Agreed. It has to be inborn. But how do you explain levels of gaynees. You know gay, really gay, Flaming homo and Andrew Sullivan gay???

Being a homo has something to do with looking at your dad's uncircumcised cock or something like that.

Well, straight men come in a variety of temperaments too.

Dan, ROFL

What do you mean, Laura? You mean some are more gay?

I think it's more like 97% of men are stone cold straight, 2.5% are stone cold homo (although they can, if needed, have sex with a women, because women are basically like the AB blood type, they're the universal receivers) and maybe, at the very most, 0.5% actually have a real mix of attractions (though they are about 90% gay, and only 10% straight).

The 3 cocktail rule is like the laffer curve: If you are less than three cocktails, you stick to guys...if you are > 5 cocktails (per hour...for me anyway...alcoholic family, ya know), you pass out and miss your opportunity for the hot girl-on-girl action despite willingness to do so.

Just an FYI.

Amen. People on the right REALLY need to get over this asinine conviction (if they haven't aready) before we can expect people on the left to give up calling everyone opposed to gay marriage "bigots".

They never will of course, but still...

Biological my ass.

Bart,

Okay: can you choose to be gay?

How about if you have a lot of gay-conversion therapy? Think your primrary sexual attraction will really change to men?

So, what, your ass is made of plastic? Was the original lost in a horrible industrial accident or is it a congenital defect?

I mean: Can you, personally, yourself, choose to be gay?

Do you have a choice in the matter?

Apart from extreme conditions (being raped repeatedly in prison and becoming one man's bitch to avoid rapes by everyone else), is there any conceivable way you could go gay?

Maybe you're arguing it's psychological. I doubt that, too, but even then, there's not much of a choice.

Besides, I think most human psychology is, at its root, biological/hormonal/brain-structure-related anyway.

No, RC was talking about guys who ACT more gay...more of a personality thing than a matter of orientation.

So there are your regular-strength straight guys who love women.

Then there are your flannel and jeans, gotta go fishin, build me a deck, straight guys.

And then there's your Dick Cheney.

I think it's either somehow psychological, hormonal, or both. Probably a mixture.

About the choice thing--so what if you're right, someone did make a choice, and they speak from experience?

"About the choice thing--so what if you're right, someone did make a choice, and they speak from experience?"

I'm quite sure a gay guy can "choose" to be straight, as many have done so throughout history.

That doesn't change the fact that the fundamental sexual drive is directed towards men.

And it doesn't change the fact that only gay men are really affected at all by the stricture against gay sex.

For a straight man, again, it's not really a concern, is it?

We all sin, and many of us make excuses for it. There were "mitigating circumstances," etc. We "couldn't help ourselves."

Just saying, even if it is a sin, gays should be at least allowed the level of rationalization most straight sinners allow themselves.

No, RC was talking about guys who ACT more gay...more of a personality thing than a matter of orientation.

Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I don't get the queeny personality thing myself. That seems more like a choice.

Although, who knows, maybe those kind of gay men have a lot of female in their brains, and that way of acting is just an expression of that.

Also, I hope this doesn't sound bigoted, but, if you were gay and you knew that 95 percent of society around you was straight and looked down upon you for being gay, wouldn't there be a powerful compulsion on you to try to make the "choice" so you could blend in?

It seems to me that being gay is not a choice at all, and the people who are gay often come to that conclusion after fighting against themselves for years that unlike the vast majority of their peers, they don't share the same sexuality.

W've been down this road before; I'm not really interesed in re-visiting the same arguments.

It is baffling, however, that the same people who buy into the theory that evolution can explain just about anything under the sun are the same people who believe homosexuality is an innate biological trait.

(I remember when you theorized that homos usually come from families with many siblings. Very interesting and all that.)

I still believe homosexuality is a sympton of a deeply rooted trauma. Or, for some people, it is simply a fetish. Too many coincidences and patterns remain to be ignored by researchers.

I'm sorry, but the roles of the male and female are not interchangeable, and that is exactly what the gays, lesbians, and trans-genderers are doing.

It is so plain to see that men and women go together like a lock and a key. Men and men, on the other hand, go together like a penis forcing itself into a man's colon. Not a pretty picture, is it?

This seems like a straw man to me.

Look, what about prison, the navy, or whatnot? Or, you know, the Arab world. Clearly there's some environmental/cultural influence on what desires pop up.

It's not so farfetched to want to make the country less like prison and more like, er, Chris Klein's house.

Yes, it is inborn, that's why it will be perfectly fine to eliminate pesky age of consent laws to allow pedoph... I mean, child-lovers to engage in "intergenerational" sex. Since sexual orientation is determined at the time we're born, that's the time we can have sex. Kinsey said so, and Kinsey was a scientist, and science is never wrong. Only ignorant weakminded imbeciles would argue against science.

That's also why identical twins are 100% sexually oriented the same way, as well as 90% of non-identical twins, 85% of same sex siblings, and 80% of opposite sex siblings.

Wait, there's more! Science tells us that you can only go in one direction when you change orientation, that is to homosexuality. It is absolutely impossible for a homosexual to become heterosexual later in life, but it is possible to go from hetero to homo. Not only is it possible, it's very likely, because homosexuals are smarter and more affluent than heterosexuals as a whole, which corresponds to increasing intelligence and earning levels as people age.

So remember, baby sex is fine, all twins and most siblings are identically sexually oriented, and you cannot go from homo to hetero but it's perfectly natural and normal to go from hetero to homo. Science!

Bart, you're postulating the "homosexuality isn't natural" argument.

Unfortunately for your argument, science is full of examples of other animals in nature being homosexual for a vast array of reasons that aren't always understood. Sometimes they believe it is a social function, others seem inexplicable outside of biological causes, and still more seem environmentally related.

I don't believe there is a one size fits all cause to homosexuality. I think it is a blend of the genetic, hormonal, social upbringing, other environmental factors, etc.

Though I'm gay, I can't completely buy into the "It's 100% genetic all the time." After all, where in our genetic code is a lust for black stiletto pumps written?

It's complicated, and any absolutist (on either side, from the religious to the gay activsts) is silly on its face.

IMHO, Even if homosexuality is not a "choice", the decision to engage in homosexual behaviour is definitely a "choice" - they can either "choose" to engage in this behaviour or "choose" not to.

Bart: eh? It might well be evolutionarily advantageous to have a small percentage of the population be, uh, not interested in reproducing.

Sue,

How did you extrapolate this into an endorsement of child rape?

IMHO, Even if homosexuality is not a "choice", the decision to engage in homosexual behaviour is definitely a "choice" - they can either "choose" to engage in this behaviour or "choose" not to

Madfish,

Of course you have a choice as to how you actually act. But straight guys don't really have to sweat this particular prohibition, do they?

My point is that it's hard, for me, to see some people getting as bothered about gay people who choose to actually be gay considering that there are a lot of more-easily avoided behaviors (no premarital sex, no heterosexual sodomy) most straights typically give themselves a pass on.

It might well be evolutionarily advantageous to have a small percentage of the population be, uh, not interested in reproducing

In what way?

Though I'm gay, I can't completely buy into the "It's 100% genetic all the time." After all, where in our genetic code is a lust for black stiletto pumps written?

It's complicated, and any absolutist (on either side, from the religious to the gay activsts) is silly on its face.

Thank you. You've written the things I always try to tell everyone here whenever the subject comes up.

I'm trying to find that Kirk & Madsen quote from their After The Ball book where they make it clear that the "born that way" argument was an invention to stifle dissent from "homohaters" (their word.)

ACE: I knew it was a poor idea for you and Allah to view brokeback maountain. You're so sensitive.. No one really cares what happens in someone else's own bedroom between consenting adults. The problem is that gays want to parade their sexual preferences and sexual acts publicly and demand that we approve them. I am repulsed by the gay community not because they are gay, but that they are oppressive and full of themselves. Their selfishness and narcissism are boundless, much like the women-libbers. One of the great weaknesses of capitalism and freedom is self centeredness and selfishness. The womens movement and the gay rights movement are examples of the hyper ME ME ME attitude that cripples our politics, economics and personal relationships. It would simply astounding if gays did something to help heterosexuals, women did something for men, men did something for women or heterosexuals did something for gays. ME ME ME and only ME matters nowadays.

How did you extrapolate this into an endorsement of child rape?

It's science. Are you doubting science?

If you're born with a trait, why is it wrong to express that trait until you're 17, or 16, or 12, or 3?

but I do think there's some room for more understanding.

yes there is.

The argument may have been propagandized and seized upon for its political usefulness, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Maybe I'll put up a poll to find out exactly what proportion of people here have ever had any desires along those lines.

If you never even THOUGHT about gay sex, how is heterosexuality a "choice" for you? It's kind of like "choosing" not to hammer a nail through your elbow.

Here's a hypocrisy among a lot of people who oppose homosexuality that really bothers me.

Look at pedophiles. Now, some say "Are you saying pedophiles can't help themselves?!" as some sort of counter-argument. I think, by making it, they're hoping the gay advocate will go, "Oh, no, of course we're not equating homosexuality with pedophilia!" There's the fear of association present, and for good cause.

But, you know what? Pedophilia is actually a rather apt comparison. Many on the Right and in society in general (I'd say most people) know pedophiles can't help themselves. That's why they are sent to prison for long periods of time. It's why we have so many notification laws on the books. Sexual offenders have an incredibly high risk of repeat offense. We, as a society, have laws on the books because we know for a fact there is something hard-wired about that sexual impulse that leads to its repetition. No amount of incarceration or therapy really works for many of these sexual predators, so we've taken steps to protect children from adults who want to have sex with them.

And yet, once you get to homosexuality, suddenly that same logic vanishes. "It's a choice! It can be changed through therapy." Well, why? If we acknowledge sexual behavior cannot be changed so easily - because if it could, we'd change every pedophile we get our hands on - why don't people who oppose homosexuality follow their own logic on the matter? What about homosexuality is so special that it isn't similarly hard-wired and immutable?

That's also why identical twins are 100% sexually oriented the same way, as well as 90% of non-identical twins, 85% of same sex siblings, and 80% of opposite sex siblings.

Ace posted once that his brothers were homo, or as he phrased it, "faeried up." So, there is an 85% chance Ace is a homo but doesn't know it?

How can you say it's not partly choice when if you were in the slammer for 25 to life, most likely you would be pining over the smell of bubba.

It simply boggles the mind that a man "chooses" to be attracted to men out of some strange contrarian sexual-appetite fashion choice.

Wouldn't be the first or the last strange thing men do.

Men (Ace) seem awfully obsessed with this subject. Maybe this will help: No Ace, we don't think you're gay. Well, not really. And if you are, you're only 15% or maybe it's 85% gay. However those stats work.

With due respect Ace, you sound like you're trying to justify conservatism from a liberal perspective. You've spent too long in New York.

Liberals believe "sexual orientation" is biological, so they assume we think it's "a choice" in the same way flipping a light switch is a choice. (Aside: I thought choice was good. What went wrong there?) I prefer to think of it more like a thermostat. Some people like to be hot, some like to be cold. You can move the thermostat to be more comfortable, but you can't change which direction you need to go to get there. It's a part of who you are. But some people who like to be hot choose to be cold because they don't want to pay the heating bill. So they choose to leave the thermostat down.

Like Greg says, I have no doubt some people have a chemical or hormonal imbalance (relative to the norm for their sex) that predisposes them to a different orientation. Others, due to psychological issues, feel the same way without any such biological trigger. None of them has a "choice" in the matter. But like the person who decides to move the thermostat, all of them make a "choice" what to do about it.

And before anyone suggests it: no, having sex is NOT a biological imperitive. Any person who tries to tell me he has no control over his sexual urges is either a pervert or has been brainwashed into lying to himself by the oversexed American pop culture. Control over our choices through intellect is what separates man from the animals.

So, there is an 85% chance Ace is a homo but doesn't know it?

No, I was being facetious about those numbers. It's not 100% among identical twins, which should tell you (and the rest of us) something.

It's science. Are you doubting science?

It's not science, it's a glib bit of silliness.

If you're born with a trait, why is it wrong to express that trait until you're 17, or 16, or 12, or 3?

I don't know what you mean. It's not illegal for a child to have sex. It's illegal for an adult to have sex with a child.

Just because you have a tendency does not, obviously, mean that society should excuse criminal behavior partly caused by that tendency. Obviously, there are some violent people that are just wired wrong, but I don't think we should give them time off for being hooked up wrong. (Actually, maybe we should do the opposite.)

You're kind of parodizing my post, and not particularly effectively, IMHO.

Again: Have you ever been tempted to have gay sex? Probably not. I'm saying it's a hell of a lot easier for you to avoid this "temptation" than a stone-cold lesbian.

And given the fact that there is no actual material-world harm due to consensual gay sex, it's really not quite the same as pedophilia.

My point is that it's hard, for me, to see some people getting as bothered about gay people...

I agree with you. Whatever they decide to do is fine with me - as long as they leave me out of it and they aren't throwing out in front of my face and demanding to be a 'protected group'.

Some people make an assumption that if people are NOT "born that way" then they have made a choice to be gay. For example, it looks like that's what Bart means when he questions how to reconcile evolution theory and homosexuality.

However, this ignores the possibility that a combination of factors after birth can affect a persons sexuality AND still leave the person with no choice about their sexuality. Some of those factors that have been mentioned around here include family-size or early-childhood trauma or abuse.

Sue D.,

I know you were being sarcastic in the post where you wrote: "That's also why identical twins are 100% sexually oriented the same way..." but I'm having a hard time understanding your point. For that reason, I just wanted to mention that the sexuality of identical twins is in fact not always the same.

And before anyone suggests it: no, having sex is NOT a biological imperitive.

Of course it is. How absurd.

Any person who tries to tell me he has no control over his sexual urges is either a pervert or has been brainwashed into lying to himself by the oversexed American pop culture. Control over our choices through intellect is what separates man from the animals.

Saying something is an "imperative" is not the same as saying that imperative cannot be controlled. There is a biological imperative for eating and sleeping, too, but both can be avoided for long periods of time, if one's willpower is strong enough.

Of course, if you fast long enough, you'll die. (Well, not really: you can eat vitamins and carbs and proteins in pill form while actually avoiding true "eating" and yet remain healthy. It'll be hellish, though, which is why we sometimes do that to prisoners.) And if you don't sleep long enough, you'll die.

You won't die from not having sex your whole life, but you'll certainly be, well, missing something.

Robbie's right on. It's a complex phenomenon involving nature and nuture (i.e., biology and environment). Additionally, sexuality isn't as rigid as "straight" and "gay." In reality, from what I think, everyone is more or less bisexual, just more to one side than the other. We have more important things to do than find out why some people find man-on-man sex so hot.

If I remember correctly, the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints both teach that being homosexual is not a sin, but acting on one's homosexuality is. Just like adultery and fornication (which I think more people need to focus on than homosexuality). Wheee! Tabs!

Once you get past to whether or not the sexual impulse is a choice, some bring up the point, "Well, ok, but acting on it is a choice."

Having sex certainly is a choice. So, two consenting adults of the same sex going at it is a bad thing? Why? If you mention HIV and other STDs as part of the reasoning, you're advocating against certain behaviors - namely promiscuity and unprotected sex. And if that's what someone wants to oppose, I'm right there with them on that. By all means, oppose those things. Encourage gay individuals to commit themselves to monogamy, to condom use.

Encourage them to be celibate? Sorry, asking every gay individual in America to behave like a bunch of priests is completely out of the question.

Again, I have little doubt that gay people can live miserably as "straights" (while risking their wives' health by the inevitable sex with a hustler). They've done so for centuries.

The impulse can be controlled, just as I could, if I wanted, give up eating actual food in favor of vitamins and carb and protein pills.

But that would be very difficult for any of us to do.

I think it's only about one order of magnitude less difficult for someone to avoid sex with the actual object of their sexual desires.

What if, hypothetically, straight sex were deemed a sin tomorrow?

I'm sure many COULD avoid straight sex. I have a feeling they wouldn't be happy about it, though. And I think most would just ignore that particular stricture entirely.

I think it's easier for straigh couples to avoid sodomy (also considered sinful or deviant by many) than gay couples, because straight couples always have that sanctioned form of sex to fall back on, right?

And yet-- quite a few of us seem to engage in sodomy. Oral sex is sodomy too, you know.

We COULD avoid doing that. But we don't.

I can't help but think there's more attention paid to gay sex than to straight oral sex because, you know, it's very easy for straights to avoid the former.

Abstaining from the latter entails a personal cost.

It's always easiest to rail against those sins you have no interest in performing whatsoever.

And before anyone suggests it: no, having sex is NOT a biological imperitive.

Of course it is. How absurd.

Now reproduction, that's a biological imperative. But we're talking about homosexuals, right?

Me: And before anyone suggests it: no, having sex is NOT a biological imperitive.

Of course it is. How absurd.... You won't die from not having sex your whole life, but you'll certainly be, well, missing something.

Your oversexed opinion contradicts yourself, Ace. By your own admission, sex is NOT required for you to continue living - you WON'T die without it. In fact, many people actually derive great benefit from abstinence. Do you think the pope thinks he's missing something, or gaining something? (Your opinion doesn't count here - HE is happy, and that's all that matters to refute your point.)

And yes Muslihoon, that is an accurate description of the view of the Catholic Church. The act of homosexual conduct is really not much greater a sin than sex outside of marriage.

Reproduction is a biological imperative for a species.

Having sex is a biological imperative for an individual.

Really, now. How silly. When you go out to pick up chicks, someone, are you doing so with the intent of getting a girl pregnant and passing your genes on?

asking every gay individual in America to behave like a bunch of priests is completely out of the question.

Thank God!.

Holy crap, it's Saturday night. What the hell am I doing here arguing about homosexual sex with Ace?

I think the "choice" issue is a little more complicated than just waking up one day and deciding to be gay or straight. Our urges play a strong role in this, but our urges can be triggered by all sorts of strange stimuli, and I do think there is a certain amount of choice involved in what we let our urges be stimulated by.

It's not unusual for adolescents to get random homosexual urges out of the blue, whether it's idly wondering what it would be like to kiss another guy or girl or having a very confused wet dream. I'm of the belief that most people drown that out with their more common heterosexual urges as they develop, and pretty soon they're completely denying to themselves that they ever had any weird homo thoughts ever.

It seems reasonable to me that there will be some people who focus more on those homosexual thoughts than others though. Maybe even out of shame. "Ohmigod, why do I keep thinking about guys, am I gay?" If they focus all their private sexual thoughts obsessing over homosexual impulses, either because they find them more exciting or because they're just obsessing, I think they're going to continue developing those urges until they are just as locked in to their nature as a heterosexual's attraction to the opposite sex is.

They will also be more likely to be able to stay in the closet by behaving the way the world expects them to, from having to practice faking that all during their development as well.

Once you've passed a certain point though, there's no way to just chose to go back. I think it's possible that someone with an iron will or lots of therapy and coaching could change... but in the case of something like homosexuality, why should they have to?

A person's sexual tastes are things that take time to get in to, and can't be easily undone once they are in your brain. A person with any one of the crazy fetishes out there in internet land isn't born with the innate compulsion to be that way, but their natural human urges ended up developing that way through their experiences. We didn't have no furries before Bugs started dressing in drag, for example...

Having sex is a biological imperative for an individual.

If this were true, you wouldn't be home on a Saturday night blogging, now would you?

Black Republcian,

You're talking about a tiny fraction of the population.

Most do not have the willpower or desire to live a life of constant self-denial.

Yes, some do. They should be praised, or, at least, be given respect for their quite-extraodinary powers of self-control.

You, um, married folks never have sex unless it's for purposes of procreation, huh?

I didn't know before today that simply wanting to have sex for puprose of pleasure, and doing so on occasion, makes one "oversexed."

It's not science, it's a glib bit of silliness.

No, it's science. You're starting to sound like one of those Bible-thumping fundie Jesus freaks with your doubting of science.

It's illegal for an adult to have sex with a child.

Only because of outmoded and outdated stuffy religion-based laws. In the ancient world and in nature it's done all the time, so nothing should be wrong with it.

You're kind of parodizing my post, and not particularly effectively, IMHO.

I'm trying to make some points that are not effectively made through straightforward means because of the mass psychological conditioning done by Kirk & Madsen's minions. I'm not trying to be funny (like I've ever been funny, please.)

Again: Have you ever been tempted to have gay sex? Probably not. I'm saying it's a hell of a lot easier for you to avoid this "temptation" than a stone-cold lesbian.

I've been curious when I was younger, but never experimented and don't really want to now. But my sexuality is different than yours, or so you've postulated.

And given the fact that there is no actual material-world harm due to consensual gay sex, it's really not quite the same as pedophilia.

Science says there's no harm in pedophilia, except where society makes it harmful in forbidding it. O ye of little scientific faith.

Actually, I've had at least 2 gay male friends tell me that it hit them all at once and when they were adults. There was no secret longings or feeling unfulfilled. All of a sudden it was like BOING.

Sue, you are creeping me out.

The only way to bag a classy lady is to give her two tickets to the gun show... and see if she likes the goods.

I know you were being sarcastic in the post where you wrote: "That's also why identical twins are 100% sexually oriented the same way..." but I'm having a hard time understanding your point. For that reason, I just wanted to mention that the sexuality of identical twins is in fact not always the same.

It's the simplest and strongest proof possible that preference for a particular sex is not genetic.

Identical twins have 100% identical DNA. If one twin has a genetic mutation, the other has it 100% of the time as well since genetically they're the same person.

imperative (n) not to be avoided or evaded : NECESSARY (an imperative duty)

I've only had one partner in my life, and she was my wife. We've been separated/divorced for over 10 years. I'm still breathing. Case closed - it's NOT imperative.

I didn't know before today that simply wanting to have sex for puprose of pleasure, and doing so on occasion, makes one "oversexed."

No, I was just talking about you, Ace. Because we all know it's an imperative for you. Or at least you think it is.

Um... where was that skin pic Mrs. Peel was going to post?

OK, going out. Later.

Sue D.,

That's not strong proof that preference is not genetic. It's proof that our genes do not solely control our preferences.

BTW, Sue, I'm not adverse to Bill Assholino's suggestion we procreate. Just sayin' :)

Bart wrote:

W've been down this road before; I'm not really interesed in re-visiting the same arguments.

No big surprise after the pummeling you took last time. But I guess you don't know when you've had enough:

It is baffling, however, that the same people who buy into the theory that evolution can explain just about anything under the sun are the same people who believe homosexuality is an innate biological trait.

That would indeed be baffling if every single person was perfectly "designed" by evoluation to pass on their genes. But instead we see all sorts of sicknesses, maladies, physical defects, hormonal imbalances, etc.

You ever see a woman that has a pretty good mustache going? Did this poor girl "choose" to have a mustache? Do "darwinists" have a lot of explaining to do in this case as well?

As I explained to you before in another thread, if you have a set of genes that is 97% successful in creating sexual attraction to the opposite gender, then those genes probably do the job well enough, even though 3% are attracted to the wrong gender.

If you have even the most basic knowledge of genetics, you'd understand this. And I'm not talking about evil darwinistic godless atheistic natural selection fanaticism. I'm talking about practical things like breeding animals. Dog breeders, for example, have been working very hard to get rid of hip dysplasia, but even if you never breed dogs that develop hip dysplasia, you still get it in future generations. Why? Because it's caused by a cluster of genes, not a single gene, so it just doesn't vanish after a generation or two. Likewise, sexuality seems to be developed by a complex process, and so it isn't going to vanish after one generation when homosexuals fail to have children.

Look, everyone doesn't have time to be an expert on genetics (and I'm certainly not), but this kind of thing has been explained to you many times. When you see people with some knowledge about this making such arguments in what is clearly a good-faith manner, I would think you'd either read up on the issues, or, if you don't have the time, just have the intellectual honestly to admit that you don't understand this area and stop arguing in it. But, nope, you just want to keep up with the "evolution dictates that when gays don't have children the trait would vanish so it's obviously chosen" hogwash.

(I remember when you theorized that homos usually come from families with many siblings. Very interesting and all that.)

I think that wasn't just theorizing. I think it's pretty much a statistical fact that larger families tend to have more gay people born in the younger children. The theory part is why that is -- different experience while being raised, different womb environment after many births, etc., etc.

I still believe homosexuality is a sympton of a deeply rooted trauma. Or, for some people, it is simply a fetish. Too many coincidences and patterns remain to be ignored by researchers.

I'm sure you do. And you may be right in some cases. But in the vast majority of cases you have people raised in very normal families living very normal lives then puberty hits and while all their friends are going nuts over the girls they're attracted to the boys.

I'm sorry, but the roles of the male and female are not interchangeable, and that is exactly what the gays, lesbians, and trans-genderers are doing.

Here I will agree with you. I believe that a heterosexual child raised by gay parents may be at a disadvantage because he does not have experience at home with how men and women relate to each other. I think it is certainly a valid concern that should be addressed when discussing things like adoption, etc.

However, it has no bearing at all on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Zero, zip, nada.

It is so plain to see that men and women go together like a lock and a key. Men and men, on the other hand, go together like a penis forcing itself into a man's colon. Not a pretty picture, is it?

Whether or not it's a pretty picture has nothing to do with whether or not it's a chosen behavior. If anything, the fact that it's not a "pretty", socially acceptable picture argues for that fact that nobody would choose such a thing.

Sue's making a point about believing that homosexuality is wholly genetic. If that is true, it follows that pedophilia is as well for the same reasons.

And that should be bothersome.

We are more than our biologies, and the choices we make matter. I'm of the opinion that a person can be gay with no harm to the rest of us. They shouldn't have to justify themselves by their genes. Pedophiles are a wholly different lot, who selfishly destroy the lives of children. They shouldn't be allowed to justify themselves by their genes.

Bob, care to reconcile your theory against Sue and her example of identical twins having different sexual preferences?

Some of the comments regarding pedophilia around here go something like this: "Pedophilia is bad because God says so." Then the go on to note that religion is not a good source of laws and that maybe pedophilia laws should be removed. Then they analogize pedophilia to homosexuality.

This totally ignores the real reasons why pedophilia laws are made and remain on the books today. It's not because our system has remnants of Jesus-freak legislation from the bad old days. It's because pedophilia involves serious bodily imposition where one party to the act has all or most of the power. A child-adult relationship is not and CANNOT be a relationship among equals. For the same reason, the analogy of pedophilia to homosexuality fails.

This whole thread started with Ace confusing the issue and proposing a straw man: Is male homosexuality a choice?

Of course not, and nobody is arguing that, including the Concerned Women of America.

The issue is the nature/nurture controversy: Is homosexuality genetically determined, or learned (necessarily by early childhood experiences). Or maybe both?

Gays want to argue the former to bolster their position that homosexuality is somehow a "natural" condition and not a perversion. Others assert that homosexuality is largely the consequence of environmental conditions (again, early childhood experiences), and might be treatable with therapy. This, of course, offends gays, who do not want their condition viewed as some sort of mental problem

The science (involving studies of twins separated at birth and the like) is inconclusive, but suggests that genetics may predispose some individuals towards homosexuality, although environmental factors play a role.

But for Pete's sake, let's not confuse all this with Ace's phony issue of whether gays have a "choice."

I think most of us here are saying some variation of "this is complicated; we don't know for sure what causes this". Except Ace in the post title, which blasted the CWA study as "utter nonsense". What put me off here is that Ace seems every bit as sure about his theory as CWA do about theirs, and he's mainly extrapolating from his own experience. I don't think one's own experience is the best way to get a generalized answer here.

That's not strong proof that preference is not genetic. It's proof that our genes do not solely control our preferences.

Right. That means the search for a "gay gene" is absolutely futile. A "tomboy/sissy" gene, maybe, but not a gay one.

Have you ever met anyone that set your "gaydar" off, only to be completely wrong about it? Anecdotal, yes, but there you go.

BTW, Sue, I'm not adverse to Bill Assholino's suggestion we procreate. Just sayin' :)

Heehee! Aw Brewfan, you're so cute. Want a sammich? ;)

And I'd still like to have 'someone' explain how it "might well be evolutionarily advantageous to have a small percentage of the population be, uh, not interested in reproducing"

BrewFan: to prevent overpopulation. And make fashionable clothes.

Fish frozen out of the mating pool become homosexual -- or even change sexes. This decreases conflict within the school. They're not going to breed anyway; better not to have the fish fighting with each other and damaging or killing each other.

Gabriel: I'm not getting the impression that any comments in this thread regarding pedophilia are trying to make homosexuals analagous to child molesters.

Pointing out that you can't say homosexuality shouldn't be judged because it's genetic and not a choice without accidentally giving pedophiles a pass with that same argument is different. Although your point that pedophiles are in an unequal relationship whereas homosexuals are not does respond to that.

Brewf--

Roger Scruton theorized that it might be useful to have a noncompetititve subset of men who pass on accumulated knowledge instead of hunting and gathering.

not all fish. I mean some species of fish do this.

Michael,

I don't see how it's phony to say they don't have a choice in their attraction. You seem to admit as such.

I've said again and again that they COULD be with women if they chose the road of self-denial. But if you want cock, a woman isn't really a fungible substitute.

"They shouldn't be allowed to justify themselves by their genes."

No one should be able to do so. It annoys me to no end when people use biology as an excuse to get away with or be treated differently because of something they had done.

Except Ace in the post title, which blasted the CWA study as "utter nonsense". What put me off here is that Ace seems every bit as sure about his theory as CWA do about theirs . . .

What put me off is that I'm not even sure Ace read the article he linked. He attributes to the CWA the assertion that guys just up and choose to be gay.

The CWA was addressing the real issue -- is homosexuality genetically determined on the consequence of environmental factors.

Either way, it's not a choice. You don't choose your genes any more than you choose to have a mom that over-bonded with you.

see-dub,

it's not just my experience. It's just about every straight guy's experience -- anyone care to argue that point? -- and all of the gay guys I know.

They're not. Attracted. To women.

They are attracted to men.

How is that a "choice"? Who can "choose" something so fundamental as sexual attraction?

Of course not, and nobody is arguing that, including the Concerned Women of America.

I am. :P

I believe a person's sexual preference is the result of choices made in their adolecense and their responses to stimuli.

Well it's quite natural for a population to have schizophrenics, bi-polars, homos, etc. It's natural for it to occur, but doesn't make it a natural way to behave, regardless of the origin for the motivations.

Fish frozen out of the mating pool become homosexual -- or even change sexes. This decreases conflict within the school. They're not going to breed anyway; better not to have the fish fighting with each other and damaging or killing each other.

This would be the 'nurture' argument, right? Because if its not, how do those 'mutations' get passed along?

Sortelli,

I was responding more to Sue's comment at 9:18. It included this: "It's illegal for an adult to have sex with a child. Only because of outmoded and outdated stuffy religion-based laws. In the ancient world and in nature it's done all the time, so nothing should be wrong with it."

And it was Sue who brought up the analogy to "child-lovers" at 8:35.

I don't see how it's phony to say they don't have a choice in their attraction. You seem to admit as such.

No I don't. Ace, I said no such thing. Read my last comment.

I've said again and again that they COULD be with women if they chose the road of self-denial.

No. First of all, you're not making sense. Choosing the "road of self denial" is not being with a woman. It's being celibate.

I've said again and again that they COULD be with women if they chose the road of self-denial. But if you want cock, a woman isn't really a fungible substitute.

Totally agree. I'm just calling bullshit on your complete mischaracterization of the CWA position, which has confused the discussion on this entire thread.

Brew,

Nope. For crying out loud, has no one ever heard of genetic tendencies that do not express themselves except in certain situations?

Some people are genetically vulnerable to cancer. They carry those genes. But whether or not they actually get cancer depends on what they're exposed to in their lives.

But for millennia gay men have been marrying women and spawning children. Even if they didn't like. It's still biologically possible. Why should it stop now?

sammiches, hmmmmmmmm

[My D in T immitation. How was it?]

Michael,

If it's not biological -- the article isn't just about genetics, it's about ALL biological inputs -- then what the fuck is it?

Well, it's "psychology" or "nuture," two rather more easily "treatable" causes.

Genetically predisposed =/= certain expression. Usually, there's an event or environment factor that causes previously dormant genes to express themselves. So I have been told.

A child-adult relationship is not and CANNOT be a relationship among equals. For the same reason, the analogy of pedophilia to homosexuality fails.

Equality in whose eyes?

If you're talking about legal equality, then all that needs to be done is to eliminate those arbitrary age of consent laws that are really meaningless and based in some sort of goofy Judeo-Christian nonsense.

The fact that pedophilia was (and still is) rampant in cultures untouched by Judaism or Christianity should be enough evidence that anti-pedophilia laws are based in those hoary old religions, and therefore have no place in our society. Separation of church and state triumphs over ignorance once again!

If you're talking about something to do with science and nature, then you're mistaken once again.

Kinsey put the science out there for all of us to see. Children have orgasms and thus experience sexual pleasure. Is this not the same way adults experience sexual pleasure? Is that not equality? Orgasms are orgasms, and pleasure is pleasure.

The only harm is the psychological harm that comes from being told it's wrong. Science says so. Why don't you believe science? What are you, one of those Invisible Man in the Sky morons?

Nope. For crying out loud, has no one ever heard of genetic tendencies that do not express themselves except in certain situations?

Some people are genetically vulnerable to cancer. They carry those genes. But whether or not they actually get cancer depends on what they're exposed to in their lives.

Exactly. I am genetically predisposed to cancer and I smoke. If I get cancer, how do you sort out the extent to which I can blame my genes or my bad habits? You can't.

But, BUT, at least I choose to smoke, and place myself at risk. Nobody, including the CWA, is suggesting that gays choose the environmental factors that might have influenced them (relationship with opposite-sex parent is the leading suspect). And NOBODY is suggesting that they can just turn off their homosexuality and choose to be straight.

The "conversion" of homosexuals with therapy is not unheard of, but it is very difficult and, I've read, never 100% successful in really shutting down homosexual tendencies.

For crying out loud, has no one ever heard of genetic tendencies that do not express themselves except in certain situations?

I've heard of it, and accept it.

Some people are genetically vulnerable to cancer. They carry those genes. But whether or not they actually get cancer depends on what they're exposed to in their lives.

So? Now reconcile this with Sue's example. Twins. 100% same genetic makeup. One's gay, one's not.
Now what?

Article's first sentence:

The debate over homosexual "marriage" often becomes focused on whether homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual activists insist that "science" has shown that homosexuality is inborn, cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the "right to marry" each other.

I'm mischaracterizing it, Michael? It's right there in the thesis sentence.

The whole point of the article is to dispute the science of a biological cause and thereby undermine the "no choice" argument.

The concluding sentence:

Americans for too long have been pummeled with the idea that people are "born gay." The people who most need to hear the truth are those who mistakenly believe they have no chance themselves for change. It is both more compassionate and truthful to give them hope than to serve them up politically motivated, unproven creations like the "gay gene."

Mischaracterized? Really?

The main difference between social conservatives and social liberals/moderates is that we mean different things when we use the word "choice".

Remember the difference between Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Result? Same thing.

When liberals/moderates use the word "choice", they mean complete control. So since few (if any) people have complete control over their sexual preferences, it can't be a choice.
When conservatives use the word "choice", they mean "capable of affecting/changing". Since most people can influence their sexual preferences (through conditioning techniques, whether intentional or not), it is a choice, even if it doesn't feel like it.

My personal view? The lure of "the forbidden" is extremely strong for some people. Some sensations are incredibly reinforcing, even if associated with other painful or non-pleasurable sensations. In other words, if Ace's assertion that since no one chooses to be straight then no one chooses to be gay was 100% correct, then no one would drink coffee, alcohol, snort cocaine, smoke cigarettes, work out, etc.

In fact, I personally think smoking is an extremely apt analogy. We don't know why some people never smoke, some people get addicted after persisting in it to be cool, and others seem to enjoy it from the very first puff. Later, some quit by deciding to stop, some need some very intense intervention (including drugs), and some never seem to quit until they die of it.

That's why I find the "it's not ever, ever, ever a choice" to be rather pernicious. IArguing that it's never a choice and it is homophobic to try and change someone seems to be an attempt to forestall any discussion about whether homosexual behavior is generally harmful or not to an individual and to society. Which is why you get homosexuals simultaneously saying mutually-contradictory things like being homosexual is the worst thing in the world and that most straights would stay gay if they ever tried it.

Brew,

You conflate "biological" with "genetic." "Biological" causes include genetics, hormones received while in utero, etc.

It's not JUST genetic.

The twins example? Easy. It doesn't matter if there's a genetic component. It could be all due to the sorts of hormones one is exposed to in the womb. It's possible that one twin gets more androgenizing hormone than the other.

If there is a genetic component-- same deal. Both had the genes to possibly become gay, but only one had those genes activated by the hormones received from his mother.

If it's not biological -- the article isn't just about genetics, it's about ALL biological inputs -- then what the fuck is it?

I'm not saying it's not biological. Again, the science is inconclusive, and the question itself is almost inherently impossible to answer conclusively. Everbody's best guess is that biology and environment probably both play a part.

Well, it's "psychology" or "nuture," two rather more easily "treatable" causes.

You missed my last comment again. From what I've heard, it's extremely difficult to treat, as are most sexual issues that get imprinted in early childhood. Pedophilia was an example that came up earlier. From all I've heard, you can discourage it, but you can't fix the urge.

I'm not convinced that sexual preference is congenital for everybody (though studies of identical twins separated at birth do indicate it may be for some.) There have been studies suggesting environmental factors may affect things. (I don't know where to find the articles, but I read one that said the number of gay men that were molested as children is much higher than it is for straight men, and another that stated younger children in large families are more likely to be gay than their older siblings.) But even if one is not born straight or gay, it does not necessarily follow that being straight or gay is a conscious choice. For some it is and for some it isn't.

I've meet folks that are genuinely attracted to both genders and could literally go either way. There are some who really think they are one way, and come to find they are really another (Listen to Episode 268 of "This American Life" at thislife.org). And what's more, there are those who say they have been converted from gay to straight. (God I wish I could come up with a link for the last one, but I don't remember the name of the one-time gay-activist-gone-straight. He was featured in a pro-gay film for school kids and now that he's straight, he can't get the schools to let him speak to children about his conversion.)

Anyhoo, I guess my longwinded point is, that it's not as cut-and-dried as "you're born that way" or "it's a choice." Genetics, environment, and life experience make human sexual desire too complex to pigeon-hole.

Gabriel: Arguments are made in the same tone in defense of homosexuality, and that's the problem. It's a poor defense.

Ace: It's just about every straight guy's experience -- anyone care to argue that point?

I had homosexual thoughts during puberty that I never followed up on. And now I find the idea of gettin' it on with a guy as unappealing as you do.

I do believe that if I had spent those early years chasing daydreams about guys instead of focusing on the ladies, I'd have grown up to be gay. But I didn't.

Did you never have any weird thoughts like that, when your hormones were going wild? I think most people have but prefer not to remember it.

Sue,

One statistical review does not science make.

Regarding the inequality between a child and an adult, it is generally not whether both parties can experience an orgasm. It is whether they have the same opportunity to understand and vindicate their rights. This is what is being refered to when people note the inequality of power between the parties.

It is the same objection that people make when a company executive has a relationship with his secretary. It is the same reason the military has prohibitions on officers dating up and down the chain of command.

A child is unable (for very good reasons) to consent to a legal relationship in the same way that an adult does. They may also be unfamiliar with their rights and remedies should something go wrong with their adult lover.

I'm mischaracterizing it, Michael? It's right there in the thesis sentence.

No it's not. For Pete's sake, read the damn thesis sentence you quoted. There is not one word in that sentence that suggests that homosexuals chose their condition. The CWA is suggesting that homsexuality is environmentally caused, and thus might be treated. On the latter point, I am dubious, as previously stated, but the CWA apparently thinks the prospects for treatment are better than I do.

In any event, you are still conflating the issue by casting it in terms of "choice."

You conflate "biological" with "genetic." "Biological" causes include genetics, hormones received while in utero, etc.

I'm not conflating anything. I wanted it expressed somewhere in this thread that its possible homosexuality is the result of something *other* then genetics. So, if homosexuality is 'biological', do you concede that it may also be treatable?

Did you never have any weird thoughts like that, when your hormones were going wild?

Only recently, and only about Brewfan.

I think SheriJoe nailed it.

Now I want to nail SheriJoe.

Michael - Well, I think it's safe to say that your hormones are ALWAYS going wild.

Gabriel Malor,

The point I am trying to make is this: the arguments used by homosexual activists to convince us homosexuality is completely normal are going to be used to justify a whole host of much, much worse things.

The link between homosexual activism and pedophilia exists, because it was announced twice:

From the 1972 Gay Rights Platform:

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

From the 1993 March on Washington LGB Rights Platform:

Passage and implementation of graduated age-of-consent laws.

As Robbie, a self confessed gay man, has said earlier in a post I fully support, it is the homosexual activists that are the problem, and the propaganda methodology they use needs to be countered before it does much more harm.

your hormones are ALWAYS going wild

Yeah, but do I blame my mother or my genes?

Another poular miscomseption is shot down in flames too bad

Sue,

I agree with you.

A child is unable (for very good reasons) to consent to a legal relationship in the same way that an adult does. They may also be unfamiliar with their rights and remedies should something go wrong with their adult lover.

More importantly, they are likely to grow up as pedophiles, virtually all of whom were sexually abused as children.

Oh for Pete's sake, we spend all day looking for spurwing and he shows up here!

Hi, spurwing.

Bob, your girl with the moustache analogy actually helps my case. I'm sure I could round up some eager anthropologists to explain exactly why the girl has hair on her face and they will probably give me an exact date when her female descendants do not have hairy faces. Science is good like that.

P.S. I'm glad that Sue is bringing up Kinsey, too. Last year, when the Kinsey movie came out, the liberals and gays were out in droves trying to defend the film. They were calling everyone who didn't like the movie, or didn't want to see the movie, a homophobe, a bigot, narrow-minded -- just like they did with Brokeback Mountain.

So, Bob, you buy the argument, I do not. If you think your crap about me being un-informed is going to work, think again.

Hi, Spurwing Plover!

This is more simple than people think.

Straight folks are uncomfortable with gay people, especially those who are flaming. Some may say they aren't, but in my experience, not may can watch a gay couple kiss or hold hands in public and not feel at least a twinge of discomfort. The idea of it is disturbing to many. Of course, it's normal to feel discomfort around something that violates your religious beliefs or at least the norm.

Therefore, we, meaning the straight people, wish that the gays will be able to be treated so that we don't have to feel personal discomfort, just how you would wish for someone who comes to work stinking of BO to put on deodorant. So what people really are saying by studies like this are, "I am uncomfortable with gay people and I would like them to be treated."

I think that in all likelihood, gay people are gay principally from genetics, with environment accounting for the degree to which people act out on it, from not-at-all to flaming.

Here's the quote I was looking for from After the Ball : How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's. The author writing this is a gay Harvard psychologist, by the way:

We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay -- even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.

[...]

To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.

Oh, and the line of reasoning I was using earlier to justify pedophilia was mostly plucked from the writings of the Marquis de Sade, with a very few embellishments of my own.

Yeah, but do I blame my mother or my genes?

Until the lawyers come up with a way to sue your genes, I'd go after mother.

Random off-topic:

Ace says sarcastically at the bottom of the article: And now snuggling is sinful? Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to perservere and swear off snuggling, as much as it will kill me to do so.

Hm. Somehow I feel as if you're talking to me in particular, Snugglypoo. If you just want it rough, that's all good too, I'm up for just about anything as long as it's with you.

Ok, carry on.

That girl's always playing hard to get.

And NOBODY is suggesting that they can just turn off their homosexuality and choose to be straight.

Actually, that's exactly what CWFA is on about. I've read their materials for years, not only this article. Not only do they think it's a choice, they believe homosexuals can and do turn it off. And if the attraction is especially strong, they can go get therapy for it.

They treat homosexuality as if it were alcoholism. "They can stop if they really want to."

They're a charming organization.

You don't want to know, Laura. I think the last time I played hard to get, I dressed up in my cool $80 navy blue Girbaud jeans and tank top, went to the junior high dance, and no one danced with me.

Seems that those that never try never get.

went to the junior high dance, and no one danced with me.

I had that problem myself, Feisty.

The teachers told me it was because I wasn't in junior high anymore, and that I really shouldn't be coming back around.

Then I saw the sirens outside and had to make a run for it.

Actually, that's exactly what CWFA is on about. I've read their materials for years, not only this article.

Maybe, I don't know anything about them.

My only gripe with Ace is that he started off by unfairly lampooning the CWA for suggesting that homosexuality was initially caused by men choosing to be gay. That's just nowhere to be found in the article he linked, and confused the later discusssion of the nature/nurture issue that the article actually addressed. I doubt that anyone, even in the CWA, seriously believes that the onset of homosexuality is as simple as a kid waking up and deciding that it would be cool to be a faggot.

Ace has yet to acknowledge the error, but hopefully everyone else has gotten the point, so I'm going to stop beating this drum.

Otherwise, I'm pretty much on the same page with Ace's perspective.

And I promise I won't launch into another discourse on the biblical concept of "sin," never mind that it is a much misunderstood subject.

OK, I've been reading these posts all evening, hearing from a bunch of heteros (not that there's anything wrong with that) what it's like to be gay.
Now it's my turn.

Believe me or don't believe me, your decision:
It's not a choice.

If I could have turned myself straight when I was a painfully unhappy closet case as a young man, I would have done it in a hot minute. After a while, you just get tired of the lies and deception, and you come out of the closet.

No agenda here, it's just the way it is.

They treat homosexuality as if it were alcoholism. "They can stop if they really want to."

Then they are idiots, because that's a horrible example from their perspective. There is a very strong and well documented genetic component to alcoholism. Native Americans are a prominent example of this. There is not a responsible person anywhere who thinks that the problem of alcoholism on the reservation is just a matter of moral failure.

Believe me or don't believe me

No problem, I believe you.

But, would we believe a similar assertion from Megan?

There's a double standard about homosexuality. We easily accept that men are acting under impulses they can't control, but we easily suspect that women are just goofing around, or hate guys, or something. Nobody believes a guy who says he's bisexual -- he'd just frickin' gay and bullshitting (unless Brewfan is involved). But we accept that women have a more nuanced sexuality and have no problem swinging both ways.

What's up with that?

Ace, you claimed that you would never be able to choose to be gay. However, for many reasons, people whose orientation is gay (gay meaning physically attracted to the same gender is how I perceive you to be using the word) choose to ACT straight. Couldn't a straight (attracted to opposite gender) person choose to ACT gay? You stated in a previous post only under extreme circumstances would this happen and I'm not clear if that is the act or the attraction.

I think many people choose (there, I said it) love and affection from any source available and this can lead to confusion about orientation. No, I am not saying this explains all homosexual behavior, but maybe some. It is possible, as with other behaviors, that rationalization, suppression of inner doubt, and plain old denial play a part in the description of the cause of those behaviors. I think for some, homosexuality (the act and the attraction) involves choice. I think for some it is "hardwired".

My 2 cents-

I don't think most homosexuals "choose" to be homosexuals. Ace, your analogy of the hormonal 14 year old boy with hormones raging is a good example. When I was that age girls were literally the only thing I could think about.

I think that, however, there are some men who, because of some trauma or experience, choose the gay lifestyle. Fear of rejection? Need to be accepted by a group? Rebellion? I don't know.

What I do know is that despite all the "homo" and "fag" jokes I think that we in the breeder/hetero community need to be more accepting and tolerant (God I hate that word) of our brothers. Live and let live and all that. I have no animosity or hate for anyone who, like me, is just living their life and trying to get through another day. We will all be taking dirt naps before too long anyway. Why spend mental and emotional energy hating people? I mean besides islamofascists. It's OK to hate them.

Fugazi

However, women do other women because ....

Who wouldn't? Chicks are hot.

Argh.

OK, I know it's total fantasy to think things like this will get "settled" in any meaningful sense. It's just not going to happen. But I guess I'm still delusional to think that some parts of it could if not be "settled" could at least advance a bit. But, no, I see the same people arguing the same positions as the last time we had a major blowup on this issue.

So, there, you have the link to this last discussion. I'm going to respond to some points made here, then I'm going to wash my hands of this issue. Unless someone says something that forces me to post, or I find myself with some excess time, or there is a full moon, or I just feel like saying something more. But unless that happens, I'm done with this topic. Unless I change my mind. Anyway, here we go:

BrewFan wrote:

Bob, care to reconcile your theory against Sue and her example of identical twins having different sexual preferences?

BrewFan, you weren't part of the previous discussion, unlike Sue, so I of course can't hold it against you that you didn't see the comments there on this.

Here is the issue in a nutshell: If one identical twin is gay his brother has a much higher chance of also being gay...but much lower than 100%. The current estimate is 20% vs. 3% for the general population.

Sue does not understand genetics. While there could in theory be a single gay gene that was either on or off, that is clearly not the case. Furthermore, it could in fact be the case that a certain genetic combination would predispose you to homosexuality but not be absolute.

Now, before you object, consider that that is in fact the case for many marker genes. They have found genes that if you have them you have a 50% chance of getting a certain disease that only 0.01% of the population gets. If you study people that are identical twins with that disease, you'd find that roughly 50% of their twins also had that disease. Would the fact that it's not 100% mean there was no genetic component to the disease? Of course not.

I use disease as an example because this doesn't make people fly off the handle and become irrational. They will nod along with most of the above discussion as if it's not really a big deal or particularly controversial. And, of course, it's not. The scenario I described is completely accepted by scientists and non-scientists that have followed the research. Only when it is applied to homosexuality does it suddenly turn into some sort of wild theory that was clearly spun for political benefit.

Before I proceed, here is what I personally believe, based on much reading on the subject: I believe there is almost definitely a genetic component. But this genetic component does not seem to be absolute. However, I think it is activated very early in life, perhaps by the hormonal environment in the womb (which has been shown to be very different even for twins). I think by birth or very early in life this is set, and the brain develops accordingly. By the time puberty hits, boys are either gay or straight, and they become attracted to the either girls or other boys. I think it is very clear that no conscious choice is involved, and I think it is becoming more and more clear that any environment issues happen very early in life, probably in the womb, and so it's not "environment" in the traditional sense that over many years the behavior can be implanted.

Before I hit puberty, my friends and I had very little use for girls. We thought they were silly and wanted to play stupid games. Then, boom!, suddenly everything turned upside down when the hormones kicked in. I certainly didn't decide I was going to be extremely attracted to girls; it just happened. Likewise, gay men say they had the same thing happen, but they suddenly became attracted to boys. I don't think they are lying.

The "Choice" Issue

Michael wrote:

This whole thread started with Ace confusing the issue and proposing a straw man: Is male homosexuality a choice?

Of course not, and nobody is arguing that, including the Concerned Women of America.

Oh, come on!

Unless you're 20 or younger or have not become interested in politics within the last few years, you damn well remember that it was in fact extremely common to argue that homosexuality was in fact a conscious choice by homosexuals. These "deviant queers" were thumbing their nose at society, etc., etc., and we normal people, the argument went, didn't have to put up with their perversions any more than we had to put up with sick choices anyone else made. And, in fact, most of the laws and attitudes were formulated based on it being a choice: It's OK to discriminate because this is a chosen orientation/behavior, and in fact we should do so to prevent others from making this unfortunate choice, etc.

Recently it has become so clear that by puberty (and probably much earlier) sexuality is essentially fixed. This has led to even very socially conservative groups acknowledging that it is not a choice, but this is a very recent phenomenon. To call this a "straw man" is a joke.

The issue is the nature/nurture controversy: Is homosexuality genetically determined, or learned (necessarily by early childhood experiences). Or maybe both?

Once you've conceded that nobody makes a conscious choice to be gay and that it is impossible (or virtually impossible) to change to a different orientation, then who really cares what the details are? Once it's no longer a conscious choice, once it's no longer something that can realistically be changed in virtually all cases, then what do the details matter.

Do you really think this raging controversy is over such an academic point?

Gays want to argue the former to bolster their position that homosexuality is somehow a "natural" condition and not a perversion. Others assert that homosexuality is largely the consequence of environmental conditions (again, early childhood experiences), and might be treatable with therapy. This, of course, offends gays, who do not want their condition viewed as some sort of mental problem

Ridiculous.

Maybe you should look into the success rate of converstion therapy. It is atrociously bad, so bad that it is likely that the very few "success" stories are probably people that have just learned to repress their inclinations and pretend to be something they're not.

So maybe you should consider that it isn't whether it's a mental issue or not, it's whether there is any realistic chance of changing this mental state. When the evidence is overwhelmingly on the "no" side, then maybe that has some implications.

The science (involving studies of twins separated at birth and the like) is inconclusive, but suggests that genetics may predispose some individuals towards homosexuality, although environmental factors play a role.

But not necessarily "environmental" in the traditional sense that a cold mother or an absent father may turn a person gay. It seems more likely at this point that the genetics coupled with the hormonal environment in the womb sets off brain development in a certain way. By the time puberty hits, the brain has already been wired one way or the other.

But for Pete's sake, let's not confuse all this with Ace's phony issue of whether gays have a "choice."

I think there are quite a few people arguing for this "phony issue". Read the other comments and see for yourself. Sue in particular seems to think it's completely a choice and all the so-called science on the issue has been ginned up to justify this choice.

pendelton wrote:

ACE: I knew it was a poor idea for you and Allah to view brokeback maountain. You're so sensitive.. No one really cares what happens in someone else's own bedroom between consenting adults. The problem is that gays want to parade their sexual preferences and sexual acts publicly and demand that we approve them.

I am repulsed by the gay community not because they are gay, but that they are oppressive and full of themselves. Their selfishness and narcissism are boundless [...]

If you object to specific actions of specific gay people then that is one thing. But you then turn around and use these specific actions to be repulsed by apparently every gay person, despite your initial claims that you're not bothered by what consenting adults do.

Would you use this same tact with race?

It would simply astounding if gays did something to help heterosexuals, women did something for men, men did something for women or heterosexuals did something for gays. ME ME ME and only ME matters nowadays.

You've heard it here first, folks: Gays have never helped straights, straights gays, women men, or men women. Never.

Unbelievable.

Ace wrote:

The argument may have been propagandized and seized upon for its political usefulness, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Thank you, Ace. A lot of people have a big problem understanding that point. Yes, it would be useful to the gay rights movement if homosexuality were biological. But, no, that does not mean it is not biological. Is this such a hard concept to understand?

Apparently so, because note how few people are arguing the science vs. how many people are arguing who benefits from it.

Maybe I'll put up a poll to find out exactly what proportion of people here have ever had any desires along those lines.

I doubt it. Let's be honest: You couldn't put up a poll to save your life.

The Black Republican wrote:

With due respect Ace, you sound like you're trying to justify conservatism from a liberal perspective. You've spent too long in New York.

Here we go again with the motives.

Here are my motives: I initially believed homosexuality was a choice. I was socially conservative, and this fit in better with my world view.

Then one day I read an article that explored the issue, and it suddenly occurred to me that I was believing what I wanted to be true rather than what the evidence showed was true. I then delved into the issue, reading a ton of stuff from all sides (gay, straight, NARTH, etc.). After doing a ton of research, my conclusion was that it had a very large, if not absolute, biological component, and that by the time it manifested itself for the vast majority it was too late to do anything about it (groups that treated it had very bad success rates, despite having extremely motivated clientele).

I live in an extremely conservative area, and I'm including social conservatism there, so I do not have any "New York City" motives.

Liberals believe "sexual orientation" is biological, so they assume we think it's "a choice" in the same way flipping a light switch is a choice.

Or maybe it was the fact that social conservatives FLAT OUT STATED IT WAS A CHOICE (IN THE SENSE YOU DESCRIBE) BY HOMOSEXUALS OVER AND OVER FOR MANY DECADES. You don't have to go back very far (certainly no later than the 1980s) to find that this was the consensus viewpoint not only among conservatives but among the general public. Calling this a "straw man" as Michael does or saying this is a caricature created by liberals as you do does not make it any less true. This is so ridiculous that I suspect you and Michael know you're full of it. Hell, you can see that mentality here, today, right here in this comments section.

I prefer to think of it more like a thermostat. Some people like to be hot, some like to be cold. You can move the thermostat to be more comfortable, but you can't change which direction you need to go to get there. It's a part of who you are. But some people who like to be hot choose to be cold because they don't want to pay the heating bill. So they choose to leave the thermostat down.

You can "prefer" to think of it anyway you want, but if you're basing your beliefs on preferences rather than reality then I don't see why anyone should give them much weight.

As I stated earlier, I "preferred" to think it was not biological at all earlier in my life, but then I realized that my preference had nothing to do with what was really going on.

Like Greg says, I have no doubt some people have a chemical or hormonal imbalance (relative to the norm for their sex) that predisposes them to a different orientation.

Bzzzt. Wrong! Thanks for playing!

Gay men do not have any chemical or hormonal differences. This was an early theory, especially when sex hormones were first discovered, but when tested it fell flat on its face. But, hey, if you "prefer" to think that I guess I can't stop you.

In reality, gay men have similar testosterone/estrogen levels that straight men have. Other hormones appear the same as well. No chemical imbalances have been detected.

Also, men suffering from low testosterone and high estrogen do not become attracted to other men. Their sex drives may plummet, but they do not turn gay.

What does seem to be the case is that gay men have differently wired brains (just as men and women do). Once the brain is wired a certain way and stops developing, it is essentially impossible to chance certain things, and sexuality seems to be one of those things.

Others, due to psychological issues, feel the same way without any such biological trigger. None of them has a "choice" in the matter. But like the person who decides to move the thermostat, all of them make a "choice" what to do about it.

OK, but most of our current laws and attitudes were based on it being a conscious, deliberate choice. If that is not the case, then the only objections are religious, and while those are certainly valid within a religion, they are not necessarily valid outside of that religion. This has serious policy implications.

And before anyone suggests it: no, having sex is NOT a biological imperitive. Any person who tries to tell me he has no control over his sexual urges is either a pervert or has been brainwashed into lying to himself by the oversexed American pop culture. Control over our choices through intellect is what separates man from the animals.

I basically agree with you on this. I certainly think we can exists without sex.

My disagreement is I think we don't have control over the urges. We have control over acting on them, but not necessarily on the urges themselves.

Ace wrote:

Saying something is an "imperative" is not the same as saying that imperative cannot be controlled.

Sorry, Ace, but I think if it's an imperative then cannot be controlled (for too long). If you do not eat long enough, you will die. No amount of abstaining from sex will outright kill you that way. It's imperative for the species, of course, but not for each individual.

Muslihoon wrote:

Robbie's right on. It's a complex phenomenon involving nature and nuture (i.e., biology and environment). Additionally, sexuality isn't as rigid as "straight" and "gay." In reality, from what I think, everyone is more or less bisexual, just more to one side than the other.

Interestingly, this was the conventional view, that there is a "sexual continuum", with strongly straight and gay people at the extremes. But recent research has cast doubt on this, as it found very stark brain differences between gays and straights, with self-proclaimed bisexuals overwhelmingly falling on the gay side. See the previous thread I cited for details and discussion on this.

If I remember correctly, the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints both teach that being homosexual is not a sin, but acting on one's homosexuality is.

This is a recent evolution of their teachings. Initially their teachings were that homosexuality was a chosen perversion. Now it's accepted that there is no real choice involved.

If you are religious along those lines, you can accept that God and/or Satan has afflicted you with tendencies that your religion considers evil. I have no problem with that. But in secular society that type of thinking doesn't fly. If it is not a choice, and it involves consenting adults, then it is hard to argue that there should be many restrictions on it.

Sortelli wrote:

I think the "choice" issue is a little more complicated than just waking up one day and deciding to be gay or straight. Our urges play a strong role in this, but our urges can be triggered by all sorts of strange stimuli, and I do think there is a certain amount of choice involved in what we let our urges be stimulated by.

That's right. I vividly remember being 12 years old sitting around with a bunch of kids my age and discussing this very issue. After much debate, we came to the conclusion that while we disliked fat in general, if said fat was collected as a big lump on the chest of a female person with a nipple on top of it then we would not only not dislike this particular fat but in fact be extremely attracted to it. We all took a vow that within the next year or two we'd manifest this decision in our desires, and I'll be damned if we didn't all pull it off. If only gay boys had been to our meeting, things would have been much better for them.

It's not unusual for adolescents to get random homosexual urges out of the blue, whether it's idly wondering what it would be like to kiss another guy or girl or having a very confused wet dream.

Really?

Here I am arguing the gay side, typing hundreds or maybe even thousands of words on the subjects, and yet I can say with all honesty that not one single time in my life did I have a single homosexual urge. I never fantasized about kissing a guy or anything along those lines.

I had no sexual urges when I was young, then when puberty hit, I was extremely attracted to females. Yes, it was that cut and dried.

I honestly would like to know if this is atypical. Do most straight guys have these gay fantasies? Or is this some BS way of claiming that we all had a point where we could have gone gay but chose not to? For me, I never had that gay route pop into my mind as a choice.

I'm of the belief that most people drown that out with their more common heterosexual urges as they develop, and pretty soon they're completely denying to themselves that they ever had any weird homo thoughts ever.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm denying. I never had any such thoughts, and I don't believe that I did but am just denying them. I don't have the faintest trace of a memory of any such thoughts. In fact, I remember vividly going from being asexual to being completely girl crazy with nothing in between.

It seems reasonable to me that there will be some people who focus more on those homosexual thoughts than others though.

Except I had no such thoughts, so I had no opportunity to focus on them. Maybe gay people had no straight thoughts to focus on? That seems to be what the vast majority of them claim. Did you really have a bunch of gay fantasies that you chose to disregard?

Maybe even out of shame. "Ohmigod, why do I keep thinking about guys, am I gay?" If they focus all their private sexual thoughts obsessing over homosexual impulses, either because they find them more exciting or because they're just obsessing, I think they're going to continue developing those urges until they are just as locked in to their nature as a heterosexual's attraction to the opposite sex is.

That's right. I kept thinking, "ohmigod, why do I keep thinking about girls, am I heterosexual?" Eventually I obsessed over these thoughts so much that I was locked into a heterosexual nature.

So maybe the solution is to present homosexuality as the norm. That way everyone will freak out over their heterosexual thoughts and turn straight. You, sir, are a genius!

A person's sexual tastes are things that take time to get in to,

Really? For me, it was like a switch was thrown. One minutes, girls were silly things that possibly had cooties. The next, they were irresistable.

We didn't have no furries before Bugs started dressing in drag, for example...

What? OK, you're freaking me out now.

Sortelli further wrote:

Sue's making a point about believing that homosexuality is wholly genetic. If that is true, it follows that pedophilia is as well for the same reasons.

And that should be bothersome.

Why should that be bothersome? It's genetical/biological to be left-handed, and it's genetic to have many diseases, and it's genetic to have psychological problems, and it's genetic to have brown eyes, and it's genetic to have certain diseases, etc., etc.

I don't see how something being genetic makes it necessarily good or bad.

If homosexuality and pedophilia are both genetic, then the vast majority of us can agree which one of those is a clearly a very, very bad thing and which one is a more controversial issue.

We are more than our biologies, and the choices we make matter. I'm of the opinion that a person can be gay with no harm to the rest of us. They shouldn't have to justify themselves by their genes. Pedophiles are a wholly different lot, who selfishly destroy the lives of children. They shouldn't be allowed to justify themselves by their genes.

"Shouldn't have to" and "shouldn't be allowed to" have nothing to do with what is in fact the case. If homosexuality is genetic, then it's genetic, and the same with pedophilia. What society tolerates is a different story.

This thread is a beehive, I don't even want to touch it with a long stick.

Nevertheless, my best friend is gay and I've got two bi friends, a man and a woman - my experience is that it may be partly genetic and it may be partly environmental. It's interesting to note that all three of them were molested. None of them can remember making a conscious choice.

yo bob, post the novel length stuff on your own blog. Crikey.

Nevertheless, my best friend is gay and I've got two bi friends, a man and a woman - my experience is that it may be partly genetic and it may be partly environmental.

I agree with this. Some people are "born" gay, and some have a psychological problem that confuses them about their sexuality. (I'm sure there are "born" gay people out there who are confised into thinking they're hetero, too, but considering percentages, that's a small demographic.) Both groups are going to believe their homosexuality was not a choice, but that would only be true for the first group. The "confused" group would be able to alter their sexuality with therapy to correct the condition.

So how do you tell the difference between someone whose homosexuality is a natural condition for them and someone who is suffering from a sexuality crisis? Ideas?

Well, if you know what to do, I suggest you don't bother trying because you won't get anywhere. Whenever anyone suggests the possibility that homosexual behavior can be the result of a psychological problem, gay activists are there ready to snuff out every discussion of the topic with lots of name-calling and venom. Forget the fact that permitting science to get to the truth would help their cause in the long run; their goals are more important to them than getting some people the help they need, because in doing so their stance would be threatened.

BTW, the whole "Goodness, considering how society views them, why would ANYONE choose to be gay?" argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. People very often engage in unpopular, self-destructive, loathsome behavior for any number of twisted reasons, even one as simple as getting attention.

One day after the best post in AoS history, we have the worst post in AoS history.

One where Ace gets his ass kicked up and down by Michael of all people.

To this we've come.

Ace, just admit you've substituted a total straw man for CWA's actual argument. Because you have.

Bob:

We are actually in agreement.

Let's just clear up your misstatements about me.

Oh, come on!

Unless you're 20 or younger or have not become interested in politics within the last few years, you damn well remember that it was in fact extremely common to argue that homosexuality was in fact a conscious choice by homosexuals.

I was only criticizing Ace's mischaracterization of the article he linked, which contained nothing that would suggest the CWA held this position. I did not suggest that bigots in the past, and some to this day, have not blindly assumed that homosexuality was a conscious choice.

Once it's no longer a conscious choice, once it's no longer something that can realistically be changed in virtually all cases, then what do the details matter.

I was pointing out that the CWA asserts that a "gay gene" would be untreatable, but if this is a fraud, then other causes (over-bonded with mommy was my example) might be treatable, and the propagation of the myth of a gay gene is a politically motivated fraud to prevent gays from seeking treatment. I suppose the same might be said about hormonal imbalances in the womb -- if this is a fraud, then gays are being deliberately steered away from treatment.

My point simply being, there's nothing to suggest the CWA said that the onset of gayness was a choice, as Ace suggested, and ridiculed them for.

Ridiculous.

Maybe you should look into the success rate of converstion therapy. It is atrociously bad, so bad that it is likely that the very few "success" stories are probably people that have just learned to repress their inclinations and pretend to be something they're not.

Did you read the whole thread? I made exactly the same point. Whether it's nature or nurture, becoming gay is not a choice, it's not something you can just choose to reject, and it's not something you can get rid of by spending $10K on a shrink. Same as pedophilia, I said.

It seems more likely at this point that the genetics coupled with the hormonal environment in the womb sets off brain development in a certain way. By the time puberty hits, the brain has already been wired one way or the other.

You're ignoring the possibility that early childhood experiences my be the tipping factor. No one really knows what causes homosexuality. There's no way to conduct an experiment in a lab with a control group.

I guess I'm still delusional to think that some parts of it could if not be "settled" could at least advance a bit.

Maybe, just between us, we've made some progress.

My point simply being, there's nothing to suggest the CWA said that the onset of gayness was a choice, as Ace suggested, and ridiculed them for.

If homosexual urges can be "cured," as the article states in its thesis and conclusion, then it's a choice. The entire point of the exercise is to suggest that gayness can be un-chosen.

Lemme get this straight, asking homosexuals to be celibate is out of line, but you tell me how much action a married father of two is getting....

Let's also keep in mind, CWFA is a big proponent of reparative therapy. They may make passing arguments about the psychology of it all, but their idea of "therapy" is religious indoctrination. The ex-gay movement consists of former homosexuals telling everyone about how Our Lord Jesus Christ made them not gay, and if we just prayed hard enough, the rest of us can be not gay too.

They pick up and set down scientific studies at their leisure, but their attitude is specific, consistent, and clear: You learned how to be gay, and you could change your orientation if you really, really want to.

They've made long, ample arguments that homosexuality is the exact same thing as alcoholism: that same sex attractions are nothing more than a perverse addiction, and cold turkey and lots of prayer is the way to go.

I'm not one of those gay men who is hostile to religion. I'm a deist, but I respect people's right to believe as they will. I simply draw the line at people like this trying to tell me I have a disease, an illness, and then cherry-picking the science to suit whatever argument they're making this week.

Log Cabin: you're in good company. One reason I like Ace's blog is because there's a wide spectrum of people, from "gays are yucky" straights to comfortable queers.

As much as we can debate, it's all useless, really. Only facts can clear it up, and what facts we have are incomplete, contradictory, and in some cases biased. What people do in their bedroom ought not to concern us (as a secular society). Nevertheless, individual organizations should have the right to formulate their own policies and to promote them (although they should not enforce them on anyone but their own members). I would counsel gay peeps, men and women, to cool the PDA: it's not a right. (Straight PDA is yucky too, IMO, but then I tend to be a bit prudish.) The unfortunate part is this issue blows up into major political, theological, and moral battles when marriage, adoption, and other issues are brought in. Musli out.

However, it has been scientifically proven that the difference between straight and gay men is six beers.

bbeck:

BTW, the whole "Goodness, considering how society views them, why would ANYONE choose to be gay?" argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. People very often engage in unpopular, self-destructive, loathsome behavior for any number of twisted reasons, even one as simple as getting attention.

I'm with bbeck on this one, and it's not solely based on my hormanal impulses. I mean, why would anyone choose to play D&D? For the popularity or chicks?

And what about people who choose to be goths or punk rockers? Are we to presume that the social difficulties that come with being a goth/punk rocker means these people are genetically predisposed to wearing black trenchcoats with anarchy symbols and black nailpolish? Should we start searching their DNA strands for genetic clusters that make it more likely to cut your hair into a mohawk or paint your face white?

People choose to do unhealthy and anti-social things all the time. Sometimes -- as with many punk rockers and goth -- it's to attain acceptance into a smaller group when acceptance into the larger group appears unlikely. And it seems likely to me that some people choose to be gay based on pure choice.

Of course, that doesn't mean that nobody has a genetic predisposition toward being gay. I believe some people do. In fact, I believe the vast majority of gay people have a genetic predisposition toward being gay. But I don't buy the argument that the social stigma attached to being gay means that no one would be gay.

Michael:

Nobody believes a guy who says he's bisexual -- he'd just frickin' gay and bullshitting (unless Brewfan is involved). But we accept that women have a more nuanced sexuality and have no problem swinging both ways.

What's up with that?

It's because two chicks getting it on is totally hot.

.... What are you, gay?

Lemme get this straight, asking homosexuals to be celibate is out of line, but you tell me how much action a married father of two is getting....

If homosexual urges can be "cured," as the article states in its thesis and conclusion, then it's a choice.

No, that's a non sequitur. The article reports that the CWA thinks that homosexuality is a curable condition, but it nowhere asserts that anyone is claiming this condition is a choice.

The entire point of the exercise is to suggest that gayness can be un-chosen.

Agreed. That's what the CWA thinks, and I have made it clear that I personally doubt this is generally possible, regardless of the cause of homosexuality. But your post falsely ridiculed the CWA for claiming that homosexuality begins with a conscious choice, and the article you linked simply does not say that.

I don't think any thoughtful person (i.e., not an anti-homosexual bigot) would say that. That's the only reason I clicked through to the article, because it seemed implausible to me that anyone today was seriously taking that position.

C'mon, Ace, you're a lawyer. Apply those legal reasoning skills to the issue at hand. It shouldn't be that hard to parse through the distinction between causation and rejection.

In short, Ace, someone is correct. I've kicked your ass up and down this thread, I'm tired of repeating myself, you are just being obstinate, and I'm going to bed.

Oddly enough, I had heard of Konrad Lorenz before I hit puberty, so I always thought of my "awakening" in this regard against the template of his studies of imprinting. A nice little article is at: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/flightschool/imprinting.html.
Please especially note the line, "In it, he showed that young ducks and geese could be "imprinted" on virtually anything -- from people to colored balls -- during their first days of life."

Like many young boys, I initially thought of women as irritatingly foreign and different. At a certain point, I began to notice that they had a certain something...but it was more along the appreciation of certain curves here and there -- initially more mathematical than biological, as it were (I vaguely remember later encountering an online article somewhere about computer-generated 3D representations of mathematical curves that seemed vaguely erotic).

At 15, my folks sent me on a one-month tour of Europe with a college group, and I recall encountering Donatello's David in the Bargello (http://www.roanoke.edu/gst/DonDavid2.htm). Along the line expressed above, I distinctly remember that I thought it was a really "cute" statue in that same quasi-mathematical way. (That I registered this for nanoseconds before moving onward may have partially been due to the 17 unattached college girls that were also on the same tour).

By the time I was a 16-year-old freshman in college, however, I found the ladies completely fascinating in a visual way, and with later tactile, behavioral, and olfactory reinforcement, my imprinting became complete over the next couple of years.

Was any of this a matter of choice? Well, to answer that, I'd turn to another odd source of insight -- border collies. Anyone knowing any border collies is familiar with a rather peculiar inborn trait -- one that they exhibit even if raised with other dogs....or away from dogs entirely. They herd. A border collie on a playground will herd stray children into a group. They'll herd ducks, sheep, kids, and kittens. They have an inborn predisposition -- something in their DNA -- to engage in complicated behaviors with other species (who may be either friendly or hostile to their presence) leading to a specific result.

When I think of this at all, therefore, I think of sexual orientation as a susceptibility that is driven by DNA, like border collies or Lorenz's ducks, but that can be modified by imprinting of various sorts at specific times. Once set, however, it seems to be relatively stable in the majority of cases.

It should also be noted that this imprinting can be multilayered: exposure to development factors in the womb, domineering parental care, and certain types of sexual contact in adolescence are elements purported to have an influence in this imprinting -- but, fundamentally, if it's the right time...it could be geese, people, or colored balls.

As a side note, this would also explain the popularity of youths in porn -- imprinting would occur during puberty with others who were roughly the same age, and -- once imprinted -- the template would be set. I know that I've got a certain fondness for long-haired strawberry-blondes despite my last relationship with one ending in the early 80's....

Ace points out that since I've known since I was--well, I guess I was about four or five--that I'm attracted to girls, why should I assume it's any different for gay people?

Let's think about it this way...

I've always been a Christian. I can't ever remember not being a Christian. Sure, given the particular demands of the sect I was raised in I made a public choice to commit to it when I was fourteen, but I don't think I was something else before that. I didn't really choose to be Christian, though (and I think this is important) I did choose to affirm the identity, and I usually choose to act in accordance with its rules. Christians who were baptized in infancy might grow up Christian without ever even making a conscious choice toward it. Yet the values and preferences of Christianity are somehow inculcated in them without their necessarily choosing anything.

There's not a Christian gene. There's not a hormonal difference that causes Christianity. That is almost entirely the result of environmental factors. Parents, people I met, things I read, etc., influenced me from an early age. Had I been raised in a very different environment, e.g. had I been raised in Qom, Iran, I would likely not be a Christian today.

I could also, through my behavior or just through doing nothing, walk away from the church and my faith. Some other religions can't--they might believe they didn't choose their religion, but rather that they are chosen. Their religious identity as a Brahmin or a Levite or Untouchable or a Shia Imam or one of God's Elect was just part of their nature.

I'm not saying sexuality is analogous to religion, although religion is one of many things that affects and tempers sexuality. And none of this is my attempt to settle the question about nature v. nurture. I'm just pointing out that environment is a powerful influence, and can profoundly affect the fundamental aspects of one's personality. So is biological chemistry, yes. But to chalk up sexuality or identity purely to genetics or biological factors strikes me as a great oversimplification of a pretty complicated subject.

That's why I won't dismiss either extreme as "utterly absurd".

Watching Sue Dohnim post wild strawmen about "science" reminds me of Spurwing Plover more than ever.

Sue - being gay is not due to 100% "genetic" determinism, as your sarcastic citation of rates of homosexuality among twins points out. Not being determined by 100%, rock solid DNA coding does not equal "homosexuality is a choice," and the 36% or so rate of matching sexuality among twins makes a pretty good inference that there is a strong genetic component, that in conjunction with environmental, even prenatal factors would wire someone up to be gay.

A large portion of the comments on this thread (anti-homosexuality) strike me as a function of people obstinately demanding that the world be as they'd like it to be, to fulfill a sense of aesthetic. Look at Bart's brilliant comment about anal sex. Christ.

Good post Ace - though I disagree on the religious component. Because if homosexuality is determined to be more or less hardwired, or very genetically predispositive and cemented by environmental factors, (and I stray "IF," as science needs to prove this to advance any related cultural and political arguments) then religions that condemn a certain recurring portion of the population to physical and romantic solitude to fulfill an aesthetic are simply cruel.

Sue, no offense, but you have a disturbingly inaccurate picture of what most scientists believe.

above word "stray" supposed to be "stress." It's late.

And as far as my condemnation of religion, it's a condemnation of man's interpretation of religion, say. Christianity, for example, may have strictures against homosexuality, but we all know that the rules are subject to interpretation via culture, and that the Bible isn't a perfect, immutable record of God's word. After all, it's not the Koran right? And Churches, say, like the Catholic Chuirch, have been revised official position on matters in light of science before, haven't they?

90% of Bill's post is consistent with what I've said.

Until he goes here:

religions that condemn a certain recurring portion of the population to physical and romantic solitude to fulfill an aesthetic are simply cruel.

A recurring portion of the population, in fact a majority, is predisposed to physical violence, mayhem, and murder. I don't think that religions are "simply cruel" when they advocate abstinence in order to "fulfill an aesthetic."

You can argue that religions have picked the wrong aesthetic, but you can't blame them for being cruel when they enforce the aesthetic they have picked.

My point being, all religions attempt to thwart the natural tendencies of a sinful human nature. We can quibble about what constitutes a "sin," but we can't accuse religion of being "cruel" in attempting to stop it.

In Christian theology, the interdiction of sin has a specific term:

Charity.

The word derives from the Latin caritus, meaning "affection."

My point being, all religions attempt to thwart the natural tendencies of a sinful human nature. We can quibble about what constitutes a "sin," but we can't accuse religion of being "cruel" in attempting to stop it.

Yes, yes we can, depending on what it is religion is attempting to thwart. I don't think that's even debatable given history.

Religions are fine until they start harming people when they're trying to "thwart the tendencies of sinful human nature." And we don't even have to point to Islam here. Look at America's religion. The second anyone starts advocating sodomy laws, pushing for legislation to put the 'mos in jail, is right about the time they need a harsh slapping down.

"If you're gay and express yourself romantically, we'd like to put you in prison."

That's cruelty in my book. Parse it all you like, but it's detestable.

Wow, you guys are full of it.

People very often engage in unpopular, self-destructive, loathsome behavior for any number of twisted reasons, even one as simple as getting attention.

For example, Bob's bandwidth hog posts.

And Churches, say, like the Catholic Chuirch, have been revised official position on matters in light of science before, haven't they?

Officials of the Catholic Church sometimes opine on issues unrelated to faith and morals. (And science seems to be a subject most prone to temptation in this regard.) Other times, issues or practices are condemned or condoned by certain officials without proper authority to speak for the whole Church. Those times, plus the times when the Church itself speaks on faith and morals and is misunderstood, fill whole libraries.

On matters at the core of faith and morals that are immutable (which are called dogma) we have sometimes further clarified, but never reversed. This is what we believe.

That first section quotes Bill, of course. Don't know what happened to that tag.

Which guys Megan, all of 'em or just the ones you disagree with? 8^)

I'd like to state an opinion about the attitude of evangelical Christians towards homosexuals because there are highly visible people who often represent themselves as speaking for evangelical Christians when, in fact, they do not. The bible says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It also says that in God's view, sin is sin. So the sin of the homosexual is no worse in God's eye's then my selfishness. For me to judge homosexuals would make me the same as the man Jesus told to remove the log from his eye before telling somebody else to remove the splinter from theirs. There is no biblical reason for me to love Megan or Log Cabin any less then anybody else and I try and live my life like that. The one objection I have about the politics of today is that I'm being forced to recognize homosexual behavior as a civil right. While the compassionate part of me doesn't object to this, especially in regards to the people I know and love, there is another part of me (and its not the religious part) that doesn't see where the line is going to be drawn (aka slippery slope, I admit it). If homosexuality is a civil right, then what about polygamists? From a legal perspective, don't they have the same rights as the homosexual? Again, where does the line get drawn?

Sorry for the moonbat-length rant.

Brewfan,
You'll get no arguments from me on that. It's the politics that are really obnoxious about the whole thing. The fact that someone likes people with the same plumbing shouldn't give rise to an entire agenda.

I have a pretty politically conservative family, with lots of evangelical christians and they have neither stoned me to death, nor disowned me for being gay. The are invariably polite to my partner of 17 years at family get togethers.

I think the bottom line is, most average Americans are a tolerant lot. People just start to get pissed off when they are told they must accept and endorse something they don't agree with.
When leftist gays start going into schools with an agenda, or redefining marriage, that's when folks decide enough is enough.

Very well stated, BrewFan. There's a balance to be found between protecting individual rights that may or may not exist (9th Amendment) and the constitutional empowerment of the States and the people to pass whatever laws they think are necessary that aren't prohibited by the Constitution (10th Amendment). In their zeal to uphold the former, many libertarians and liberals trample all over the latter. We've been sliding down that slippery slope for years, and some are so obsessed with indulging their passions they don't seem to care where we'll end up.

Michael:

A recurring portion of the population, in fact a majority, is predisposed to physical violence, mayhem, and murder. I don't think that religions are "simply cruel" when they advocate abstinence in order to "fulfill an aesthetic."

I don't understand your analogy. What does prohibiting physical violence, mayhem and murder have to do with an aesthetic? Denying such natural elements of society keeps society safe, has a purpose in protecting human beings.

Denying another portion of society - that harms no unwilling party - any hope for romantic connection with another human being for the abstract fulfillment of a moral or physical aesthetic might be labeled wantonly cruel, IF working from the requisite premise that that sexual tendency is not a choice, rather part of their being. Which is one of the things that's up for debate here.

That's cruelty in my book. Parse it all you like, but it's detestable.

My point in response to Bill's post was rather modest: cruelty suggests not just an outcome, but a motive. It implies that someone takes pleasure in harming another, like pulling the wings off a fly.

When Christians or other religious people condemn homosexuality and suggest that they should abstain, they are not being "cruel" in that sense. They may be wrong, they may be wilfully ignorant, they may be just plain stupid, but they are not trying to harm another for their own enjoyment. In fact, they are trying to be helpful.

Sorry, last comment was me.

Again you ignore the fact that a prison rape is taking place every minute in this country. Those guys are choosing gay sex, consiously. Every biography and study I have read about male twins says that they have sex with each other during their teens. All men may not be gay, but many straight men have consiously choosen to have gay sex. When they are without women, say on a weekend game fishing/hunting trip or something, they are prone to jumping each others bones. Perhaps the religious restriction is not directed against those men that are born gay, but the others that are so lacking in control that they will use any outlet to get their rocks off. In other words, if you are not a gay guy, you have no excuse for such behavior.

doc -

Yes.

What does prohibiting physical violence, mayhem and murder have to do with an aesthetic?

Religions have an "aesthetic" regarding conduct, and motives, that are wholesome and God-pleasing, and those that are not (i.e., sin).

As I said above, when religious people condemn homosexuality and suggest abstinence, they are simply hewing to their principles. For them, it is no different than condemning murder. They may be wrong, but they are not trying to be cruel. Quite the opposite. The fact that the conduct is "victimless" is not really relevant; many sins are victimless (e.g., me smoking a cigarette right now). The issue is whether a person's conduct and motives are God-pleasing.

I'm only suggesting that we be a little more reserved about judging the motives of others, especially when religion is involved.

Yes.

Now, Megan, that right there is just cruel.

I miss Megan and want her to come back here. Right now we should be seeing "Shut up, Butters" but we're not :(

I miss Megan and want her to come back here.

Yes.

No

I haven't felt compelled to post anything on this thread yet, but I know I'm full of shit too.

I don't want to miss out on the good stuff.

And I miss Megan too.

If homosexuality is a civil right, then what about polygamists?

sandy burger wrote:

Sue, no offense, but you have a disturbingly inaccurate picture of what most scientists believe.

Do most scientists have to believe a particular thing to make it science? If not, is any commenter here qualified to discard a peer-reviewed meta-analysis of multiple scientific studies? No, they're not and you're not. If that were the case, I'd do a Bill and disqualify anything I disagreed with as unscientific.

And by the way, show me the scientific consensus on throwing out that bug scientist Kinsey's work, because it would make a worthy addition to my Favorites folder. All I've ever seen is pundits and supposed scientists calling Kinsey's detractors kooks.

Bill from INDC wrote:

Watching Sue Dohnim post wild strawmen about "science" reminds me of Spurwing Plover more than ever.

BILL is always jsut three beers away friom being a lbirel and humping litle boys like MICHEAL JAKCSON does is he balck or wite WHO KNOWS.

See also: my response to sandy above.

Sue - being gay is not due to 100% "genetic" determinism, [blah blah blah]

You're so damned smart. Here, Genius McPoindexter, take a look at my last post. I'm going to repeat the relevant portion of it below because you're just too damned bright to find it and read it on your own, Smarty O'Brainiac. I'll even highlight it for you, because your synapses fire entirely too fast to catch it by yourself:

Here's the quote I was looking for from After the Ball : How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's. The author writing this is a gay Harvard psychologist, by the way:

We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay -- even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence. [...]

To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choices and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.

Now, go play on the yellow line in the road, like your mother kept on telling you to do.

BILL is always jsut three beers away friom being a lbirel and humping litle boys like MICHEAL JAKCSON does is he balck or wite WHO KNOWS.

Bob blathered:

That's right. I vividly remember being 12 years old sitting around with a bunch of kids my age and discussing this very issue. After much debate, we came to the conclusion that while we disliked fat in general, if said fat was collected as a big lump on the chest of a female person with a nipple on top of it then we would not only not dislike this particular fat but in fact be extremely attracted to it. We all took a vow that within the next year or two we'd manifest this decision in our desires, and I'll be damned if we didn't all pull it off. If only gay boys had been to our meeting, things would have been much better for them.

Wow, Bob, you're an idiot.

Here I am arguing the gay side, typing hundreds or maybe even thousands of words on the subjects, and yet I can say with all honesty that not one single time in my life did I have a single homosexual urge. I never fantasized about kissing a guy or anything along those lines.

Well, good for you. Is what's true for you true for everybody?

And so good on you for arguing the gay side without actually, you know, being gay, but it might help you to understand that I'm not arguing against the "gay side".

I am, in fact, "[conceding] that nobody makes a conscious choice to be gay and that it is impossible (or virtually impossible) to change to a different orientation", to use your words.

Maybe gay people had no straight thoughts to focus on? That seems to be what the vast majority of them claim.

Perhaps that is true, I am just speaking from my own experiences. I never had gay "fantasies" as such, I never enjoyed the thoughts and I put them away. I have a whole LOT of thoughts that I don't act on because I make a concious decision not to. Are you different from that?

And by making this claim I'm not trying to protect the hoary old position that being gay is a choice no one should chose to make. I don't see any particular ill in a person's homosexuality, I believe that is a choice to be respected.

As for you making an argument about "vast majorities", color me unimpressed. I've heard passionate arguments from gay and straight people arguing that the "vast majority" of people know that homosexuality is or is not genetic, etc etc etc.

We didn't have no furries before Bugs started dressing in drag, for example...

What? OK, you're freaking me out now.

What, is that not true? The furry fetish didn't exist until after a generation of people who had grown up watching cute anthropomorphic animal girls and boys in cartoons started expressing their sexual interests in that framework of their experiences.

Or are you going to tell me that the furry fetish was genetically pre-disposed in a postion of humanity since creation and had just been sitting dormant until just now?

Something happened in the formative years of those people that made them think all that was missing from Chip N Dale's Rescue Rangers was hardcore sex. Not my bag, but hey, it sparked their interest and they pursued it.

I don't see how something being genetic makes it necessarily good or bad.

I know, you're not very smart. Maybe it's your genes?

"Shouldn't have to" and "shouldn't be allowed to" have nothing to do with what is in fact the case. If homosexuality is genetic, then it's genetic, and the same with pedophilia. What society tolerates is a different story.

It's a clumsy argument to make that behaviors are dictated by genetics and that we should accept some of them "because it's genetic and they have no choice" but reject others "even though it's genetic and they have no choice because we really don't like the results of their behavior".

When you boil things that define a person down to their genetic code, then any decision society makes about what behaviors are acceptable or not becomes an argument about persecuting people who are different.

We should avoid trying to "justify" homosexuality based on its genetic factors. Because homosexuality does not need to be justified based on its genetic factors. And if we allow that, then we allow pedophiles to argue that they should be given the same treatment, even if you, personally, are able to make the obvious distinction between gays and child molesters.

You've already conceded that the genetic markers we know of, such as with identical twins, are not 100% certain with regards to sexual preference. That means there are other factors playing there, and I do believe people have the ability to influence that and determine their own identities to an extent.

Maybe I'm just one of those people who had the genetic opening for homosexuality but didn't turn out that way. I don't know how many other people had similar experiences to me and I doubt I'd ever get a, eh, straight answer to that question on account of machismo.

Maybe I'm just one of those people who had the genetic opening for homosexuality but didn't turn out that way. I don't know how many other people had similar experiences to me and I doubt I'd ever get a, eh, straight answer to that question on account of machismo.

I, for one, appreciated your candor, and I believe I responded by confessing my compulsive yearning for Brewfan.

and I believe I responded by confessing my compulsive yearning for Brewfan.

Can you say "unrequited"?

Interesting discussion, I can't believe I actually sat here and read the entire thing in one sitting. The eye strain is killing me!

Beats me whether it's genetic, environmental, or something in the water. Heck, it could be a combination of each of these things for all I know. The only certainty I have is that I never had a conscious choice in being gay. From my earliest years I knew I was different before I even had a name for it. I was never molested, had a pretty normal childhood, and don't really have a problem with women either -- just not attracted to them myself. Women can be very beautiful and I can understand why someone would want to have sex with them, but it holds no appeal for me at all.

Now someone suggested that gay men should get married and suppress their attraction for their own sex. Besides the fact this is extremely cruel to the woman in such an arrangement, how exactly is that supposed to occur if Mr. Happy refuses to stand at attention during the act of sex? Oh certainly with enough stimulation a man can have an erection, but it's not a full one or maintained for long if there isn't any attraction for your partner.

Sue has raised the issue of genetics and twins to argue that homosexuality isn't something found in the genes. She may be right or only partially so. Beats me and science has yet to come up with anything definitive that a laymen such as myself can comprehend. Yet the fact identical twins have the same DNA doesn't quite make her point completely as far as I understand. Yes such twins share the same genotype of DNA -- but not the same phenotype. I'm not a geneticist, nor do I play one on the internet, but given that this results in differences such a fingerprints between identical twins one would think that something complex like the human brain would also be affected. Twins share much in common but their brains are not hard-wired exactly alike. Just my completely non-professional 2 cents.

Oh one more thing, feel free to skewer the liberal activists all you like. In many cases it's well-deserved.

Oh one more thing, feel free to skewer the liberal activists all you like. In many cases it's well-deserved.

Is it just me? I feel like there is hope for America when gay guys like AGJ show up at AOSHQ.

AGJ, I hope you continue to make your presence known.

Well, 23% did vote for Bush in the last election, so there's that.

Michael: Hey I grew up during the Reagan years. I've been conservative for as long as I can remember, which didn't make being gay any easier but such is life. Still miss the Gipper...

Robbie: Well, it's not like Kerry ever had a serious shot at getting my vote.

Just when you thought we were done talking about Brokeback Mountain...

If I didn't have a choice, why would I assume a gay guy did? If other straight men know they didn't have a choice, why would they assume others did?

It is generally agreed that children are more open minded than adults (who are more open minded than the elderly); old dog/new tricks etc. So proceeding from there, it's not a real stretch to say that kids are more open to "alternative" sexual persuasions - the key being that as with most things they respond to external influence.

In today's world of 24/7 hetero-lifestyle advertizing (generally low key, but it's undeniably there), it's not surprising that most kids gravitate towards a hetero sexual orientation, and by the time puberty hits they're off and running in that direction.

But then you have studies showing that a large percentage of kids have had a same sex encounter by the time they hit 18. I've read that listed at 75%, but whether you accept that or think it's lower the point is that it does happen, and the percentage is way higher than the % of guys born with elongated fingers or whatever characteristics denote a person "born gay" - how to explain that gap?

Simple - chaos theory. Meaning growing up to be gay IS a possibility for everyone, but it comes down to a medley of environment (what influences are you exposed to, who do you know), and to a lesser extent personality. The fact that you're straight was not a foregone conclusion. You may think so just as you may think other facts about your present day state were foregone conclusions, but it ain't so.

Still think I'm wrong? Why then are male victims of molestation listed as high risk for becoming (gay) sexual predators themselves? And please spare me the "well that's not really "gay" arguments - those guys self evidently have a "gay" side of their nature even if they marry a woman (and many do end up completely gay - it was not an accident that the characters in BBM both had traumatic gay experiences as kids).
Biology accounts for a more or less submissive nature, but otherwise that horse is old, tired and won't carry you far.

Biblically, it is a sexual sin, as is incest etc. So is stealing, murder etc. a sin. I'm taught that God doesn't "rate" sin. Now, far be it from me to judge gay or lesbian people. I'm just glad I don't have that "short-circuit" in my network. My only prejudice on the subject is I don't believe in attempts to "normalize" the disfunction. If we do, Pandora's box opens up for poligamy, pedifilia, marrying daughters, moms, goats.....well, you get the picture.

I think pro-homos' concept of "orientation" is one of the dumbest things ever invented in the po-mo era.

How does a stupid pro-homo explain that the majority of men in certain Polynesian islands will have a huge sex drive (orientation, arousal, desire, etc) for hugely fat women and that if you take an average group of American men from our culture, they have a completely different psychological desire make-up and have profoundly different desires and can feel greatly repulsed by certain body shapes/types that other cultures die of desire over. Oh, would explain the stupid pro-homos, the Polyneasian guys can't help themseves, ergo, there is a gene that determines the attraction to hugely fat 300 lb women and nothing could change that orientation. And anybody who says it could change is a bigot.

Then you take a baby from the US, descendant from the guys who feel a very different sexual drive and orientation, though still heterosexual, but towards the thinner "babe" types, and you bring this baby up in a Polynesian culture and guess what, he feels the same huge drive "uncontrollable," "inborn" sexual drive towards the hugely fat women.

what happened? As any stupid pro-homo knows, it must have been a gene mutation, because sexual orientation, desire, drive, and behavior is inborn and genetically determined and anyone who disagrees is a Bible thumping bigot.

I wanted to follow up on my last post with another thought; we as adults have a tendency to recollect our childhood through the prism of our current (adult) perception of ourself and the world - like everything about us, down to our hobbies, political orientation, religious affiliation etc was driven by Destiny, and we could not have turned out any way other than how we are today.

In our present conviction and ironclad sense of self-identity, we reject the idea that we were once a bunch of little fakers trying to absorb their surroundings, emulate parents, older siblings, relatives, friends, people on TV etc mostly for the sake of looking cool, being accepted or what have you - point being there was a time when we were all much less sure of who we were or what we wanted.

I've watched it happen with friends I grew up with; the change from spaced out kid to super-confident adult, where history gets rewritten in their mind because the adult version cannot succeed in the real world with the kind of wide eyed clueless openness of childhood - everyone from your girlfriend/wife to your kids to your boss demands absolute certainty from you once you are out on your own.

To say ones sex drive is strictly generic is to say that humans are no different from other animals. What separates us humans from other creatures is our ability to reason and make decisions regardless of animalistic urges. One would not excuse a person for rape who claimed that they were generically disposed to have intercourse with every woman they encountered. The same applies to those that persue a homosexual existance. What ever their sexual tendancies, it took a conscious decision to make that choice.

The reason that religions want to encourage heterosexual intercourse and discourage gay intercourse is the same reason that the Catholics ban birth control. More members of their religion are born, thus enlarging their power. A lot of bans were due to health problems at the time, the ban against pork, for instance. If pork made you ill, it was a good bet that it would be considered unclean. Gay sex has always had a high incidence of communicable diseases (I work at the library and see many books that back up this evidence, and my grandmother was a clerk in the county immunization and communicable disease dept. during the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, and she said that many of the guys with AIDS had 5 other VD's at the same time) So perhaps the religious leaders saw the fact that men that engaged in promiscuous gay sex, were unhealthy and possibly spreading the sickness to their wives and decided that a religious ruling was in order. Of course they were for polygamy and concubinage at the time and the age of consent for girls was about 8. Again, enlarging the ranks through hetero sex.

Michelle, a society better have a lot of hetro sex with full term births if it is going to survive. Wether due to homosexuality or abortions or the absence of hetro unions, much of the world has population replacement problems, never mind enlargement. Check out Steyns It's the Demographics Stupid. http://www.newcriterion.com/archives/24/01/its-the-demography/

The same applies to those that persue a homosexual existance. What ever their sexual tendancies, it took a conscious decision to make that choice.

Do you recall making a choice to be heterosexual? There was no point in my life where I sat back and decided that gay is what I wanted out of life. If I had of been at least bisexual I probably would have married and tried to forget about men, but I'm not. Given my the conservative backround and religious faith I come from it certainly would have made things easier in life, at least spared me the years of torment. I have nothing against women but they do not appeal to me sexually. Rather difficult to fake being attracted when Mr. Happy refuses to obey. You speak about something of which you have zero personal experience and understanding.

To say ones sex drive is strictly generic is to say that humans are no different from other animals. What separates us humans from other creatures is our ability to reason and make decisions regardless of animalistic urges.

There is a huge difference between "sex drive" and sexual orientation. All the reason in the world is not able to change the fact that I am attracted to men and women. I may choose to not act upon that, which is where choice comes in, but I have no choice in being attracted in the first place.

One would not excuse a person for rape who claimed that they were generically disposed to have intercourse with every woman they encountered.

Assuming there is a genetic predisposition to rape, that in and of itself isn't a crime. You are confusing desire or, in the case of homosexuality, orientation with the choice to act.

The same applies to those that persue a homosexual existance. What ever their sexual tendancies, it took a conscious decision to make that choice.

To actually have sex? Yes, such does take a conscious choice. This is not true as far as the orientation itself.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of choice involved, except in the trivial sense that we choose, obviously, in favor of what we like and against what we don't like. I see a hot guy--5'9" to 6'2", 28 - 31 waist, 140 - 150 pounds, hard-bodied, smooth-skinned--and the feeling is akin to worship. I can distinguish the womanly equivalent, but my reaction varies from mild interest to "Ugh, cheesecake."

Don't worry Doc , I read Mark Steyn religiously.