Gay marriage will soon be legal (Denver, biased, rating, support)

[scrip]

Originally Posted by denverian

What? Do you honestly think I'm going to read your "science"

Much of the science I've listed was completed by gay scientists. The choice to ignore the scientific studies is completely up to you.

[scrip]

Originally Posted by karfar

Environment...hmm...well I've gone to gay bars countless times, COUNTLESS, & my best friend is gay. Meaning, I spend almost all of my time w/him. Yet, I am not gay. Strange.

That's actually pretty funny - I've never heard that one. But... environment does indeed play a factor. Try reading some LeVay or Hamer, both of whom are gay scientists.

[scrip]

Originally Posted by happ

Why do you think about gays so much?

I appreciate your concern. My time is my own and if I decide to pass along valid science about an important social issue, then you shouldn't care. In fact you should be reading the links I've provided to get up to speed on the latest science on same-sex attraction.

[happ]

Originally Posted by scrip

I appreciate your concern. My time is my own and if I decide to pass along valid science about an important social issue, then you shouldn't care. In fact you should be reading the links I've provided to get up to speed on the latest science on same-sex attraction.

On your same-sex attraction? no thanks [sounds creepy

[GCSTroop]

I think there's a bit of a dividing line here in what we should consider "gay genetics" and "gay psychology".

I think that we first have to understand what constitutes "homosexuality".

For the most part, it seems that those from the religious standpoint usually end up quoting something to the effect of "a man shall not lie with a man as he does a woman". Well, to me, that actually describes homosexual behavior and not necessarily homosexuality. But, this, to me, begs the question, how else would homosexuals "lie" with one another? They are obviously not going to sleep with one another in the same fashion that heterosexual couples do for obvious reasons. So, due to the anatomy of two males and/or two females we are left with no other choice but to deem certain things "homosexual" in their act. But, does that really define homosexuality?

What this does tell me is that there is a primal urge (sex drive) in males and females heterosexual and homosexual alike that needs to be fulfilled separately from the actual conditions provided by ones sexual orientation. In other words, gay men and women have just as much sex drive as straight men and women but the actions in which they pursue it are different - resulting in homosexual "behavior".

But, should this mean that the "behavior" is what defines the individual? If, hypothetically, I as a straight man slept with a homosexual male would it in return make me homosexual? It may make people think that I was but in all reality it would be a choice that I made whether due to pleasure, testing it out, or some other reason. However, I fail to see how it would make me homosexual.

Therefore, I think that we take it a step to far when we define homosexual "behavior" as the process behind what makes up a homosexual or heterosexual. Rather, it seems to me that what should actually be defined are how, what, and who a person really feels emotional towards. I imagine from a gay man's perspective that his feelings of love, emotion, and attraction are no different towards his partner than mine are to my wife.

And yet it seems that I remember for as long as I can that there was some sort of "attraction" to young women (when I was young - NOT NOW ). I fail to see how at the age of five years old when I thought a fellow female classmate in kindergarden was "cute" was a result of my lifes experiences. Considering that I can only remember back to my third birthday it would tell me that there was little to no influence in how it was that my mind adapted to the conception of finding young women attractive. But why is the double standard attached to those who are homosexual in nature? Is it so far fetched to imagine that the same feelings, the emotional ambivalence if you will, that I felt for young ladies at a very young age can also be felt by homosexual boys towards other boys? Why is that so hard to fathom? And yet, because of strictly anatomical and biological reasons, the only way to relieve the primal urge of sexual drive is in an entirely different way.

The problem is that people have a hard time separating "acts and behavior" from emotional ambivalence. While I do think that there are certain people who decide to engage in homosexual behavior just for pleasure, I do not think that makes them "gay". "Gay" is a product of not only behavior and acts but also the comprisal of how one feels towards a member of the same or opposite sex.

This leads me to an interesting conclusion in a study done in fruit flies (drosophila melanogaster) in which they "switched" certain genes off and on in offspring. What resulted was the fruit flies engaging in "homosexual behavior" but I also hardly think that the fruit fly felt this compassion for his mate. Rather, due to a "switch" in the genome of the fruit fly, the primal urges of the mind were redirected towards the fruit flies of the same sex. If that is indeed the case, then while I find it possible for the human being to avoid sexual contact or even lust after a member of the same sex, I think they would be doing so at an extreme risk to their own mental health for not "being true" to themselves.

In all honesty, people need to get their head out of the sandbox and realize that "behavior and acts" do not strictly define homosexuality as much as emotional ambivalence driving primal urges resulting in homosexual behavior do. And that, my friends, I find to be a result of pure genetics!

[happ]

Great post GCSTroop

Hopefully others will read you comments & stop to think for a minute rather than cling to their obvious insecurities.

[happ]

Men locked up in prison have sex with each other but that doesn't make them gay. Many gay men have been married to women & have had children but they are gay.

The mind controls sexual expression more than we can understand. Any simple conclusions [ie Bible-belt types] are meaningless distortions and limited insight into human sexuality/behavior.

[scrip]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

I think that we first have to understand what constitutes "homosexuality".

Indeed. And we should read what the experts have to say and if we disagree with the experts, we should provide scientific reasons why we disagree with the experts.

From the links posted previously in this thread we see environment is key. The experts, some of them gay, have made some very interesting statements here: The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science - In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy:

Here is a summary:

Are homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined. Is homosexuality immutable? Hardly. There is ample evidence that homosexual attraction can be diminished and that changes can be made.

Homosexuality is an issue of ethics and morality. Individuals who experience unwanted homosexual attractions have a right to treatment aimed at reducing those attractions. Whether or not others agree with that choice is not as important as respecting their right to make the choice. In fact, tolerance and diversity demand that they do so.

Gay scientists have stated gays should have the right to seek help overcoming their same-sex attraction and that right should be respected. Ex-gays such as Michael Glatze (co-founder of Young Gay America) and Charlene Cothran (publisher of Venus Magazine) are well known cases of gays seeking help and leaving the gay life.

Who here denies their right to seek the help they received?

[scrip]

Originally Posted by happ

On your same-sex attraction? no thanks [sounds creepy

It's always interesting to realize there are people who:

1. refuse to read credible scientific studies
2. purposely misrepresent what others say
3. personally attack those with whom they disagree

I encourage you to read what gay scientists have stated over and over.

[scrip]

Originally Posted by happ

Any simple conclusions [ie Bible-belt types] are meaningless distortions and limited insight into human sexuality/behavior.

I agree which is precisely why I've posted, repeatedly, links and references to studies where you and others can read what the experts, some of them gay, have said.