Is homosexuality a disease? If medical science can't solve it, it is a disease. If medical science can find a chemical that solves it, then it is really a disease. :) Should we as a society sic science on solving chemically, homosexuallality? I suspect that science properly motovated could solve homosexuality with a chemical/pill. Should this be done? What do you think? acaveyogi

I guess it depends how you look at it. Disease connotes one is suffering or ailing, right? Ask these people if they are suffering and there lies the answer.

I have some very important questions too :
Is brown hair a disease ? Is there a gene responsible for being a computer addict ? Can we cure softball players ? How should society deal with people who don't like eggs ? What is a cow ?

[I guess it depends how you look at it. Disease connotes one is suffering or ailing, right? Ask these people if they are suffering and there lies the answer.

Allmost everyone of them will say "do you think I would make a choice as to be so different from the norm?" so it must be ailing them some. Alot of them want kids but can't have them the natural way so again more suffering. I quess it is a disease so maybe instead of making it grow we should find a cure :) {being a smart a** Vile, don't get upset}

Originally posted by astrapol2
I have some very important questions too :
Is brown hair a disease ? Is there a gene responsible for being a computer addict ? Can we cure softball players ? How should society deal with people who don't like eggs ? What is a cow ?
LOL :D

Originally posted by mad dog
Allmost everyone of them will say "do you think I would make a choice as to be so different from the norm?" so it must be ailing them some. Alot of them want kids but can't have them the natural way so again more suffering. I quess it is a disease so maybe instead of making it grow we should find a cure :) {being a smart a** Vile, don't get upset}

hmmm...should I call you mad? or dog? ;)

When I have said "do you think people would choose to be a part of a group that society discriminates against" it is because I believe it's not a choice. Yes it's a problem at times but not one inherent within the gay person but rather it's a problem with society. Gay people can have children the natural way, just not with their partner.

Originally posted by acaveyogi
Is homosexuality a disease? If medical science can't solve it, it is a disease. If medical science can find a chemical that solves it, then it is really a disease. :) Should we as a society sic science on solving chemically, homosexuallality? I suspect that science properly motovated could solve homosexuality with a chemical/pill. Should this be done? What do you think? acaveyogi

I would personally think that it would be more useful to come up with a tolerance pill. ;)

actually liberalism is a mental disorder, and should be cured, as there are a few conservative gays out there.

Originally posted by Travh20
actually liberalism is a mental disorder, and should be cured, as there are a few conservative gays out there.
There's a typical "compassionate conservative" for you. :D

Yea! We have dialog. :) I think Mad dog is a mental/genitic disorder and we need a pill for him. :) I think that homosexuals that don't want to be homosexuals should have a pharmaceutical cure option. And that our Government should pay for the research. :) acaveyogi

Vilepagan;

Let me ask a question, you don't have to answer if you don't want, but if you do be honest. If tomorrow a doc. told you he could make you heterosexual {with a miracle pill}, no side effects etc... would you take the pill?

I smell a trick question here Mad Dog :) So let me "honestly" answer it this way: "Is it free?" :) I am not going to pay money to become something that I already am. :) I am not homophobic, I use to be. I was a typical guy. But the truth is you can't be a balanced personallity unless you are at one with both your male and your female natures. Just because I can stand next to a man and become the most beautiful woman he has ever seen doesn't mean that I have to have a gender conflict. I was born a male and a male I am. If I had been born a female I would have been a good one. :) I am happy being a guy. Women are way more fun than guys. But at the same time I am not affraid to go to prison and live with Bubba. Does that answer your question? :) acaveyogi

Acaveyogi;

The question was for Vilepagan, I allready know you need pills.......many many pills :D

Originally posted by mad dog
Vilepagan;

Let me ask a question, you don't have to answer if you don't want, but if you do be honest. If tomorrow a doc. told you he could make you heterosexual {with a miracle pill}, no side effects etc... would you take the pill?

Absolutely not. I am quite happy being who I am, and side effects or not, if I wasn't gay I wouldn't be the man I am today.

I don't consider being gay a disease, an abnormality, or a deviation...it's who I am and I like it that way...if being who I am is occasionally a problem for someone else than I either let them deal with it or try to change their outlook. I don't think you will find very many gays who want to change...we don't think of it as a problem for us to overcome or a disease for us to cure. It's who we are...if you were offered a pill to become gay would you take it?

Sharp answer VP:cool:

You have a point pagan, but i think mad dog made a good one too. The only difference would be that you would appreciate women instead of men, the discrimination you face every now and then wouldn't exist and you would be able to have children. I don't know if you have a significant other, or if that is any influence in your decision. If it is, would your desicion be the same if that were not an issue?

Im fine with gays (a few of my friends are) but I just think that there are a few setbacks for those who are gay, and if there was a pill this would be a way to slip past them.

I've had setbacks because of my female gender........should I be taking a pill to become a hetero male too?

Originally posted by creetwins
I've had setbacks because of my female gender........should I be taking a pill to become a hetero male too?

Oh no creetwins...you're much too nice to take the hetero male pill...you should take the gay male pill...then you could still sleep with men...:D

Originally posted by WindWip
You have a point pagan, but i think mad dog made a good one too. The only difference would be that you would appreciate women instead of men, the discrimination you face every now and then wouldn't exist and you would be able to have children. I don't know if you have a significant other, or if that is any influence in your decision. If it is, would your desicion be the same if that were not an issue?

Im fine with gays (a few of my friends are) but I just think that there are a few setbacks for those who are gay, and if there was a pill this would be a way to slip past them.

The reason that I wouldn't take the pill isn't because I like "appreciating" men, or that I wouldn't like being with a woman. I think the main reason is that taking a pill to solve the challenges that one faces in life would be too easy...I really think that we are all challenged by different things and in different ways, to become better people. If I were able to take a pill, that wouldn't make me a better person, it would just take away my incentive to be a better person.

No, at the moment I don't have a significant other, and no, I don't think that would influence my decision.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Absolutely not. I am quite happy being who I am, and side effects or not, if I wasn't gay I wouldn't be the man I am today.

Thank you for your answer

I don't consider being gay a disease, an abnormality, or a deviation...it's who I am and I like it that way...if being who I am is occasionally a problem for someone else than I either let them deal with it or try to change their outlook.

I was not trying to get you pissed, and it is good that you stick to your guns.

I don't think you will find very many gays who want to change...we don't think of it as a problem for us to overcome or a disease for us to cure.

This is the part I disagree with I have watched countless shows about gays wishing they could change if they could. I have even been around folks that say I wish I could be more like the norm, so I'm sorry I have to disagree with you here. It doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong just that we have seen a different reaction. This is also why I asked you the question.

It's who we are...if you were offered a pill to become gay would you take it?

{1}I understand it's who you are, that is why it was a hypothetical question.

{2}NO, I would like to see a tolerance pill invented though :)

I did not ask this to piss you off, I was just curious, and like I said I have heard countless times of how a gay person would change if they could.

Originally posted by creetwins
I've had setbacks because of my female gender........should I be taking a pill to become a hetero male too?

Knock yourself out, if that is what you want, but let me warn you the grass is not any greener on our side :)

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The reason that I wouldn't take the pill isn't because I like "appreciating" men, or that I wouldn't like being with a woman. I think the main reason is that taking a pill to solve the challenges that one faces in life would be too easy

Are you living in a stone wall? :) If being gay is your only challenge in live, then I want to switch places :D

...I really think that we are all challenged by different things and in different ways, to become better people. If I were able to take a pill, that wouldn't make me a better person, it would just take away my incentive to be a better person.

The pill was not a CURE all only a "change one thing" pill. If I could take a pill to be rich I would, but that wouldn't solve any problems, only thing it would do is give me money. I would still have bills, relationship, emotions, etc....

No, at the moment I don't have a significant other, and no, I don't think that would influence my decision.

That's because everyone is married or straight :D :D :D :D

Originally posted by mad dog

The pill was not a CURE all only a "change one thing" pill. If I could take a pill to be rich I would, but that wouldn't solve any problems, only thing it would do is give me money. I would still have bills, relationship, emotions, etc....



That's because everyone is married or straight :D :D :D :D

Well...I WOULD take the "get rich" pill...I was thinking more of things that are inherent within ourselves not "problems" that exist on the outside. Don't worry mad dog, your questions didn't get me pissed and I'm sorry if my answers seemed like I was.

And no, like you I do have more challenges in my life than just the one...

ah yes the pill! :) If I wasn't homosexual I would be normal. If I wasn't normal I would be homosexual. The question here is do you have a choice? Are you homosexual because you have to be? Are you heterosexual because you have to be? Is Mad Dog missing out on something because he has to be what he has to be? Shouldn't hererosexuals study something just to see what they are missing out on? Some homosexuals say that they have studied this and found heterosexual not for them. Did they study it with the right person? I have been married three times, should I have given up on women? I am a guy you know. I think I am, yep I got a pee pee :) all is well. Is homosexual sex better than heterosex? I don't know. Should I give it a try? Hey Mad Dog! Should we explore this reality together? :) acaveyogi

That's because everyone is married or straight
Or female!;)



Knock yourself out, if that is what you want, but let me warn you the grass is not any greener on our side
Ah yes but I would be able to explore the miracles of standing and pissing!



Oh no creetwins...you're much too nice to take the hetero male pill...you should take the gay male pill...then you could still sleep with men...
{blush}


How's about a pill that would get my house clean, my kids fed, and me some sleep?

Or a clone would do nicely:cool:

Ah yes :) the joy of standing outside in the fresh evening air and peeing on a planet! :) I love being a guy! acaveyogi

Originally posted by creetwins
Ah yes but I would be able to explore the miracles of standing and pissing!

God felt sorry for guys, so he figured he make it up to us a little
:D :p

Originally posted by acaveyogi
Is homosexuality a disease? If medical science can't solve it, it is a disease. If medical science can find a chemical that solves it, then it is really a disease. :) Should we as a society sic science on solving chemically, homosexuallality? I suspect that science properly motovated could solve homosexuality with a chemical/pill. Should this be done? What do you think? acaveyogi

I wouldn't call it a disease, but I do think of it as a psychological disorder on par with depression. Anything that renders you effectively impotent/genetically-unassertive is an unhealthy trait, in any species.

I know if I had a child who declared him/herself homosexual, I would blame myself as a parent.

Originally posted by Leper
I wouldn't call it a disease, but I do think of it as a psychological disorder on par with depression. Anything that renders you effectively impotent/genetically-unassertive is an unhealthy trait, in any species.

I know if I had a child who declared him/herself homosexual, I would blame myself as a parent.
Would you blame yourself if your child had ADHD? That is what you are essentially comparing it to.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Would you blame yourself if your child had ADHD? That is what you are essentially comparing it to.

Hmmm...I haven't really looked into ADHD enough to form a confident opinion about it. However, I would answer a hesitant yes, because from what I've seen, ADHD is just a euphemism for kids with behavior problems.

Hmmm...I haven't really looked into ADHD enough to form a confident opinion about it.

Maybe you should look into homosexuality a little more before making such confident assumptions. Psychological disorder? Bah!

Originally posted by creetwins
Maybe you should look into homosexuality a little more before making such confident assumptions. Psychological disorder? Bah!

I have. Now, who's the one making assumptions?

Until everybody is the same eveybody else has a "Psychological Disorder". :) I think that if we all took Thorize we would all be the same and nobody would have a Psychological Disorder, except for Mad Dog :) he is an enigma. acaveyogi

I don't have a disorder, I am the disorder :D :D

My parents told me I had ADD, AD/HD, dyslexia, dysgraphia, dysnomia, speech disorder and some other disorders I think they just made up. Damn, but I'm special

Originally posted by Leper
I have. Now, who's the one making assumptions?

What did you find out when you "looked into" homosexuality?

What did you find out that convinced you it was a disorder?

Do you know any homosexuals?

I'm assuming here that you are not a psychologist, or psychiatrist, and are merely expressing a layman's opinion on the subject.

Why do you feel that you are more qualified to label homosexuality a disorder than the American Psychlogical Association?

I would appreciate hearing your answers so that you can dispell any assumptions I may be in error about.

Look at it this way there are a thousand people, one of those thousand people think sticking your hand in fire is fun, does that make it right? What is love, is it about sex, friendship, trust, looks, money, etc...or all the above? How does a person know they are in love and not just infatuated. If two guys are together and they enjoy hanging out{no pune intended} does this mean they are in love or just good friends? If 2 people of the opposite sex enjoy hanging out, and decide sex is fun does this mean they are in love?

Originally posted by Vilepagan

What did you find out when you "looked into" homosexuality?

What did you find out that convinced you it was a disorder?

Do you know any homosexuals?

I'm assuming here that you are not a psychologist, or psychiatrist, and are merely expressing a layman's opinion on the subject.

Why do you feel that you are more qualified to label homosexuality a disorder than the American Psychlogical Association?

I would appreciate hearing your answers so that you can dispell any assumptions I may be in error about.

Alright, some good and/or relevant questions here.

I conclude it's a disorder because it makes one effectively impotent. One of the key factors in making a specimen successful is its ability to pass on its genes. Right now, the ability for homosexuals to reproduce is technology-dependent. What happens when/if society regresses so that such technology doesn't exist or is. Whether you consider homosexuality behavioral or genetic, both theories dictate that homosexuals will pass on the characteristic to their children, creating an entire subspecies of impotent humans. Such humans are inferior specimen to a degree in that they will die out without the presence of artificial means to reproduce.

Yes, I know homosexuals. My ex-girlfriend was "bi-curious" and one of my college roommates was homosexual.

No, I'm not a psychologist/psychiatrist, although I do take psychology courses I've taken into consideration.

Why do I feel qualified to label it a "disorder" (Technically-speaking, I may be using the wrong term here, perhaps a more general term like "problem" or "negative characteristic" is appropriate)? Because I know the fact that professionals don't call it a disorder is based on political pressure, not the genetically-burdensome characteristics that are common knowledge to even the most uneducated laymen.

Of course, none of this is to say that gays (for shorthand purposes) can't function in society. Like I said, I approach homosexuality much like I approach depression. I will actively discourage it in my friends and children, but I have no problem with them having equal rights/oppurtunities/treatment.

Now I have some questions for you. As an admitted homosexual, Vilepagan, do you really think homosexuals have as much genetic viability as heterosexuals, and if so, why?

If you were a parent, how would you feel if your child told you his/her reproductive capacity was severely-limited?

Originally posted by Leper
Whether you consider homosexuality behavioral or genetic, both theories dictate that homosexuals will pass on the characteristic to their children, creating an entire subspecies of impotent humans. Such humans are inferior specimen to a degree in that they will die out without the presence of artificial means to reproduce.
But the homosexuals wouldn't be able to reproduce in the first place to create your hypothetical sub-species.

Hi Leper nice to meet you! Some science facts that are little known are that Syphilis came from camels, that Gonorrhea came from sheep, that Herpes came from horses, and that mankind has two strains of AIDS, one came from chimpanzees and the other from gorillas. Why are we as a race having a problem with these sexual diseases? They are not native to mankind. Realitive to sexual disease the only ones that mankind had was relative to *nal intercourse, durring Bible times the only sexual disease that mankind had was leprosy and fecal matter (it can cause infection in the uretha and the blatter). :) I don't think the problem is Homosexuality, I think the problem is "man" kind. acaveyogi

One of the key factors in making a specimen successful is it's ability to pass on it's genes.

I agree this is one of the characteristics, but reprodicing is highly overrated. Some other characteristics are contributing to the greater good of the tribe, helping out in other ways/

Scenario;

This is Bob and Dave. They are gay and under natural circumstances, cannot reproduce. Bob and Dave meet Sally and Simon. They are orphans. Maybe Bob and Dave can care for and nurture Sally and Simon, give them a home, and make a postive impact in their lives to ensure that Sally and Simon grow up strong and healthy, so that they may survive to pass on their genes.

Being unable to pass on your genes does not render you useless to mankind, and this is but one example of why..........

Originally posted by BorgHunter
But the homosexuals wouldn't be able to reproduce in the first place to create your hypothetical sub-species.

That's assuming the only way homosexuality spreads is through reproduction.

Originally posted by creetwins
I agree this is one of the characteristics, but reprodicing is highly overrated. Some other characteristics are contributing to the greater good of the tribe, helping out in other ways/

Scenario;

This is Bob and Dave. They are gay and under natural circumstances, cannot reproduce. Bob and Dave meet Sally and Simon. They are orphans. Maybe Bob and Dave can care for and nurture Sally and Simon, give them a home, and make a postive impact in their lives to ensure that Sally and Simon grow up strong and healthy, so that they may survive to pass on their genes.

Being unable to pass on your genes does not render you useless to mankind, and this is but one example of why..........

Agreed. Being unable to reproduce in today's society is really not a limiting factor, at least in the U.S. However, there will be inevitably be a time when humans are dependent on reproduction to survive once again. I guess you could dispute this and say there will never be another Dark Ages of any sort, but such a challenge is unrealistic IMO.

Just to be clear (which I was trying to be in my last post), I am not by any means saying homosexuals are useless. Otherwise, I would not support granting them equal rights. I'm only stating a rational reason why it should be a discouraged trait.

Originally posted by acaveyogi
Hi Leper nice to meet you! Some science facts that are little known are that Syphilis came from camels, that Gonorrhea came from sheep, that Herpes came from horses, and that mankind has two strains of AIDS, one came from chimpanzees and the other from gorillas. Why are we as a race having a problem with these sexual diseases? They are not native to mankind. Realitive to sexual disease the only ones that mankind had was relative to *nal intercourse, durring Bible times the only sexual disease that mankind had was leprosy and fecal matter (it can cause infection in the uretha and the blatter). :) I don't think the problem is Homosexuality, I think the problem is "man" kind. acaveyogi

Hi, acaveyogi, nice to meet you also. However, I'm not really sure what your point is. Is it that you think mankind's behavior has somehow been the cause of new diseases since Biblical times? And if so, how does this relate to our current discussion?

Sorry Leper I guess I was being a bit of a smart *ss. If the human male was not inclined to pork anything that will hold still, then what would our society be like today? Is the problem really homosexuality or is it the human male's libido? Have you ever watched the social dynamics of a group of young horny males? The topic is: Is homosexuality a disease? We have been discussing this question from many different angles. I guess what I was attempting to do was to present the possibility that the human male's libido could be creating social pressures that result in homosexual behavior. Is all. acaveyogi

Originally posted by Leper
Alright, some good and/or relevant questions here.

I conclude it's a disorder because it makes one effectively impotent. One of the key factors in making a specimen successful is its ability to pass on its genes. Right now, the ability for homosexuals to reproduce is technology-dependent.

I'm not trying to be picky but I believe you mean "infertile" not "impotent". Yes, if homosexuals passed on this trait from one generation to the next, reproduction would be vital to the propogation of more homosexuals. Technology aside, homosexuals can reproduce the same way heterosexuals do, and have been doing so for thousands of years.

What happens when/if society regresses so that such technology doesn't exist or is. Whether you consider homosexuality behavioral or genetic, both theories dictate that homosexuals will pass on the characteristic to their children, creating an entire subspecies of impotent humans. Such humans are inferior specimen to a degree in that they will die out without the presence of artificial means to reproduce.

Again, society has only recently developed technologies that allow homosexuals, or anyone for that matter, to reproduce without actual sexual intercourse taking place. Since homosexuals have been around a lot longer than the technology, I think it's safe to say that homosexuality is not dependent on technology for it's survival as a trait. Homosexuals do not therefore, "pass on" this trait to their offspring, anymore than heterosexuals "pass on" their sexual preference to theirs. It would seem that whatever genetic factors are involved are very subtle ones. If it were as simple as passing on the trait down through the generations homosexuality would have died out millenia ago. It is possible that it is merely the result of a random mixture of genetic material that happens in a certain percentage of individuals.

Why do I feel qualified to label it a "disorder" (Technically-speaking, I may be using the wrong term here, perhaps a more general term like "problem" or "negative characteristic" is appropriate)? Because I know the fact that professionals don't call it a disorder is based on political pressure, not the genetically-burdensome characteristics that are common knowledge to even the most uneducated laymen.

Of course, none of this is to say that gays (for shorthand purposes) can't function in society. Like I said, I approach homosexuality much like I approach depression. I will actively discourage it in my friends and children, but I have no problem with them having equal rights/oppurtunities/treatment.


Ironically, the main reason that it's no longer classified as a disorder is because, unlike depression and similar afflictions, it does not affect ones ability to function in society. This is a medical distinction not based on political pressure as you claim.

Now I have some questions for you. As an admitted homosexual, Vilepagan, do you really think homosexuals have as much genetic viability as heterosexuals, and if so, why?

I feel that homosexuals have as much genetic viablity as heterosexuals for several reasons. First, homosexuals have been around since the beginning of recorded history and show no signs of dying out. I suspect the trait has been around as long as humans have. Second, you seem to equate genetic viability with an individual being able to pass on their individual genes. You suggest that if homosexuals can't pass on their genes the trait will disappear over time. The pressures of natural selection would seem to favor this idea, but since we seem to have gay people born all the time we can assume that either being gay has some other benefits for the individual that we are unaware of, or perhaps there is another reason why this trait survives. One possible reason could be that the trait holds some value to the species as a whole, rather than to the individuals who possess it. It's possible that homosexuality is our species safety valve against the pressures of overpopulation.

If you were a parent, how would you feel if your child told you his/her reproductive capacity was severely-limited?

Assuming that you are asking me how I would feel if my child told me they were gay, I would tell them that my main concern was with their happiness and not my genetic legacy. If they weren't gay and wanted to have children but couldn't, I would suggest they seek whatever medical treatment they could so they could reproduce.

Please forgive me Vilepagan for stepping into the middle of your point. And for creating maybe a new point. If I as a young man had had a homosexual experience my whole life would have been different. It just would have. Am I a closet homosexual? I don't know. But I do know that I am happy being married to my wife and being a normal guy. So is it possible that some homosexuals are a victim of our society and are doing their best to be positive (self worth) with what we as a society has allowed to happen to them? To say, "Boys will be boys." opens up a tragedy both for young girls and for young boys. Just because you are sensitive and want to be a part of a group doesn't mean that you are born homosexual. There are a lot of really cool guys out there that never had a chance to be a normal man. I lucked out, I just did. acaveyogi

Acaveyogi, sorry but you are far from normal :D {just kidding}

:alien: :thumbs:

Originally posted by acaveyogi
Please forgive me Vilepagan for stepping into the middle of your point. And for creating maybe a new point. If I as a young man had had a homosexual experience my whole life would have been different. It just would have. Am I a closet homosexual? I don't know.

Are you saying that if you had a homosexual experience that you would have "decided" to be gay? I think either you have a misguided idea of how sexuality is determined, or some strange notion that gay sex is somehow addictive, or better than straight sex. Perhaps you have some unfulfilled fantasies yogi.

But I do know that I am happy being married to my wife and being a normal guy.

Oddly enough yogi, I consider myself a "normal guy" as well. Normal in the sense that I don't consider myself defective in any way, and since I'm as capable of having as happy of a life as anyone else I consider that pretty normal.

So is it possible that some homosexuals are a victim of our society and are doing their best to be positive (self worth) with what we as a society has allowed to happen to them?

You're losing me here yogi. What did society "allow to happen to them"? If I've been victimized it would come as a surprise to me.

To say, "Boys will be boys." opens up a tragedy both for young girls and for young boys.

Ok...now you've lost me completely.


Just because you are sensitive and want to be a part of a group doesn't mean that you are born homosexual.

No, it means you are sensitive and want to be a part of a group...which is completely unrelated to homosexuality. Caveyogi, you seem to be unable to see past some stereotypes of gay people, and I'm not sure how to address that.

There are a lot of really cool guys out there that never had a chance to be a normal man.

Why? What happened to them?

homosexuality is obviosuly not a hereditary trait. I'm studying this in bio, so let me explain:
humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes that contain our genetic material (DNA), and determine everything physical about us. the last pair, the sex chromosomes, is what we use to pass on to offspring, traits that are carried on these two chromosomes are hereditary, and those caried on the other 44 chromosomes aren't, and happen randomly during the creation of a child as cells divide and replicate. homosexuality would have died out long ago if it was a heredotary trait for the simple reason that homosexuals can't reproduce. it's obviously a random ordr of genes that determine it. there could literally be one DNA base diferent from straight people on a gay person's DNA strand, and that's what makes the difference. if it was a disorder, they would be affected in a negative way, and the only negative things that happen to homosexuals are created by society, as opposed to their sexuality.
just thought a little biological information mgiht be good, so the arguments are founded on facts.

Alas, Whammy, your arguments are flawed. Haven't you ever heard of dominant versus recessive traits? Homosexuality could easily be a recessive trait.

Ah, Borg, but wouldn't that be wiped out by natural selection anyway? Survival of the fittest being the phrase of the day, if Homosexuals can't reproduce and too few a number do so with the opposite sex, the recessive trait would probably be long gone by now. In short, box agrees with Whammy. Also see this link:

http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/Werner/Werner20.htm

Originally posted by box19
Ah, Borg, but wouldn't that be wiped out by natural selection anyway? Survival of the fittest being the phrase of the day, if Homosexuals can't reproduce and too few a number do so with the opposite sex, the recessive trait would probably be long gone by now.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?But genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis, which generally cause the sufferer to not live long enough to have kids (without medicine) still exists too.

So the argument IS flawed! Speaking of genetic diseases, though, with designer babies on the horizon and the possibility of removing harmful traits, wouldn't it be possible for parents to prevent their children from being homosexual - if it is a recessive trait?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
You'd think so, wouldn't you?But genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis, which generally cause the sufferer to not live long enough to have kids (without medicine) still exists too.


not all gentci diseases are hereditary. that was the point I was trying to make. becasue of the way cells divide DNa is mixed up randomly, and certain traits can't be predetermined. cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease, but it's not carried on the sex chromosomes. only traits carreid on those chromosomes are hereditary. the rest is determines far more randomly. please don't make me repeat myself again.

Definition of hereditary: Transmitted or capable of being transmitted genetically from parent to offspring. Sounds like all genetic diseases are hereditary, otherwise they wouldn't be called genetic.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Definition of hereditary: Transmitted or capable of being transmitted genetically from parent to offspring. Sounds like all genetic diseases are hereditary, otherwise they wouldn't be called genetic.


you're not understanding what I'm saying. everyone gets all of their DNA from their parents. but only sex=linked traits are transmitted exactly as they are in parents. everyhting else is too jumbled up.

You don't understand biology. They are all hereditary. Where else does it come from? Appears from thin air? Sex linked traits effect males more than 90% of the time, why, because it generally travels on the male chromosome(Was that X or Y?). For a male to have it, they only need it on that one gene, for females to have it they need it on both. There is no "jumbled up", to have something on your DNA your parents had to have it, weither it be dominant or recessive in them. If your parents had it recessively, then your grandparents or great grandparents had to have it. There can be a criss cross of the chromosomes, that is rare, but it still had to of been on one of your parents genes. I have yet to see gays have parents or granparents or such be gay also, it doesn't appear to be hereditary, thus, nothing to do with genes.

So ok, just for now, scrap the genetic idea. There are still other afflictions, and things that make people different, that occur prenatally, that aren't genetically determined. Is your orientation genetically predetermined? Is everything genetic? What if you were to have A slight alteration of hormones, one way or the other at a particularly crucial stage in developement? Or a somehow different metabolic or chemical makeup. Is that genetic or incidental? What if there were some slight chemical occurance in utero? Maybe there is a switch in the brain (hypothalamus?) that would be very sensitive in all of us to certain chemical variances.
I wonder because I hear valid arguments that it might not be directly passed on because of the reproductive dead-end.

This whole debate is incredibly old fashioned. I thought that considering homosexuality as a disease was really a 19th century thing ! But maybe I'm living on a different planet.

Originally posted by astrapol2
This whole debate is incredibly old fashioned. I thought that considering homosexuality as a disease was really a 19th century thing ! But maybe I'm living on a different planet.
No, just in an apparently more-enlightened country. A lot of Americans still live in the 19th century.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
No, just in an apparently more-enlightened country. A lot of Americans still live in the 19th century.

A WITCH!!!! A WITCH!!!!

Originally posted by LionelHutz
A WITCH!!!! A WITCH!!!!

Well...we did the nose...and the hat...Burn her!...Burn her!...

I don't think anyone is claiming to know why.....only exploring ideas here........................

(but I swear....that wasn't me in the forest fornicating with demons............NO! I will NOT confess........)

AND if you are so enlightened please grace us with your modern knowledge. Why/how are some people born gay???

Originally posted by creetwins
Why/how are some people born gay???

I highly doubt that it's any more thaneople with other genetic differences.

A WITCH!!!! A WITCH!!!!
*Coughs and begins to recite Monty Python*

CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We've found a witch! We've found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE:
How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2:
She looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE:
Bring her forward.
WITCH:
I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
WITCH:
And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE:
Well?
VILLAGER #1:
Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE:
The nose?
VILLAGER #1:
And the hat, but she is a witch!
VILLAGER #2:
Yeah!
CROWD:
We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE:
Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1:
No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes.
VILLAGER #2:
Yes.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2:
A bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGER #1:
She has got a wart.
RANDOM:
[cough]
BEDEVERE:
What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]
CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH:
It's a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3:
Burn her!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...


MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Wow. What a thread. Well, I love to see people entered into debate. However, several of the opinions expressed in several posts are flawed, as they are assertions that science has already researched. For beginners, no one family or social situation is correlated with a same-sex sexual orientation, thanks to Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith!). The same is true for sexual orientation--in general. There is no one family or social situation affiliated with heterosexuality. And with same-sex sexual orientation. In short, gays aren't from mothers who are dominant and fathers who are passive. In fact, there is no correlation with gay men and excessive attachment to their mothers. Second, experiences do not happen first, only to be labeled "gay" later. Gay people relate that their sense of "differentness" was present from childhood, prior to any concept of sexuality. Further, many heterosexual people have same-sex experiences, as it is commonly associated with puberty and early college years; yet, those are sporadic and end with constant heterosexual relationships. Path analysis by the study cited before has shown that the theory that behavior precedes a labeling of gay is not true. Third, monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies have consistently supported the notion of a biological basis to sexual orientation (see Bailey and others). Of course, this is inherently obvious, as sexuality is innate and biological. Further, the existential and qualitative experiences of those with a same-sex sexual orientation support the notion that the internal attraction to the same-sex is not consciously chosen. The same is true for heterosexuals. Lastly, a disorder in psychology is one that impacts social, occupational and family functioning. Sexual orientation, per se, does not. Heterosexuality and homosexuality, both, are not correlated with any particular increase in psychological disorders or adjustment disorders. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association both support this postion, a position supported by thirty years of research. To argue that being gay is disordered based on "imposed infertility" is interesting, but not accepted by any philosophical, ethical or psychological system. Just wanted to throw in some tidbits, as my Ph.D. is in psychology. More specifically, I specialized in sexual orientation, so I felt qualified to address the topic.

Cheers

That was a breath of fresh air!


Third, monozygotic and dizygotic twin studies have consistently supported the notion of a biological basis to sexual orientation (see Bailey and others). Of course, this is inherently obvious, as sexuality is innate and biological.

what does this mean, that both mono twins were gay?


Neuromed I'm sure I will have a lot of questions for you in the future if you don't mind, not necessarily relating to this topic, but other neurological matters. I have a lot of questions............

Welcome to Allforums neuromed07!

It's nice to get the opinion of an expert, and it's nice to have another gay voice on the forums. :D

Neuromed,

Why do you think that some people are homosexual and some are heterosexual?

This is the part that interests me the most:

Further, many heterosexual people have same-sex experiences, as it is commonly associated with puberty and early college years; yet, those are sporadic and end with constant heterosexual relationships.

I witnessed and to a certain extent experienced this myself. I find it interesting that you assume that all of those "same-sex experiences" end "with constant heterosexual relationships." Is it not possible that a large percentage of the gay population started out the same way and simply decided to stay homosexual (for whatever reason, I won't use the word disorder since that seems to cause a terminology argument)?

Well, first off, it would be much easier for us to discover the causes of sexual orientation, since the vast majority of people are heterosexual, by studying heterosexuality. We just have more to go on. Personally, I can only say that the causes of sexual orientation, defined as internal and enduring attractions, are beyond conscious control, firmly developed by early childhood and have some type of biological influence. Notice I said "biological." This doesn't imply genetic. It could be hormonal, such as hormones within the womb, or other things that are biological. We just don't know, sadly. Genetic studies, such as the twin studies I cited, would lead us to look at genes. However, the hormones of the womb are not identical--not even to two babies who are developing within the same area! So, those could also support the idea of hormonal influences. This is a strong area for research, as we are all born with a female brain. It is only "masculinized" by circulating hormones of testosterone. We know, especially with rats, that changes to these hormone levels impact development of what we, as humans, would call sex roles. For example, genetically male rats, with male genitalia, will allow other rats to "hump them," if the testosterone was decreased in the womb. Of course, rats will arch their back (it's called "lordosis") in preparation to a Q-tip! So, I wouldn't look to that to extrapolate to humans. So, it's complex, to say the least. But all of us knew that anyway. Whew.

Originally posted by creetwins


what does this mean, that both mono twins were gay?


Neuromed I'm sure I will have a lot of questions for you in the future if you don't mind, not necessarily relating to this topic, but other neurological matters. I have a lot of questions............

Creetwins:

No. Identical twins, those from a common zygote that split, are monozygotic (MZ) (one sperm and one egg); thus, their genomes are identical. Dizygotic twins (DZ) are from two different zygotes; thus, they are 50% identical. If a condition is a truly genetic condition, both of the MZ twins would have the trait. If they both do, it is called "concordance." So, genetic conditions would have concordant rates of 100%, meaning each of the MZ twins have the condition. Genetic conditions for the DZ twins mean they are concordant for the trait about, or approaching 50% of the time. So, twin studies into a gay sexual orientation, have varying percentages, but it approaches the 100% for the MZ twins and 50% for the DZ twins. However, concordance for measles is like 98% for MZ twins; and measles isn't genetic. It's only a testimony that similiar wombs can raise the number. I hope this helps.

Lastly, feel free to ask away. I love to chat.


:p

Cheers

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Welcome to Allforums neuromed07!

It's nice to get the opinion of an expert, and it's nice to have another gay voice on the forums. :D

Who, me? lol
Ya caught me. What gave it away? It wasn't the...rainbow...was it?

:thumbs:

This is a strong area for research, as we are all born with a female brain.
What exactly do you mean by that?

Who, me? lol
Ya caught me. What gave it away? It wasn't the...rainbow...was it?
That's what I would have guessed, that and the inverted triangle, which symbolizes the female. Leave it to the gay guy to say something, I would have kept my mouth shut. :D

Regardless of the XY, genetic males do not become genital males, not male brained until the hormones kick in. In fact, hormonal disturbances are the causes of genetic males being born with female genitalia, or misformed male genitalia. Despite feminist arguments to the contrary, there are biological differences between the XX and XY brains. These are related to hormones. So, to answer your question, nature's default is female until we get the surge from testosterone and a few other minor contributions to form male genitalia and male-type neurology.

Originally posted by Karankawa
This is the part that interests me the most:



I find it interesting that you assume that all of those "same-sex experiences" end "with constant heterosexual relationships." Is it not possible that a large percentage of the gay population started out the same way and simply decided to stay homosexual (for whatever reason, I won't use the word disorder since that seems to cause a terminology argument)?

The research is more complex, so maybe I should clarify. There are two types of people with same-sex experience in puberty and beyond. Gay and straight. The gay people will tell you they felt "different" as a child. The acts during puberty are identical (i.e., some type of sexual activity that is same-sex). However, for gay people, the act is truly significant. It confirms their different feeling, one already identified prior to the sexual contact. For heterosexuals, it is more playful and it left for heterosexual behavior at some point. The heterosexual will reflect on the experience as "no big deal," or just "messing around." In short, there wasn't an underlying attraction to males to be confirmed; theirs was for females. I would like to address this more thoroughly, but I am not fully understanding what you mean when you say, "Is it not possible that a large percentage of the gay population started out the same way and simply decided to stay homosexual?" In what way do you mean they start out? Tell me a little more about that and I'll try to address it from what we know with the research.

Cheers

Originally posted by Blibblob
[b]

That's what I would have guessed, that and the inverted triangle, which symbolizes the female. Leave it to the gay guy to say something, I would have kept my mouth shut. :D

Who said I was male?
:hitout:

Originally posted by neuromed07
Who, me? lol
Ya caught me. What gave it away? It wasn't the...rainbow...was it?

:thumbs:

Yeah a rainbow triangle's a dead giveaway...:flowers:

Originally posted by Blibblob
This is a strong area for research, as we are all born with a female brain.
What exactly do you mean by that?

My bad! I just caught that I typed "born." We aren't all born with a female brain, but we all start out with one; that is what I meant to say.

Originally posted by neuromed07
Who said I was male?
:hitout: You led everyone here to believe you were with your introduction.

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4529

Leave it to the gay guy to say something, I would have kept my mouth shut.
I think when Blob said that he was referring to what Vile said about there being another gay person in the forum....


It's nice to get the opinion of an expert, and it's nice to have another gay voice on the forums

And I assumed you are male too when I read you intro....:D

Originally posted by HaVoK
You led everyone here to believe you were with your introduction.

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4529

I just read my intro again; in no place do I cite my sex. How exactly did I lead you to believe?

The only reason I assumed was because the title of your intro thread was "here he comes" that was the only reference I saw:D

Originally posted by neuromed07
I just read my intro again; in no place do I cite my sex. How exactly did I lead you to believe? Here HE comes

Originally posted by HaVoK
Here HE comes

Damn! I overlooked the "he." OK, for future reference, I am male. I just checked to be sure.

:D

Originally posted by neuromed07
Damn! I overlooked the "he." OK, for future reference, I am male. I just checked to be sure.

:D

And you're going to be a doctor so you oughta know...a good doctor knows you should always get a second opinion...:D

Dang!...and you would live in VA...mom always wanted me to marry a doctor...:flowers:

Originally posted by neuromed07
What gave it away? It wasn't the...rainbow...was it?

Completely off topic, but I always wondered how many people think to themselves "what a pretty rainbow flag!" and slap it on their house without really knowing what they're saying about themselves. :D

Originally posted by neuromed07
Creetwins:

No. Identical twins, those from a common zygote that split, are monozygotic (MZ) (one sperm and one egg); thus, their genomes are identical. Dizygotic twins (DZ) are from two different zygotes; thus, they are 50% identical. If a condition is a truly genetic condition, both of the MZ twins would have the trait. If they both do, it is called "concordance." So, genetic conditions would have concordant rates of 100%, meaning each of the MZ twins have the condition. Genetic conditions for the DZ twins mean they are concordant for the trait about, or approaching 50% of the time. So, twin studies into a gay sexual orientation, have varying percentages, but it approaches the 100% for the MZ twins and 50% for the DZ twins. However, concordance for measles is like 98% for MZ twins; and measles isn't genetic. It's only a testimony that similiar wombs can raise the number. I hope this helps.

Lastly, feel free to ask away. I love to chat.


:p

Cheers

For a self-proclaimed expert, I find your claims to be negligently misleading.

Here are the findings of Bailey, the study you cited:

Men:
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Women:
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Here's my source (It didn't take me long to find one since I've been well aware of the study for quite some time and knew right away that your assertions are off):
http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

This shows that your statement: "So, twin studies into a gay sexual orientation, have varying percentages, but it approaches the 100% for the MZ twins and 50% for the DZ twins" is very misleading, since you're basically saying 52/48% is approaching 100% and 22/16% is approaching 50%. I could just as easily say "So, twin studies into gay sexual orientation, have varying percentages, but it approaches 25% for the MZ twins and 10% for the DZ twins," using your unusually liberal standards.

Anyways, according to this study, homosexuality is not genetic, although some inherited or otherwise biological characteristics probably influence one's sexuality to a degree. The biological relationship could be as simple as men with effeminate features (such as less height, thin build, etc.) are more likely to be gay.

I have a question for you, are you aware of any similar twin studies for an accepted personality trait, like introversion/extroversion? I suspect you would have a very similar correllation in any such study.

One more thing: You made this statement: "Of course, this is inherently obvious, as sexuality is innate and biological." How does the Bailey study not render this statement as patently false?

Despite my somehwat hostile response, welcome to allforums. Although we're clearly going to butt heads, I welcome anyone who will use a study to back up their positions.

Regardless of the XY, genetic males do not become genital males, not male brained until the hormones kick in. In fact, hormonal disturbances are the causes of genetic males being born with female genitalia, or misformed male genitalia. Despite feminist arguments to the contrary, there are biological differences between the XX and XY brains. These are related to hormones. So, to answer your question, nature's default is female until we get the surge from testosterone and a few other minor contributions to form male genitalia and male-type neurology.
That makes sense... And it would also explain ancient religious symbology. Of the penticle, triangle, sophia etc...

Originally posted by Leper
For a self-proclaimed expert, I find your claims to be negligently misleading.

Here are the findings of Bailey, the study you cited:

Men:
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Women:
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Here's my source (It didn't take me long to find one since I've been well aware of the study for quite some time and knew right away that your assertions are off):
http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html


Thanks for your post. I appreciate your attention. First, I have never proclaimed to be an expert in genetic studies, as I am not a biologist. However, I do have a Ph.D. in psychology, specifically in ego-dystonic sexuality, so in that area, yes, I am an expert. The "e" word was cited by others. Second, yes, the percentages you state are correct from the Bailey study. I am writing for a non-academic audience, and Bailey was intended to be a sample study. You should note my original statement, as you have quoted:


This shows that your statement: "So, twin studies into a gay sexual orientation, have varying percentages, but it approaches the 100% for the MZ twins and 50% for the DZ twins" is very misleading, since you're basically saying 52/48% is approaching 100% and 22/16% is approaching 50%. I could just as easily say "So, twin studies into gay sexual orientation, have varying percentages, but it approaches 25% for the MZ twins and 10% for the DZ twins," using your unusually liberal standards.


I stated that "twin studies," not the Bailey study. And this is true. Studies do have "varying percentages," as I noted and provided with Bailey, but there are plenty that do approach biological significance, and always exceed statistical significance. For example, Kallman in 1952 discovered 100% MZ concordance (n=37) and 42% for DZ twins (n=26). I do believe this quantitative data would justify my use of the word "approaches." Again, I am not citing all studies when I write, as this is not an academic journal. Next time, perhaps, you will expand your search of the literature; and perhaps next time note my use of "studies"--plural!

Anyways, according to this study, homosexuality is not genetic, although some inherited or otherwise biological characteristics probably influence one's sexuality to a degree. The biological relationship could be as simple as men with effeminate features (such as less height, thin build, etc.) are more likely to be gay.

This is not true. In fact, Bailey calculated "heritability" of sexual orientation in the study. Had you analzyed the actual article, you would see Bailey calculated "heritability" as between 31-74%. Indeed, most studies do calculate heritability, consistent with biological equations geared for these studies.



One more thing: You made this statement: "Of course, this is inherently obvious, as sexuality is innate and biological." How does the Bailey study render this statement as patently false?

Considering my aforementioned "heritability" calculation, the only thing patent is your inattention to the concept within the original article.

Despite my somehwat hostile response, welcome to allforums. Although we're clearly going to butt heads, I welcome anyone who will use a study to back up their positions.

Thanks for the welcome. I like a good debate.

Sorry..new to the board. My comments are within all the quoting. I know how to use the "quote" now. My bad.

whoah wait up........Vile did you just try to pick up the new guy?
:corn: :corn: :corn: :corn: :corn:
:drinktoth

Originally posted by neuromed07
Thanks for the welcome. I like a good debate.

So the 1952 study found 100% concordance and the 1991 study found 52/48% concordance? Somebody screwed up...I'm putting my money on the 1952 study.

Ah man! What about this: All species that have a goadapodium (Guppies) in nature have some form of Aids (including Guppies), to take out peripheral males (you can't be a female and have to deal with a group of horny guys). Nature is based on survival of the fittest. I am not against homosexuals (after all there is no sex in Heaven), but until mankind understands nature, nature is going to find away. It is built into the system. I think gays should be allowed to be married and be monogamous. There are women that are using *nal intercourse as a form birth control (Africa and other places) and the problem is that their mates are promiscous. The thing to remember is that if you introduce the Aids virus into the bloodstream with fecal matter more than twice, you are going to get sick. And what science doesn't understand is that if you have the Aids virus and hemoroids you are a goner. Each time that the Aids virus is introduced into your bloodstream with fecal matter it adapts and you are the victim. The Aids virus goes into the T cells and the T cells go into and out the digestive track. If the virus isn't reintroduced back into the bloodstream it can't run a learning curve, the T cells tie it up. They just do. If I had Aids I would use cheap petroleum jelly, it creates a barrior. And try not to be depressed it shuts down your thymus gland. acaveyogi

Originally posted by Leper
So the 1952 study found 100% concordance and the 1991 study found 52/48% concordance? Somebody screwed up...I'm putting my money on the 1952 study.


LOL

Yeah, the 1952 study did find complete concordance, but so have others. The point, as I originally stated, was that the studies vary--sometimes greatly--but there is some inheritance factor coming into play with sexual orientation, clearly.

:)

You folks seem to be quite concerned with male or female preferences during our life time on earth. The things that mortal man find to occupy the thinking mind will never cese to amaze me.
What if I told you that there is no gender after death? Would the preocupation of the sexes and their choice of mates still seem so important.

A bit of Shakespear comes to mind,it went something like..
Life is but a walking shadow,a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing. :)

No gender after death? Where's the fun in that? Ok, that's it: I am NOT dying. :p

Originally posted by box19
No gender after death? Where's the fun in that? Ok, that's it: I am NOT dying. :p

Nice try, but you can't cheat death. What box would you be then, Box Infinity?