NDP~

Whoa! Well, I am uncertain what you mean that I responded with a "red herring". Simply pointing out that animals are sustable to homosexuality does not prove anything. Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source.. Animals are not machines. They do have some level of awareness with sometimes complex social structures. In other words, just because animals do it does not mean they do it because it is genetic. Is everything they do genetic? No. Besides we're not exactly like other animals are we? Like I said before, animals kill. Does that make killing ok? All the link demonstrates is that there animals too practice all sorts of sexual behaviours based solely on scientific observation. It would be dangerous to conclude that it is genetic based only observation. Look at Dr. Mayou (or however his name is spelled). He's a "scientist" from Québec who said years of research have made him conclude that Blacks and Natives are inherently inferior to all other races! I was shocked when I heard that. But it goes to show that sometimes you cannot swallow everything you hear. (yes, I do believe he has some serious issues) You say that human sexuality is complex, yet you point out in black and white terms that some homosexuals are like that because they were made that way by God and others are due to social influences. Well if we grab the Bible on this one (oh boy) there are numerous places (not just laviticus) where it unquestionably states that homosexuality is not ok with God. He says it is a sin. So, if homosexality is a sin, then why would God create homosexuals who have absolutely no way of being saved? That does not make sense. God says all who believe in him will find eternal life. That all can be fogiven from their sins. Yet, he excludes homosexuals because (according to you) he made them that way? No, I don't think so. That would be a mistake. And God, according to the Bible, does not make mistakes.

lol Liam. Why are you bringing God into this? You think it is always Christians who do not agree with the homosexual philosophy? That's silly. You think the only "ex-gay" community is some Church group? You think people become an ex-gay because they're under pressure to do so? That's silly. You're making so many assumptions there. Now, concerning me possibly becoming gay. Well, though I doubt it. I never say never. How do you know? How do I know? Do we know the future? No. It may very well be I'll be sucked into homosexuality. The point is that presently I have no interest in that sort of thing but maybe I'll be vacuumed in. And no, I've never been tempted by Playboy or Penthouse. I have more respect for women than that. So now we're going to differentiate between someone being truly "gay" and "sort-of gay". Who judges that? Who defines "truly gay", "sort of gay" and "never really was gay"? You? As you can see something like that is more of a social thing, not scientific nor genetic. My EXAMPLE of black people was one of SOMEONE who is ignorant. I know many White people who think Black people are more or less gangsta' punks. I know black people are not. You really misunderstood my example. I was trying to point out how someone can reach conclusions through ignorance. And my example of the boy being violated was to point out that events, no matter how horrible or insignificant, seem to the factor in defining sexual orientation and not genetics. For example, if you had been born 500 years ago and had only known of homosexuality as a concept, I really doubt you would have been homosexual. I guess in the end, we can agree to disagree. You're mind is set in stone that there is NO way, NO possible speck of a chance that being homosexual is NOT genetic. I am open to this possibility if it is proven with unequivocal, unquestionable science. You are unwilling to listen because it seems if homosexuality is proven not to be genetic, it will shake the very foundations you stand on. Please do not be offended, that is not my intent. I am trying to open peoples eyes to the possibilities. To alternative explanations. Clearly, you do not want to hear that. You're eyes and ears are glued shut.

NP. Yes animals do practice this, but they also kill too. Does that make killing right? (just an example) I don't usually like to compare animals to humans since we as humans are considerably more advanced with social standings, language, intuition, etc.. But, that is for ANOTHER thread. Not this one. XD I'm not sure about the medication end of this (seems highly odd) but I do concur homosexuals seem to be most fervant in accepting the view that being homosexual is innate. And yes, someone becoming an ex-gay being accused of never truly being gay at all is really REALLY presumptious. Liam, why are you so fervant in rejecting this possibility? Why are you assuming someone who becomes an ex-gay is lying to his or herself? Ex-gays are not people who are living a lie and conforming to a more "wholesome" or "moral" view of what society expects of them. They are people for one reason or another have made a conscious choice to no longer be a homosexual. You are not using reason here. You do not know the ex-gays I know. You assume they are in denial because the idea of people choosing to turn away from homosexuality seems to bother you. (no offence) How is it not possible for a heterosexual to become a homosexual? That's absurd. For the case of let's just say (for an example) of a boy who was violated by his uncle and years down the road he realized he was gay? You think if he was not he would have been gay anyway? You don't know. I don't know. That's the thing. Events in life seem to often shape this so-called "sexual orientation". You say that you are stating this on what you know from experience and what not from what you feel, but let's use another example here. A lot of young black people (sadly) that I have personally met are not the brightest lightbulb. They drop out and many are in gangs. As opposed to a lot of White people I know. Does this mean, from my experience, I should assume ALL young blacks are stupid and doomed to failure? No, because I know if they had grown up in the same environment as many of the White people I've known, they would have been equally as capable. I know not from experience, but from other external scientific facts that black people are equal in everyway. However, if I had judged them solely on my experience, my view would have been quite different. Why is speaking of the issue insulting? People question Christianity. People question how the world works. Why can people not question the nature of homosexuality? Do I not have the right to question what many people have tried to impose on me? Your reply assumes being gay is without question genetic. It's funny since science has proven that some people are prone to being overweight. This has been unquestionably proven by science. Yet, is it ok for someone overweight to sit there and say well, "I cannot lose weight because I was born this way". No, it is not. People exercise. People with this type of body can control their weight. They were not born weighing 600 pounds. Until there is unquestionable, scientific proof, you were not born homosexual. (whether it is ok or not ok to be overweight or homosexual is not what I am saying, so do not interprete it that way) You'd be surprised how easily it is to brainwash people. If someone, for example, has low selfesteem (not saying it is your case, do not assume that) was violated when he/she was young, was treated poorly all his/her life, a person like that seems ripe for brainwashing into anything. (no, I'm not saying homosexuality specifically, but that brainwashing is quite prevelant in our society)

Wow. All I can say is I'm shocked. You are saying there is no such thing as an ex-gay. Only because you feel there was no such thing in your case. You are using a sense of what you feel instead of real intellictual reason. You are assuming just because you seem to be unable to turn away from your homosexuality, ALL homosexuals are locked-in to the same fate. So, if I was into beastilaity and all society said it was OK, that means I was born like this and there's no way around it? (this is an example) Don't you see, 100 years ago this open-gayness was less present. (yes, I know there were homosexuals then too) This was due to social circumstances of the time. It was illegal and viewed as innately corrupt. Now, in today's society, it is much more accepted. Thus we see many more homosexuals in open (and perhaps more than ever) The ex-gays I know are NO longer homosexual. They are married with children. I find it insulting that you believe you have the right to speak for them and assume they weren't homosexual to begin with. I can assure you they were and have chosen to leave that lifestyle. The whole being a lesbian is kewl and being a homosexual (male) is not kewl is a social construct that's simply sad. When did I say homosexuals should be "discriminated" against? How is actual discussion of homosexuality absurd? Please, take your bag of rhetoric somewhere else. You are foolish to assume that people who are curious of the origin of homosexuality are seeking some basis to discriminate. Please stop this view that all that disagree with homosexuality are some sort of discriminators. It's stupid. You are making an assumption. There is no evidence to support that homosexual's brains are "wired" differently. You know what they say, don't swallow everything some people throw at you. It's important to be critical and investigate and not submit to brainwashing. Once again you are making an assumption on homosexual motives. Yes, I know some people do do it for popular reasons. I am far from convinced that it is genetic (though I am open to this possibility if it does emerge) It's interesting that 50 years ago, homosexuality was illegal and viewed with scorn. Now, people imbrace it. What the Catholic Church says is irrelevant, and all persons, criminals, white, Jews, Muslims, etc should be treated like brothers since (using the Bible now) we are not judges, God is. The bathroom thing is silly. Good joke though! I find Strip Clubs to be absolutely appauling. It's completely disrespectful toward women. Please people we're not talking about "discrimination". Let's keep the "same old, same old" out of here. We're talking about if homosexuality is innate or not. And the complete lack of mention or support for ex-gays in our society. We even have people denying their existance! Come on people. Stop thinking so rigidly and open your mind to the other side of the issue at hand.

Well, I know some people who are ex-gays. Meaning they were once homosexual and now they are not. Does this mean that today's ideology (that's what it is) of homosexuality being more or less "genetic" in nature and it CANNOT be changed is wrong?! I have done some research into this subject and there are many psychologists who agree that homosexuality is not innate and is something that can be changed. (whether it should be is for another discussion) It's interesting that special interest groups have imposed their views on society. It's interesting because if it is truly a choice and not innate (no genetic evidence to support it anyway) then why oh why are people accepting this as if it were like race or origin? Could this be the new "Catholicism"? In the old days, if you disagreed with the church, you were punished. You were a "heretic", "witch" or something or another. These days if you disagree with homosexuality you are viewed as "antiquated", "extreme", "small-minded" or stupid. It's quite interesting. Same old, same old? One ideology replaces another?