Ok, I know that there are lots of threads on homosexuality, especially marriage, but I'd like the overall opinion of the people: is homosexuality a 'disease', genetics, or choice?

Some are born to it, some, grow to like it, some, discover it later in life, some, fantasise about it but would never allow themselves to do it and some, are repulsed by the very idea.

It's not disease, unless you are looking at it from some religious/conservative/bigoted perspective, but it can be spread, some, can be seduced into it, this is fact, so it may be considered as a social disease by some.

It is more likely genetic, but in a generally homophobic world, choice, is the ultimate reason for it.

Well science says it is genetic, though I don't know the validity of those findings yet, but since I have not met anyone who was born gay ultimetly it is still greatly a choice. A lot of gay guys do say that they always felt this way so the whole gentic thing could be true.

How come I can only vote for one option?
Surely you don't think it's that simple do you Budda?

Then again perhaps you do?
Dee Cee

Genes, hormones (not yours), and social conditioning are the primary factors; not all gays are gay for the same reasons superficially, but genes and conditioning are what I watch most closely, but with an eye always tuned to hormone balances in utero.

The leading theory I know of is that the mothers hormone flux during pregnancy affects how "masculine" and "feminine" the fetuses brain becomes, ie increased testosterone will lead to a more masculine part X of brain. So, this happens to homosexuals, eg in women the parts of the brain dealign with attraction are masculinsed. roughly speaking; theres a lot more work to be done. So it depends upon random factors, as well as the mothers genetics, and possibly some genetics in the baby.
I havnt heard of anyone being seduced or persuaded into homosexuality, but I dont include it done simply for fun as beaing properly homosexual. Properly homosexual is when you wonder why your different from your classmates, then it dawns on you that for example, you fancy the girls in your class, not the boys like your supposed to.

Homosexuality is to me...

[insert mumbo jumbo here]



Come on now, Droid, most members here have the courtesy not to post while their high. Or if we do we at least keep our activity limited to the pseudoscience and parapsychology board.

I thought that this thread was just a bit bizarre. I didn't particularly feel that any option was the best (though I voted genetics just to see what everyone else voted). I think that the answer is likely a bit more complex than that, which is do say I don't buy into the idea of a Gay gene. People like to forget that there's a whole lot more to biology than just genetics, and in my opinion tend to go a little off the deep end when attributing certain traits entirely to DNA (obesity for instance. Sure maybe there's some genetic factors which make a person's metabolism generally slower than average, but there's still the factor of sheer mass intake per day, and how much exercise you get, It's not like the speed of your metabolism is a fixed constant anyhow).

I’d also have to say that not all people engage in homosexual behavior for the same reasons. There’s “jailhouse gay” for instance, caused by the sheer lack of anything else to stick your dick into. I don’t buy into any theory that says that gays are girls that just happen to be more girlish in one way or another. It’s certainly not deniable that there are some flaming limp wristed lispers out there, but I hope no one has thought that these types are representative of homosexuals at large. The media loves depicting twinks in pink tube tops and cut off shorts singing Broadway show tunes, but that’s just because it’s so damn funny to look at, remember that most homosexuals spend at least part of their lives in the closet, so there are a lot of us who know how to act “straight” and get a little pissed off every time someone expects that they should be dressing in drag or redecorating someone’s living room.

One thing that homosexuality is not (in most cases) is a choice. I honestly can’t say why a bunch of well cultured males with a good fashion sense should be going around having sex with other men when women practically throw themselves at us (Wow that sounds a little self promoting, doesn’t it?) especially when doing so makes them hated and loathed? I’d like for someone to talk to a friend of mine, a poor Mormon boy who was disowned by his parents and thrown out of his home as a teen for coming out, why exactly he made the “choice” to be gay when he knew that it would mean that his family would shun him. I suppose that just comes back to conservative arrogance. Everything that they don’t understand exists just to piss them off, and that’s what it’s really all about, isn’t it; pissing off the religious right?

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe 'disease' was even a choice. Homosexuality is not an incurable illness. Homosexuality just is. It does not exist only in the human race but also within the animal kingdom in general.

but since I have not met anyone who was born gay ultimetly it is still greatly a choice.

I bet you don't know anyone at all who was born being sexually attracted to anyone. I also bet that almost everyone you know began patterning their behavior towards the opposite sex before they ever began feeling sexual attraction. Our roles towards other genders is mostly due to socialization rather than sexuality. That’s why gay people are sometimes thought of confused, yes? They have been acting like their heterosexual friends, but begin to realize that there is something fundamentally incongruous with the way they have been taught to behave, that being that they don’t feel the way they are supposed to towards the opposite sex.

That question is like "I've planted a tree. Will it eventually grow apples?" It may die, it may never grow, it may not be an apple tree I've planted. Some ppl are "trended" into it, some just like the idea, some are eternally confused, so are rebelling, some have psychological problems... its really not fair at all to class a huge group of people as "diseased". Does anyone else see that?

I didn't vote on this poll because there is no "other" option, because I don't think Genetics or Choice alone are sufficient. At least I am glad to see that no one has voted Disease yet.

I would like to vote: "Life is more complicated than a DNA strand". Can we stick that in the poll?

I think only three choices is not enough for such a complex theme. I suppose some people are homosexual because they chose to, for others their genes have done the choosing. Alas I think that the surroundings of an individual can alter his way of thinking and behaviour, even making this person a homosexual.
Whatever the reasons are, I would never describe peoples sexual inclinations as a disease.

Hmm i may be the only person who calls it a disease but that's the closest thing i can get to what i really mean. I believe (having heard this theory a few times) that it is a mental disorder. It is an actual birth defect by some kind of abnormal growth in your hormonal gland within your mind. It is not genetic nor is it a choice. And since illness or diseases are most closely related to birth defects/disorders, then that's why i chose disease.

oops, sry for the last post, I change my option from disease to genetic. I had mixed up genetic with hereditary. Therefor it is genetic, not disease.

It is an actual birth defect by some kind of abnormal growth in your hormonal gland within your mind.
Uhhhhhh, What?

Mystech dawling. Yoo schpeakink too mich? I was not drunk then. But. If. Yoo. Insist. Be back in a sec.

edit: the 'ch' in 'mich' should be pronounced like the hizz of a vampire's spit-smile. Gotta get in the spirit of things, right?

Didn't I just tell you to stop posting while you're high?

believe (having heard this theory a few times) that it is a mental disorder.

And where did you hear that? From those quacks at NARTH (http://narth.com)? They're just pissed off because the APA (http://apa.org) has concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but they still want to have the guise of being able to hate fags through "science". I put science in quotes, because it's not really an exact science with these clowns.

Ok, to all the people who got pissed off about 'disease' being an option, i put it as one merely because i have heard (ignorant and intolerant) people critisize homosexuality as one. I don't suppose that in your rage you noticed that 'disease' was put in inverted commas. However, if you were offended by this, i am truly sorry.

And to the person who said something like "why can't you vote for more than one option", i didn't know that i was able to set up the poll that way.

And finally, to the person who asked why i didnt put an 'other' option, well i didnt think of it at the time. I apologise for my narrow-mindedness.

ugh. this whole gender thing is getting to be a pain in the ass. we need to go back to asexual reproduction. :D :m: :rolleyes:

And where did you here that? From those quacks at NARTH? They're just pissed off because the APA has concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but they still want to have the guise of being able to hate fags through "science". I put science in quotes, because it's not really an exact science with these clowns.

Well they can be wrong, actually i never heard of em, but i do believe it's genetic rather than a choice. We don't choose to enjoy the things we do, we are born with a liking towards it. Whether or not it is a disorder homosexuals are born with a tendency to like those of the same sex, of course their way of thinking can be changed, homophobically, but they'll probably still have the same urges as before, only they will hate these feelings and hate others who feel em.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe 'disease' was even a choice. Homosexuality is not an incurable illness. Homosexuality just is. It does not exist only in the human race but also within the animal kingdom in general.

If this is true wouldn't that be proof that homosexuality isn't a choice? As we know (or atleast as I know) general animals, excluding humans, do not have free will, therefore they cannot choose to be homosexual or not. Therefore it must be genetic or, hereditary?

If this is true wouldn't that be proof that homosexuality isn't a choice? As we know (or atleast as I know) general animals, excluding humans, do not have free will, therefore they cannot choose to be homosexual or not. Therefore it must be genetic or, hereditary?

I don't see any reason not to trust what the vast majority of homosexuals believe, almost none chose to be homosexual. Still, there might be some level of choice in events preceding.

Why do some countires have more gay people than others?

Why do some cities have more gay people than others?

I'm a believer than being gay is a choice.

Somebody said that being gay is a disease should not even be an option because it's just sick. I disagree, look at what happened to the Spartans and their homosexual society, they got rooted by the Athenians, i'm not saying it's a definate path to a societies destruction, but my evidence is.

Why do some countires have more gay people than others?

Why do some cities have more gay people than others?


Only one word, history.

look at what happened to the Spartans and their homosexual society, they got rooted by the Athenians,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Athenians were also accepting of homosexuality, and their final defeat came at the hands of the Spartans anyway.

Were you trying to imply that a foreign military power will invade us for being fag lovers? I would really like to hear you make the argument for that one. It seems you already tried a historical argument, but it doesn’t really stand up for the reasons stated above. Even if your example worked in the way you had wanted it to, there are still a laundry list of heterodominant civilizations that had their asses royally handed to them without any gay involvement, so you don’t really have a scientific case here, do you?

Genetic in nature; choice in action. In countries or locations with much social stigma against homosexuality, the gay person usually makes a choice, between 1) leaving his homeland to pursue his sexuality unhindered 2) coming out and risk being ridiculed or attacked 3) marrying the opposite sex, having kids and behaving as straight as they can. Where I live, 3 seems to be the popular option, it's a choice.

Point 2, above, leads to homosexuals congregating in nice anonymous big cities wehre they can meet others of the same persusasion. thus, big cities appear to have a larger concentration.

Genetic in nature; choice in action.

That it's a choice in action is true, but the same can be said of heterosexuality, you choose who and when you have sex (well hopefully!), and likewise trying to demonize homosexuals for acting out their natural sexuality would be just like trying to paint heterosexuals as being immoral for not ignoring their natural impulses and having sex with members of the same sex. It just doesn't make good sense.

Why do some countires have more gay people than others?

Why do some cities have more gay people than others?

I'm a believer than being gay is a choice.

Well, first off I'd challenge you to find any accurate studies on the population density of homosexuals through out say the United States or Europe, or contrasting/comparing various regions. I'll save you some time on that one, there are none! First off culture plays a huge role in how many Homosexuals can be counted in any given area. In the United States the number counted is a lot likely to be much higher, whereas in more restrictive countries most homosexuals wouldn't come out to you, as they understand that they could be ridiculed, jailed, or beaten for their sexual practices.

That being said I'd wager that large cities likely have higher concentrations of homosexuals than rural areas just because it's easier to form a community, and you're less likely to be tied to a fence post and beaten to death in a large city than a little ranch in Wyoming or the like.

As for homosexuality being a choice, well. . . OK I guess the jig is up. You're right, it's entirely a choice, and we're doing it just to piss you off, is that what you want to hear? The whole persecution ridicule, and violence thing was a clever ploy, I can't believe that we've managed to keep a straight face for so long, but we really knew you'd go bonkers if we didn't let up, and that look on your face when you hear about us wanting to have equal rights, or maybe just leave us the fuck alone is priceless, definitely worth all the hell we've had to go through.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Athenians were also accepting of homosexuality, and their final defeat came at the hands of the Spartans anyway.

Were you trying to imply that a foreign military power will invade us for being fag lovers? I would really like to hear you make the argument for that one. It seems you already tried a historical argument, but it doesn’t really stand up for the reasons stated above. Even if your example worked in the way you had wanted it to, there are still a laundry list of heterodominant civilizations that had their asses royally handed to them without any gay involvement, so you don’t really have a scientific case here, do you?


While it is true that the Athenians were accepting of Homosexuality, it was in no way as wide-spread as was the case in Sparta. The Spartan male was not allowed to have interaction with Spartan women until they got married at around the age of 18, before which the male would have ahd sex with his fellow students and mentors many a time, making him quite the lover of ass. It is also known that during the marriage ceremony, the women would have their heads shaved so that they more closely resembled men.

I'm just giving food for thought here, i'm not college proffesor. Are you?

i'm not against gays or for them,

I'm just saying that if: Hypothetically: We had all turned gay 500 years ago we'd all be dead by now.

So we all agree that the poll sucks, right?

I'm just saying that if: Hypothetically: We had all turned gay 500 years ago we'd all be dead by now.
I disagree.

I'm just giving food for thought here, i'm not college proffesor. Are you?

No I'm not, but the problem seems to be that you're not even particularly bright, either.

I'm just saying that if: Hypothetically: We had all turned gay 500 years ago we'd all be dead by now.

I honestly don't remember having heard anyone advocate that we turn anyone gay, it's not an evangelical movement or anything. All we're arguing about is equal rights.

No I'm not, but the problem seems to be that you're not even particularly bright, either.


fair enough say what you say about me, i'm still smart enough not insult people.


I honestly don't remember having heard anyone advocate that we turn anyone gay, it's not an evangelical movement or anything. All we're arguing about is equal rights.

When i said earlier i believe it's a choice I meant that i think people subconsciously choose to be gay out of whatever reason. I think it's more habitual and cultural than genetic. That's just my opinion on the matter.

The obvious truth is that nobody will ever know if it's genetic or a choice. Nature vs. Nurture is a debate which will go on, it seems, forever.

As for the equal rights? It has nothing to do with this poll. Whether or not it is a choice or genetic, homosexuals will only get equal rights when a society as a whole decides it should be that way. Obviously politicians of many countries still have a problem passing laws which entitle homosexuals to free rights. this could only be the result of public opinion, and public opinion at the end of the day is a powerful thing.

It is unfortunate that people don't want to give homosexuals equal rights, but at the end of the day when a father or mothers child is born, they want it to be heterosexual. Passing laws that give equal rights to homosexuals in the publics opinion only seems to boost support for a society becoming more homosexual, so the laws are taking a while to pass.

I hope that makes sense, i guess i'm not very bright and all, should stop drinking vodka hey?

I disagree.


good for you, have any reasons?

You know, i think you answer yourself quite well:

"When i said earlier i believe it's a choice I meant that i think people subconsciously choose to be gay out of whatever reason. I think it's more habitual and cultural than genetic. That's just my opinion on the matter."

Compared to:
"but at the end of the day when a father or mothers child is born, they want it to be heterosexual. "

Great, so by that means, homosexuals either shouldnt exist at all because their parents make sure they dont want to choose to be one, or else they do so as rejection of their parents or something. Both nor supported by any evidence. Whereas when it comes to the origins of homosexuality, theres various studies about natal conditions, bits of brain and their size, as well as the testaments of the people themselves. Which all adds up to say its not nurture, thus, we will have a pretty good idea about what causes it, in fact already do.
But lets also make clear here I wouldnt really count Spartans as homosexuals, if they then get married, however, given that homosxuals have also married and fathered children, and straight guys have dabbled in homosexuality, we dont have enough information on the spartans mentality, brains, foetal environment etc to say how homosexual they were. I and various other posters here are probably using a slightly stricter definition of homosexuality here than you or others.

You know, i think you answer yourself quite well:

" I and various other posters here are probably using a slightly stricter definition of homosexuality here than you or others.

good for you, are you homosexual?

Nope. I have a very good friend who also happens to be a lesbian, have talked to various homosexuals and read bits and pieces over the years. So, I cant speak for everyone, merely what ive read, heard and talked about.

good for you, are you homosexual?

Why did he have to be homosexual?

Why did he have to be homosexual?

He didn't, I was merely asking, it's not a crime, it's not a bad thing.

He said I and various other posters here are probably using a slightly stricter definition of homosexuality here than you or others. And I wanted to know if he was homosexual because that might justify his claim.

Nope. I have a very good friend who also happens to be a lesbian, have talked to various homosexuals and read bits and pieces over the years. So, I cant speak for everyone, merely what ive read, heard and talked about.

I've lived with two homosexuals for a period of six months, and then with two other homosexuals for a period of three months, i've been to gay bars in five different countries. One of my best friends is bi-sexual, my cousin is raging, and my uncle is queenie, I know my stuff, at least i like to think so.

I vote for neither, just part of human nature

Great Nebuchadnezzar. But that doesnt explain why you disagree with people here. I mean, you suggest its choice, yet dont really say why or how, and then say we wont ever solve the nature versus nurture debate. I'm just trying to say we have a rough outline of the answer, and that its not choice, except in perhaps a few occiasions.


Besides, I said probably because I don know exactly how others are defining it, and it seems to me that bringing it homosexuality in Sparta 2,500 years ago and yet the people concerned get married later, suggests that definitions are in danger of confusion.
oh aye, and i agree about the equal rights thing.

good for you, are you homosexual?

*flashes back to A Clockwork Orange* "Are you now, or have you ever been a HOMOSEXUAL?!

*flashes back to A Clockwork Orange* "Are you now, or have you ever been a HOMOSEXUAL?!

please elaborate? your point sounds interesting, cos' this thread bites.

he didn't have a point, just watch the movie, its one of the most hilariously delivered lines in the history of film.

. . .one of the most hilariously delivered lines in the history of film.

This is no overstatement, it cracks me up every time!

Ok, I know that there are lots of threads on homosexuality, especially marriage, but I'd like the overall opinion of the people: is homosexuality a 'disease', genetics, or choice?

Gay people are not born gay. That is a lie they say is true to make the rest of the world accept them, and to feel inocent. They want the culture of the world to believe that being gay is perfectly fine and that there is nothing wrong with it. This generation of people is the first generation that has been brought up with the belief that this type of behavior is okay. I for one do not like gays. I think their beleifs and motives are discusting. It is wrong for one, marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. Their life style is also discusting. Sure, lets have sex with other men, then try and convince the whole world that it is fine, right...

You left out the combination Woman and Woman. Also, this lie that you allege, is also told by the American Psychological Association. But who cares what doctors think, right?

First, pure genetics is right out. Biologically, a gene for homosexuality would over time remove itself from the gene pool.

Assuming that by "disease," you meant "disorder" (a disease by definition causes pain or weakness), what constitutes a disorder is pretty much just a subjective evaluation by the APA as to whether a given behavior deviates from the norm. Since the APA no longer considers homosexuality a disorder, that's out too.

Of the three options presented in the poll, that leaves "choice," which I can't rule out personally. I think that we naturally have the potential to pursue any behaviors we want (this applies to all of life, not just sexuality), thus making every behavior a choice. Obviously, our brains being biological entities, biology factors into the choices we make, but that does not diminish the fact that all nonreflexive behavior is the result of a conscious choice

This generation of people is the first generation that has been brought up with the belief that this type of behavior is okay.

Uuuum, what about the Greeks? And the Egyptians, and certain Native American tribes, and certainly various other civilizations and peoples throughout time and the world that accepted homosexuality?

Obviously, our brains being biological entities, biology factors into the choices we make, but that does not diminish the fact that all nonreflexive behavior is the result of a conscious choice.

True though that may be, the conscious act of satisfying your natural biological urges (as is common to all humans, and really all species of all life everywhere on the planet) comes quite easily and guilt free when there is no genuine or rational moral stipulation in doing so.

You feel the urge to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, and come up with all sorts of wonderful untouchable justifications for doing so. Other people don’t' share your enthusiasm and follow the path that makes the most sense for them. It's that simple, and really not so hard to get along with if we could all just drop the "my people are better than yours" bullshit that we tend to be so inclined toward.

First, pure genetics is right out. Biologically, a gene for homosexuality would over time remove itself from the gene pool.


Not necessarily.

There is not a gene as such for homosexuality, so we have to think about many genetic factors that can give the brain a predisposition to a certain mindset which favours homosexuality (yes, I am trying to be careful here).

Now we may ask if this genetic character has any benefit in the light of reproductive success. It is not uncommon for homosexual persons to start off their 'reproductive career' in a heterosexual manner. They might first get married, have a baby, and then 'come out of the closet'. This would already garantee evolutionary success for the 'gay genetic character'.

But maybe a homosexual genetic character actually has been beneficial in the past. Strong bonds between men could have helped them in our early phase of evolution, for instance during hunting. 'Love' for other men could have helped this process of male bonding.

In a way being homosexual might have been an ancient evolutionary stable strategy.

(edit - this post is based on the assumption that homosexuality is genetic, for which I have no evidence. I am just speculating if it could have a genetic basis)

I still stand by my theory.
That seeing as how humans are a social species, homosexuality need not be something that exists to assist the individual in reproduction(obviously it doesn't). It merely has to be something that assists in the success of the social group.
Humans could have evolved to occassionally concieve homo-sexuals because social units with homo-sexuals might have been more successful than those without.
This sort of thing isn't outside the bounds of a social species' evolution. Baboons and wolves and (best example) ants that will never reproduce nor were intended to ever reproduce will often be born because they serve a different role in the group other than reproduction.
Once a species becomes social, every individual doesn't have to breed, the social unit needs to produce more social units and thats it.

First, pure genetics is right out. Biologically, a gene for homosexuality would over time remove itself from the gene pool.

A single gene might, but if this trait is determined by combinations of a number of genes, like many complex traits, then there is no particular reason why it should remove itself from the gene pool.

If this is true wouldn't that be proof that homosexuality isn't a choice? As we know (or atleast as I know) general animals, excluding humans, do not have free will, therefore they cannot choose to be homosexual or not. Therefore it must be genetic or, hereditary?
*************
M*W: Since homosexuality is seen in animals, that sounds genetic to me. Also, it tends to run in families. I agree with what Tiassa said. It's all about the mother's health and hormones in utero, and I'm not just talking about sex hormones. When one gland is hypofunctional, they all are hypofunctional to some degree, and this plays a role in juvenile diabetes or homosexuality.

On a spiritual level, I believe humanity is evolving toward total androgyny. Someone earlier mentioned asexual reproduction, and when humanity has evolved a lot more, that will be the way they reproduce. Thankfully, it won't be in our lifetime.

How is homosexuality a disease?


Is it like the flu, or cholera or something?

No I'm not, but the problem seems to be that you're not even particularly bright, either.



I honestly don't remember having heard anyone advocate that we turn anyone gay, it's not an evangelical movement or anything. All we're arguing about is equal rights.

if it's a choice as he believes then men are turned gay to him.

I have a brother who's gay .and he's been gay for as long as I can remember
allthough he admits to putting on a efeminate voice. he's say it works better.

but I must say mytech I came across you on another thead and you are extremely rude and abusive, this neb fellow has not once spoke out of turn about you he's just gave his opinion ,is'nt this what forum's are about.

On a spiritual level, I believe humanity is evolving toward total androgyny.

Bah, I may have mentioned it to you once in the past in another thread, but hermaphrodites are far more spiritual than androgony.

but I must say mytech I came across you on another thead and you are extremely rude and abusive, this neb fellow has not once spoke out of turn about you he's just gave his opinion ,is'nt this what forum's are about.

If "rude and abusive" didn't also fit Neb's tone, in your mind, then you should probably give the thread another read through. When he crosses the line into outright trolling with inflammatory nonsense, then he should accept whatever venom is shot back at him.

Apparently, no society that ever failed had any heterosexuals in it. Never would have guessed were it not for Neb's note.

Oh, well. Live and learn, eh?

Actually, I've been thinking about getting my green hat out and forcing a single homosexuality-related debate topic. Largely because the diversity of smaller issues is generally overridden by single-track, one-size-fits-all (not after you've seen a Chinese man from Singapore try to buy condoms in the US) argument against homosexuality.

Such a topic would make it easier for all sides of the issue to find the relevant and crossover arguments, and people in general will have to repeat themselves less.

However, I'm also aware that if I do that, I will be unfairly singling out homosexuals despite the inordinate political focus, and will be obliged to open a topic specifically for insecure people to sing the praises of heterosexuality.

Flip a coin. Either way works. It's just that these all look like the same topic to me, but I won't hold y'all to that.

I would have to agree that homosexual issues dominate a dissproportionate amount of this boards space, although its the it toppic in morality at the moment. A good civil rights struggle is fun. Once homosexuals get all our due rights what civil rights threads are we going to have left? Atheists? Lets enjoy it while we can.

Somehow, I don't think we need to worry about running out of civil rights issues.

After the slaves were freed, somebody came up with the idea, "Maybe we should give women the vote." Then it was, "Let's try treating black people like human beings." Somewhere along the line, we decided to treat Indians like human beings, too.
Now that all of those issues have been resolved to perfection :confused: , we're wondering if homosexuals might be human too.

With our track record, I can't help but wonder if there isn't some other downtrodden group somewhere that just isn't on our radar yet.

Well, there are lots of stories about transsexuals being beaten to death upon revealing themselves to people who were their friends only minuets before, but I like to think the homosexual civil rights movement is also advancing their cause. Maybe we should find a place to start a "The next big civil rights movement?" thread, open to speculation on who its going to be.

Once homosexuals get all our due rights what civil rights threads are we going to have left? Atheists? Lets enjoy it while we can.

Actually, I expect the atheistic issues to be put off as long as possible. Er ... rather, we might have to deal with the American prison issue after we're done mucking about in buggery and industrial-grade carpet.

for now though, let's pick on the homo. NOT
the one thing we humans tend to do is always pick on the underdog
it's about time we saw them as equal's and i dont just mean gays anybody who's been picked on for not being "normal".
however as long as the Sun's in the sky there will always be someone bulling someone else or someone picking fault with someone else.
humans are the worst animal on the planet.
why in a universe of so much beauty, is there so much hate.

of course it a choice as they dont know there gay until puberty
so it must the people they hang with or people they look up to literally

of course it a choice as they dont know there gay until puberty
so it must the people they hang with or people they look up to literallyLol. And you knew you wanted to kiss a girl before puberty?

Hell, that's news... being straight is now a choice a well... as is pubic hair and your voice changing.

of course it a choice as they dont know there gay until puberty
so it must the people they hang with or people they look up to literally
I don't think I see your point, are you suggesting that you should know your sexual orientation before you feel sexual attraction? Homosexuality is defined by who you are sexually attracted to, you can't know that for sure until you are sexually attracted to someone, yes? Although with a name like "the preacher" maybe you think there are some verses of holy scripture that can tell you who you are attracted to before you begin to feel sexually attracted to people.

Different kind of homosexulaity could be seen around :

1. Female Vs Female (As a man i find it could be quite possible since the woman is an ultimate sexy thing even other women find her attractive ! )

2. Man longing for Males ( May be a woman is trapped in Man's body, quite understandable )

3. Man obsessed with sticking his dick on other men's holes ( obsessed / perverted / has serious psychological problems )

Now, come on gays and roast me alive .! :D

You display the typical double standard about male homosexuality and female homosexuality. Doesn’t every guy seem to think its ok for two chicks to get together as long as a guy can watch? This principal has begun to emerge so often in TV and other such media (ie the Russian pop band TATU) my brother and I joke that lesbians were invented by the boys in marketing.

However I do insist that if you think the male body isn’t a thing of beauty you probably haven’t seen the right pictures. Beautiful half naked women are everywhere in media, I guess because women don’t make too big a stink about it and guys eat it up, but you have to look harder for pictures of guys that are of similar quality.

As for your assertion that male homosexuals are all either gender dysphoric, or perverts, I think thats been successfuly refuted often enough and on this board.

of course it a choice as they dont know there gay until puberty

Without even knowing you I can say with great confidence that you yourself likely didn't like girls until puberty either. Before then you were saying they had cooties and maybe pushed one down on the playground. It wasn't until puberty that you started liking them, yet that doesn't mean it was your choice to like them, biology just happened to kick in. It’s exactly the same scenario with homosexuals, ‘cept that their biological leanings head in a different direction.

Different kind of homosexulaity could be seen around :

1. Female Vs Female (As a man i find it could be quite possible since the woman is an ultimate sexy thing even other women find her attractive ! )

2. Man longing for Males ( May be a woman is trapped in Man's body, quite understandable )

3. Man obsessed with sticking his dick on other men's holes ( obsessed / perverted / has serious psychological problems )

Now, come on gays and roast me alive .! :D

All of these reasons seem fairly female-centric, but I guess that's to be expected from a guy obsessed with women. Despite your own reservations toward men, try to see things from the perspective that many women actually find men attractive, and then simply allow that to carry on into the idea that sometimes guys are so sexy that other guys are attracted to them! (meanwhile some guys have a longing to stick their things in girls holes, they're of course perverted, or have some sort of psychological instability).

You display the typical double standard about male homosexuality and female homosexuality. Doesn’t every guy seem to think its ok for two chicks to get together as long as a guy can watch? This principal has begun to emerge so often in TV and other such media (ie the Russian pop band TATU) my brother and I joke that lesbians were invented by the boys in marketing.
Man, in real life i would leave the lesbos alone, not intrude in their privacy.

So, is there any joke that gays were invented for the audience of sluts who want to watch more than one dick.? :D

However I do insist that if you think the male body isn’t a thing of beauty you probably haven’t seen the right pictures. Beautiful half naked women are everywhere in media, I guess because women don’t make too big a stink about it and guys eat it up, but you have to look harder for pictures of guys that are of similar quality.
Male body is defintely appreciated by fellow straight males with bit of envy but i could hardly find it the way a female body could arouse me.

All of these reasons seem fairly female-centric, but I guess that's to be expected from a guy obsessed with women. Despite your own reservations toward men, try to see things from the perspective that many women actually find men attractive, and then simply allow that to carry on into the idea that sometimes guys are so sexy that other guys are attracted to them!
'guys are so sexy' mean - Do they have a streak of feminity ?

(meanwhile some guys have a longing to stick their things in girls holes, they're of course perverted, or have some sort of psychological instability).
Not just 'some guys', almost all guys..! :D

Lol. And you knew you wanted to kiss a girl before puberty?

Hell, that's news... being straight is now a choice a well... as is pubic hair and your voice changing.

yes I did know about gays before I reached puberty and no I did'nt know I wanted girls .
I had boy's/men come on to me, but I chose girls.
and my voice breaking is part of growing up.

you are trying to be sarcastic towards me because of my opinion.
then explain to me.
if it is genetic, then so must be tranvestites, sadists, masocists, sadomasocists, pedaphiles, rapists, etc.
so these sick bastards never had a choice they have to hurt and kill it 's in their genes .
the next thing you'll be telling us is murderers have no choice it's in there genes.
it's a choice. that's my opinion sorry if you dont like it.

If you look at is from a purely scientific standpoint, there are a few things to say. As a Darwinist, Homosexuality is not something that is selected for because two people of the same sex cannot reproduce naturally. If it is genetic in this case, I could see how it could be called a disease because then it could potentially be inherited and pose a threat to the carrier. If it is learned behavior, then there would be no problem with homosexuality provided that social norms cannot be taken into account. It is a personal preference and that is to be respected. Even with these views, there is no reason why homosexuality cannot be tolerated.

In Judeo X-ian societies has a major issue with intrepeting their bibles literally. They seem not to be flexible in thinking! This then clouds judgemenet on issues such as these. God=something other than what it means. It is not outer but inner.
homosexuality is 95% genetic and 5% choice in my opinion.