Yes because most of us are genetically coded toward heterosexuality and continuing on this species, then the odd homosexual wouldn't really cause a threat. I also understand that for those that say it is choice, must understand that a choice is choosing between a number of things. If one can choose to be homosexual, one can choose to be heterosexual. I don't know any heterosexuals who had to choose to be heterosexual. So to me it doesn't seem like a choice, at least for everyone. I mentioned that I knew a number of homosexuals who did choose that path. In those cases there is no denying that it is choice. I do have my beliefs about others, and I aksed those that have the being gay is a choice mindset, to inform me of their choice to be straight. I'm curious what it would be like for a person to have to make that choice.
Hey that's cool. They've been trying to recruit me, but I was reluctant. I did agree to sit in and observe a meeting though. Save me a seat under the eastern most set of stones at stone henge, and let me know who the other cool hermaphoditic druid conservatives are to hang out with, should I decide to join.
That is not a CHOICE, which is the PREMISE of my question. I am not suggesting we BAN homosexuals. I am challenging the assumption that homosexuals do NOT have a deliterious effect on children they may raise in their homes. IF it is not a choice but genetics, then there is no or a low risk of harm. IF it is by choice/environment, then there is risk of 'making someone gay,' which is, arguably, a negative effect. As Grady used to say 'Goo Goobilly Goop.' ie Please feel free to chase your tail in some nonsensical loop.
There is?? Really? I seriously doubt this. If anything, some people may choose to be who they are rather pretend they're someone they're not. That "choice" is not the same as picking between Cherry Garcia and Chunky Monkey. But please prove me wrong with some anecdotal stories about how someone "chose" to be gay.
if one believe's homosexuality is truly a choice, i think it's important to remember exactly what one is "choosing" by choosing to be gay. such a choice would seem to indicate at least a passing fancy for hot, sweaty, gay sex, which, if one enjoyed it, might just be an indicator that one is, uhmmm, gay...
always considered it a biological imperative to continue the human Race Heterosexual seems to serve a biological/natural purpose. . . . .procreation Homosexuality does not serve this purpose so whatr purpose does it serve I think the idea of Choice: If one chooses a lifestyle .. .that is basically prohibitive of having children . . . .why give them children I'm Nuture over Nature type person I think their are a few biological imperatives breathing. . .eating . . .. sex. . . . etc but all can be controled to an extent . .. . I have no hatred of Gays . .. but it is a choice to me As for them being foster parents? I think RHester is right I prefer to concentrate on making the situations that creates these foster kids. . . . go away I think this ban . . is a band-aid type solution a bull**** effort to look good and do nothing Rather than attack the true problem REVAMPING THE Adoption system Revamping the Foster Care System Revamping the Orphanage system Revamping the way the government assists families. . . well . . those require effort. . .\ but screwing around with the homosexuals. . well . .that is much simpler. Rocket River
I'd like to contend with you on your signature. My grandpa EAL 1918-2004, was the Best. Grandpa. Ever. Although we called him Papa, or Pop, so I guess I'll just have to take Best. Pop. Ever. At any rate, I've got my eye on you.
I hate to use this as an example but various mental issues are the result of choices and life expereinces When Life Experiences drive you to something . . . . it does not FEEL like a choice. . . If you have eaten . .uhm. . . broccoli since birth it drives you to either love broccilie. . .or revile it but the life circumstance drove your choice while naturally . .. Brocoli is food and you should be good with it no big LIKE or Dislike of it. . it is nurishment and u need it In the way of Sexuality Are some people BORN NYPHOs [Sex Addicts] Pedophiles bestiality folx Impotent into S & M Into oral or anal . . . etc I know I feel Heterosexuality is the norm . . not because of social acceptence. .but the use of it [PROCREATION] It is IMO Natural to like and want to have sex just like eating Eating - is is natural to want to nurish the body Sex - it is natural to want to Procreate However Life Driven Experiences can confuse the natural imperitive as in Eating - Look at the Movie Supersize me .. . the NEED TO NURISH is corrupted by addictions to fast food , additives, sweeets etc until the reach a point of being counterproductive to the original purpose of eating I veiw various sexual . .uhm. . . deviations [for lack of a better word] as similar does not make the over/bad eater a bad person nor the homosexual a bad person Rocket River
I would hope you would we should all feel that our grandpa is the best ever it is Love. . . and love is personal Rocket River
The split is because of the diverging implications of being genetic or environment/choice. (a) Camp: If its genetic it is a mutation or defect - not flattering to the homosexual. It can also be 'fixed' (maybe not now but soon) - eliminating the homosexual community. Not desirable to camp (a). Its choice and as its a personal, private choice - it should be respected. (b) Camp: Its genetic - there is no choice. Homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted for something they have no choice in just as someone shouldn't be persecuted for having black skin or blond hair. As far as genetics go, it does not seem to hold true, and as such - the environment question re: raising children should at least be explored before being drowned out by shouts of gay bashing. Is Homosexuality Genetic? By A. Dean Byrd, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson "There have been many articles published in various publications regarding homosexuality that do not reflect the scientific literature. In fact, their social advocacy suggests a greater reliance on politics than on science. Perhaps it is time to examine the innate-immutability, argument about homosexuality. In other words, are men and women born with a genetic propensity for same-sex attraction? The issue is enormously complex and cannot he reduced to a simple nature vs. nurture" debate. Homosexual attraction, like many other strong attractions includes both biological and environmental influences. Scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers have arrived at such conclusions. Dr. Dean Hamer, a gay researcher, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Regarding genetics and homosexuality Hamer concluded: "We knew that genes are only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors.... Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." Hamer further states: "The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants." When the study was duplicated by George Rice with robust research, the genetic markers were found to be non-significant Rice concluded, "It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer’s et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28.” Dr. Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." In commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior has an effect on the brain. In referring to his research, Breedlove states: "These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case--that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. It is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused by) differences in the brain." LeVay observed, "... people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights." A third study, which was conducted by researchers J.M. Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance rate of 52 percent among identical twins, 22 percent among non-identical twins and a 9.2 percent among non-twins. This study provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual. Prominent research team William Byne and Bruce Parsons, as well as psychiatrists R. Friedman and J. Downey, reviewed the studies linking biology and homosexual attraction. They concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges.” Are homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined. Is homosexuality fixed or is it amenable to change? There is ample evidence that homosexual attraction can be diminished and that changes can be made. Particularly disturbing is the lack of media attention to the research reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry, which concluded that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people were at risk for mental illness, specifically suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder...." A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. is a trained scientist and board Licensed psychologist who is a clinical psychologist and Vice President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality located in Encino, California. Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., is a Licensed clinical social worker. Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., is a licensed marriage and family therapist.
The point of survival of the fittest is to have the most children, so a modern 2 children nuclear family, signing up for war, or dying selflessly for a cause would seemingly go against that along with homosexuality. One could claim that homosexuals reduce competition with kin of similar genetic traits, like siblings or cousins, and help foster growth for their kin's offsprings by taking care of them like a pack of sibling mother gorillas. Throughout all nature, there have been organisms that don't procreate for the common good. Honey bees are a good example. The majority are infertile drones with only the queen bee laying eggs. Pinning the unnatural angle through life science is convenient, but most unnatural behaviors have already been "discovered" by nature long before humans existed. Prominent research team William Byne and Bruce Parsons, as well as psychiatrists R. Friedman and J. Downey, reviewed the studies linking biology and homosexual attraction. They concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges.” [/quote] The problem with the other approaches mentioned in that article is that genetics are only a fraction of the Nature side of the table. We're 99% genetically similar to chimps but how we use those proteins make all the difference. In fact, an infant chimp's brain is more developed than a human baby brain, but the baby's development is more rapid and prolonged. Those "tempermental and personality traits" is a mixing pot of genetic ingredients reacting with the temperature of the outside world. So I guess pinning that development angle is academic since most people would widely attribute it to Nurture over Nature. Though we would have a better idea through cloning and repeating exact lab conditions.
