Christian-oriented. But I think homosexuality is a psychosomatic issue and not a spiritual one.

Yes, it can be that a person is born gay.

agathamari:

please learn the differnce between preferance and choice. save kleptomaniacs, a person who steals isnt driven by an unconcous desire or preferance to steal things. they choose to steal. your referance is daft as you so put it.

as for your insultive claim that i am stating i am superior to scholors. i am using the same ideas and information and reaching the same conclusion of medical and psychiactric professionals over the last 40 years, save those who work for the church. you are the one chooseing to hold on the beliefs from 2000 years ago. no where did i ever claim it was an inherited (herditary) condtion, dont put words in my mouth. by using your personal prejudice over thier first hand knowledge to form a conclusion about thier lifestyles or manner of thinking, you are the only one choosing to act superior to anyone. if you choose to wallow in your bigotry and hatred then so be it. its of no consiquence to me

You are a pathetic apologist. Don't ask me to learn things, when you're the one making asinine comments. I simply applied your warped definition of preference to something from an entirely different realm to show you that your definition of a preference is dense. Stop using words whose basic meaning you don't understand, and stop dreaming up your own meaning for that word. A preference is simply preferring to do one thing as opposed to another - which could cause them to choose that thing, for whatever reason it may be, whether innate or not is to be determined. But in your myopic opinion, any preference is automatically an "innate fondness for something". As typical of your crusading for homosexuality, you have taken to the typical retort of an empty head that only manages to call people bigots and hateful when they question your reasoning. Notice I never said anything hateful about homosexuals. This argument was never about acceptance/unacceptance. The question simply asks whether or not a person can be born gay, and your answer is "ask them because they are the only ones who truly know". And when I asked you to elucidate, you characteristically decided to go off on tangents, yarning poppycocks. Idiot. You should hae simply stated that you have no factual statements to propound. Stop arguing based on emotions. Rather dull and stuupid. I'm through with you.

I personally would pay closer attention to the theory that it is a congenital disorder which may, in some, be amenable to drugs, psychotherapy or hypnotism and not be in others.

why do you see the need for homosexuality to have a cure? if homosexuals are fine with who they are, then let them be.

I personally do not see it as a disorder. A deviation from the norm but hey,

bawomolo:

why do you see the need for homosexuality to have a cure? if homosexuals are fine with who they are, then let them be. 

I think you misapprehend me. From my post above and an earlier post in this thread, I believe it is clear I do not take a pigheaded approach to this subject. Different homosexuals feel differently. If John thinks he has a problem, I would help him find it, if I can. If Okon thinks he is fine, I would accept him as he is.

I personally do not see it as a disorder. A deviation from the norm but hey,

Let's face it, Bawo: A man who came into the world without fingers has a disorder. So is a child who is born without the external ge.ni.talia, and so is a hermaphrodite, that is, a child who is is born with both male and female ge.ni.tals. These are different types of congenital disorders. The sufferers do not deserve scorn, but understanding and acceptance. It is quite obvious that nature intended men and women to complement and procreate. A man being attracted to another man is a deviation from the norm. Science has proven that that deviation can be caused by a disorder brought on during embryogenesis. While I share the view of liberals and philanthropists on the need to accept homosexuals an am intolerant of intolerant people, I do not think they can change what are known facts.

In addittion to the foregoing, it is also verifiable science that some men have degrees of female hormones that make them more prone to desire fellow males and some females have degrees of male hormones that render them masculine in many ways, and thus more prone to desire women.

It is certain that these are physiological and biological disorders and the reverse cannot be argued any more than it can be argued that a man with excess or insufficient insulin in his blood is not suffering from a biological disorder.

MyJoe:

I think you misapprehend me. From my post above and an earlier post in this thread, I believe it is clear I do not take a pigheaded approach to this subject. Different homosexuals feel differently. If John thinks he has a problem, I would help him find it, if I can. If Okon thinks he is fine, I would accept him as he is.

i agree, it should be a personal choice.  but i doubt homosexuals would want to change who they are if there wasn't a societal stigma to being gay.

Let's face it, Bawo: A man who came into the world without fingers has a disorder. So is a child who is born without the external ge.ni.talia, and so is a hermaphrodite, that is, a child who is is born with both male and female ge.ni.tals. These are different types of congenital disorders. The sufferers do not deserve scorn, but understanding and acceptance. It is quite obvious that nature intended men and women to complement and procreate. A man being attracted to another man is a deviation from the norm. Science has proven that that deviation can be caused by a disorder brought on during embryogenesis. While I share the view of liberals and philanthropists on the need to accept homosexuals an am intolerant of intolerant people, I do not think they can change what are known facts.

why not call it a deviation/variation rather than a disorder. that word has a negative connotation.   And you use the word "sufferers".  Is being born gay a form of suffering? i do not think so nor is someone that is born with six fingers suffering.  Nature intended for men and woman to procreate as a collective but not every individual has to procreate to extend the Gene pool.   Our population is expanding thx to advances in technology and health care so i honestly see no biological negatives to homosexuality.

It is certain that these are physiological and biological disorders and the reverse cannot be argued any more than it can be argued that a man with excess or insufficient insulin in his blood is not suffering from a biological disorder.

lack of insulin leads to diabetes, is being gay comparable to a disease? You guys are on something else

^^^ Ok. I would take back the word, "sufferer". I didn't even note I had used it.

Being born with incomplete, surplus or malformed body parts or organs, such as fingers, is not normal and is almost certainly the result of a disorder that took place in the womb. But, of course, I would not go around shouting "disorder", "disorder", around the individual. But if I was the individual I would recognise I have a disorder and try to find a solution, if possible.

I agree that the procreation argument used by some anti-gay campaigners is a non-starter. I only cited it to show the generally recognised order of nature. I am against all stigmatisation. A lot of people have people with disorders in their families and they learn to accept such people.

lack of insulin leads to diabetes, is being gay comparable to a disease? You guys are on something else

In the hormonal misbalancing terms that i mentioned, it is incontestably a hormonal disorder and thus perfectly akin to a diesease.

Deep Sight:

In the hormonal misbalancing terms that i mentioned, it is incontestably a hormonal disorder and thus perfectly akin to a diesease.

what makes you think homosexuality is an hormonal inbalance? Is being bisexual or asexual an hormonal inbalance too?

MyJoe:

^^^ Ok. I would take back the word, "sufferer". I didn't even note I had used it.

Being born with incomplete, surplus or malformed body parts or organs, such as fingers, is not normal and is almost certainly the result of a disorder that took place in the womb. But, of course, I would not go around shouting "disorder", "disorder", around the individual. But if I was the individual I would recognise I have a disorder and try to find a solution, if possible.

I agree that the procreation argument used by some anti-gay campaigners is a non-starter. I only cited it to show the generally recognised order of nature. I am against all stigmatisation. A lot of people have people with disorders in their families and they learn to accept such people.

I agree with what you are saying.