McCain's heroic backdrop

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen asked:

If science was able to produce evidence that homosexuals were that way because of a chemical imbalance, brain wiring, gene, or any other scientifically proven fact, would you still continue to call it a prefrence.

Now that is what they call a $64,000 question.



Great question, Tom. Cuts right to the heart of the debate.



TJR

 

[Les]

None of you have shown me any difinitive proof that there is a single instictive behavior that we are born that would determine someones sexual preference.

I know one thing, it's not from a bee sting or an ant bite.

Even retarted people have the ability to learn and be taught, it's just slower and more difficult. My 15 year old granddaughter has the mental capacity of a child about 5 or six years old.

This depends on the level of retardation. Those with an IQ near 70, are usually able to learn some small tasks, and in educational environments are taught to perform these. Actually, many of these people function at a level so low, they are unable to learn much of anything and are cared for by around-the-clock nursing.

We may develop a sexual urge when we reach puberty, but that does not determine if a person is heterosexual or homosexual.

As I have said before, sexual preference is genetically pre-determined, it doesn't come from the air we breath, or the water we drink.

I think that the sexual urge is very different than sexual preference.

You are absolutely right.

It is how that child grew up and experienced various male and female interactions and the effect it had on them at that moment in time. That's when the chile begins to form idea and concepts that they like or do not like.

See TJR's link...



Rich, presuming you know someone gay, everyone does, ask them their thoughts on why they prefer their preferences, as opposed to yours. No bee stings, ant bites, polluted air or water will be in their answers.

 

[Richard L]

Les,

I never seriously that someone being gay is because they were stung by a bee or an ant. That was only to point out that the reason someone may be gay is that there was something that altered their thinking. I also said if it was genetic that something triggered the alteration of the gene.



If it was genetic, then homosexuality would run in the family, and I'm sure we all know that is not the case.



I do believe that some people have a genetic condition that leaves them with a predisposition for alcholiszm, and perhaps other addictions. but the trigger is taking that first drink, or the first dose of drugs. So nobody is born an alcholic or a drug addict, they actually have to work at it and a predisposition just makes it easier for them to get hooked on something. But that is a chemical dempendancy, while being gay is not a chemical dependacy and it is not heretitary. If there is a gay gene, we all have it and remains dormant for heterosexuals, and may account for why some people perceive that they are born heterosexuals. If I say that if we are born with the insticts to be heterosexual, then why are some people gay, and some bi-sexual???



I do not currently know any gay people, but asking them why the prefer same-sex relationships is pointless since they don't know why either? If it was that simple, the scientist would just ask the gay why, and they would have the difinitive answer, strait from the horses mouth?



Some gays also state they were normal heterosexuals and later changed to gay. That would support the "Born heterosexual" argument, but destroys th "Born gay" argument. Some gays have been married for a long time before they become gay, but if they were born gay, they would have recognized they were gay as soon as they started to become sexually active.



In ancient Rome and Greece, it was common for men to use young boys as sex partners as well as women. Where thy gay, or bi-sexual or pediphiles? Where they breading generations of gays?? No, it was a social norm and it was an accepted practice during that time as well as were both homosexual and heterosexual orgies.



So we are still back where we started, no proof for either theory. But in the end, it does not matter what makes people gay, they are still citizens of this country and should be accorded all the rights and freedoms that we all have. After all, that;s what started this whole thing, and I don't really see anymore point in arguing about it.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

If it was genetic, then homosexuality would run in the family, and I'm sure we all know that is not the case.

If it was from the environment the child was raised in, than children raised in a gay househod would be gay. That simply is not the case.



Again, using your theory, left handedness would run in the family. I have a brother that is left handed. The only one that is left handed. No family records show that any of our past relatives were left handed. Not a single one of them.





Tom

 

[Les]

Some gays also state they were normal heterosexuals and later changed to gay. That would support the "Born heterosexual" argument, but destroys th "Born gay" argument.

This makes no sense at all.

Some gays have been married for a long time before they become gay, but if they were born gay, they would have recognized they were gay as soon as they started to become sexually active.

Now you are just repeating yourself.

they are still citizens of this country and should be accorded all the rights and freedoms that we all have.

Finally, you say something that makes sense...

 

[Tom Schindler]

Some gays have been married for a long time before they become gay, but if they were born gay, they would have recognized they were gay as soon as they started to become sexually active.

Some were always gay, but it was supressed because if you are gay than you are looked at like you are a second class citizan. Society does not see it as a fact of like, but like a perversion or choice. They live an unhappy life until they can no longer stand it and finally come out of the closet.





Tom

 

[Richard L]

Les, Caymen

You said I should talk to gay to find out how they feel or why they are gay. I have not talked to any gays about their sexual orientation, but many of them who have been interviewed clearly state that they had been involved in heterosexual relationships and then something changed.



You cannot just dismiss that and say they were born gay and were always gay, but suppressed it or didn't know it. Yes I'm sure some recognized that they where attracted to the same-sex as soon as they became sexually aware. That does not account for the many gays who claim they were 100% hetero-sexual and then something began to intrest them in the same-sex ? You just cannot ignore all the variations of when people claim they changed?



My point in repeating this is to show that not all gays were born gay, some revert at a time long after they have become sexually active as a hetero-sexual.



I think some of you feel that I implying that if being gay is a preference that comes after birth that they retain some power to control this and that they choose to be gay? That is NOT what I am saying. I am sure that a gay's desire for relationships with the samesex is the same as a heterosexual's desire for the opposite sex. Having a preference for same-sex relationships does not mean they choose to be gay,



As a parting knote, I am curious as to why some of you find such joy in quote a single sentence out of context to take issue with, and ignore the rest of the posting. Nobody has answered my questions regarding the Ancient Romas and Greek men who had relationships with young boys. Are they gay, pediphiles, bi-sexuals, or what?



How doe you account for people who choose to be celebate for religious reasons, or just as their choice bot to have sexual relationips with anyone? I don't think you could say these people were born that way, but they made a conscience choice, but we don't know their sexual preference and if they never had sexual relations, do we assume they are hetero-sexual, or bi-sexual, or even gay???



I think we tend to cop out when we don't know whay some people are like they are so we now blame everything on genetics...since they can't prove it, and don't have to. So they are just theories.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

...but many of them who have been interviewed clearly state that they had been involved in heterosexual relationships and then something changed.

So, you are saying that they realized that them trying to fit in the society "Norm" wasn't working for them because they were gay from the start, but repressed it.

I think we tend to cop out when we don't know whay some people are like they are so we now blame everything on genetics...since they can't prove it, and don't have to. So they are just theories.

Would that be the same as saying it is a prefrence and no other theory is possible because there is no proof otherwise?





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL said:

I think we tend to cop out when we don't know whay some people are like they are so we now blame everything on genetics...since they can't prove it, and don't have to. So they are just theories.

Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner.



Finally, the admission.



People on both sides of the homosexuality "nature vs nurture" debate slug over that very issue. Many that believe if there is a gay gene that it would go a long way towards exhonerating the gay lifestyle...as if they are born with it they can't be blamed. Those on the other side of the debate simply want to believe that gay is a choice that one can supress if they were responsible enough.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

I have a cousin that was born to a family of migrant workers. They would travel from area to area to make money. When there was no work, they lived off what they would save. He was adopted and raised by loving, hard working parents that held a steady job. They gave him every thing he needed to grow up to a working member of society that we would consider the norm.



What type of life did he choose in his younger years? He worked long enough to make money to live on, and quit his job and lived on that money until it was gone. When it was gone, he would try to bum a place to stay for as long as he could. Finally, he would get a job and start saving. When he had enough money, he would quit again, only to repeat the circle again.



Where did her learn that from? His biological parents? No. (He was adopted minutes after he was born) His adoptive parents? Nope, not them either.



There is more to human make-up than just DNA. The whole saying "It just runs in the blood" may have more to do with it than we will ever understand.



How does a dog learn to bark if there is no mother to teach it to bark? How does a male dog know how to lift it's leg to pee? It is not like there is a daddy dog that shows him.



Some things are imprinted in our brains and we may never know why or how. It has nothing to do with the environment we were raised in. It has nothing to do with who raised us. Mom and dad, dad only, mom only, mom and mom, dad and dad, dad-dad & mom, mom-dad-mom, or any other configurations you could come up with.



Many people have been raised in an F'ed up environment and turn out to be one of the best persons in society.



Others are raised in the best conditions and the kid growns up and is nothing but a worthless POS. (We all know one)



Calling any of the above "a choice" is simply wrong...IMO. There is more to it than that.





Tom

 

[Les]

My point in repeating this is to show that not all gays were born gay, some revert at a time long after they have become sexually active as a hetero-sexual.

Doesn't mean they weren't gay, just means the pressures of society dictated they be heterosexual. At some point they decided to quit living a lie.

Having a preference for same-sex relationships does not mean they choose to be gay,

Again, they are not choosing to be gay, they are gay.

As a parting knote, I am curious as to why some of you find such joy in quote a single sentence out of context to take issue with, and ignore the rest of the posting. Nobody has answered my questions regarding the Ancient Romas and Greek men who had relationships with young boys. Are they gay, pediphiles, bi-sexuals, or what?

All of the above...

How doe you account for people who choose to be celebate for religious reasons, or just as their choice bot to have sexual relationips with anyone?

I find it strange, but abstinence is a choice.

I don't think you could say these people were born that way, but they made a conscience choice, but we don't know their sexual preference and if they never had sexual relations, do we assume they are hetero-sexual, or bi-sexual, or even gay???

We, don't assume anything, however, for any number of reasons some people will choose this lifestyle. Whether you know someone's sexual preference or not, is not an indication of who they are, for the most part, they know who they are (although some are tortured by their discovery).



You say you don't know any gay people, I would say you are just not observant enough or interested enough in the people you know. Someone you know is gay, either they are hiding it, or you are denying it. It may be a fellow co-worker or your next door neighbor, but someone you know is gay.