The Blue Board

Okay, just ask a gay person.

Again why are straight people trying to tell gay people they weren't born that way?

It's like me telling someone whose parent died "it doesn't hurt, you are just a pvssy"

You have no idea, you haven't experienced it. So how do you know they were or weren't born that way?

Cuz the Bible told you that? Or Santorum said so?

I'm not going to read through the whole thread and read a bunch of BS from people, but I will settle the debate. It is NOT a choice. It has to do with the mixture of hormones in the female when the fetus is undergoing early neuronal development. The level of androgens (i.e., testosterone) in the pregnant female has been found to determine the level of masculine traits in the fetus, including their sexual orientation and even their childhood play preferences. If there is not an adequate level of androgens, the fetus's mind will develop on a more "female" persona, which, in a complex way, contributes to homosexuality. This is further backed up by the data that homosexual males are more likely to have an older male sibling, which scientists hypothesize results in the development of maternal antibodies to androgens (which females do not normally express at high levels outside of pregnancy), which will neutralize androgens in subsequent pregnancies, resulting in the different neuronal development.

While homosexuality is not a choice, research points to bisexuality as a choice. fMRI scans were done to subjects who self-identified as homosexual (both male and female), bisexual, and heterosexual. When stimulated by pheromones of both the same and opposite sex, heterosexual individuals showed activity in the parts of their brain that regulate sexual attraction when given pheromones of the opposite sex and homosexual individuals showed activity only when given pheromones of the same sex, but bisexuals only showed activity when given one or the other, not both. Thus, from a neuro-biochemical standpoint, there is no such thing as a bisexual.

So what you’re saying is that people can get aroused to both P and V, and you just simply decide to go with V because you prefer it. So it’s kind of like me liking both Pepsi and Coke, but when faced with the choice I choose Coke because I like it more right? To answer your question yes. I don’t see why not. Its better than a lot of the other alternatives for orphans.

So now you want to debate right and wrong? You just conceded this entire thread...

Yes I did, and I also posted a study where suicide rates were found to be higher among homosexuals. If killing yourself isn't one aspect of "destructive," I'm not sure what is.

Are you questioning the study? You don't think that it's significant to say that pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual?

Putting words in my mouth. When did I say I chose to be straight? Do people even read my posts, or just respond to what they think I said? I've even explicitly said that I don't think the temptations are a choice...but I do think homosexuals can change if they want to. There are many environmental influences that affect a person's "sexuality." I never said people up and choose what they want to be, but I do think people can change...they can actually change both ways.

Of course it is. Do you have any idea the social conditions homosexuals live in? The way they're treated? The insults? The beatings? Jesus man, of course they commit more suicides.

Page 9, near the bottom.

Read the post. The studies were done in New Zealand and the Netherlands - two societies that are very accepting of homosexual behavior.

Lulz. You think because they are more accepting that they are still accepted universally?

Canada allows gay marriage, generally very accepting, but kids still bully homosexuals, they still get treated like crap from some people.

Also many gay people are deathly afraid of coming out of the closet due to worries they won't be accepted. Whether those fears are valid or not are inconsequential.

This is more of what I'm talking about in terms of discussion. However, I have to argue that the first study is hardly conclusive. Exact quote: "First, androgen is not clearly related to playmate preference, a behavior also reported to be related to sexual orientation."

And the second one doesn't really indicate a lack of choice. It seems to be measuring a response to stimuli.

The "complex way" this stuff is contributing to homosexuality (after admittedly just glancing the article over) is that it leads to possible preferences in environmental factors. In the end, environmental factors appear to have the majority influence.

I'm not even sure how to address the second half of your post.

Not at all confusing correlation with causation. I know the difference. And I've argued this enough times with people who assume I don't. Correlation does not automatically equal causation in any way. But in human behavior studies, it's extremely difficult to pinpoint causation. Correlation while reducing other factors (usually with random inclusion) is typically the best way to do it. And even then you need logical causation explanations. However, in this case correlation is a cause for concern.

Gee whiz, people how many times do I need to address this. Those studies were done in the Netherlands and New Zealand, where homosexuality is generally accepted. Blaming society is not a valid excuse in this case. Those studies specifically went to those places because of that factor.