Homosexual Marriage

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by WeissPraline

The law that says Gays can't marry and can't be in the army need to be GONE.

It's not that sexual minorities can't be in the military...it's just that they sacrifice their 1st Amendment right to speak freely about themselves upon enlisting.

Don't tell me 'Being gay is a choice'. Maybe being Bisexual, but not being gay. Why would someone CHOOSE to be gay with all the crap they go through? One of my friends at school got beat up because he was gay. Why would he choose to be gay if he gets made fun of all the time, AND gets beat up?

Because antiestablishment is cool. You know, "**** THE SYSTEM," and everything. Be emo/gothic/skateboarder/punk-rock/Blackalicious and stupid just because you can be.

Originally Posted by ~Brooke~

I personally tihnk this is discussting. =?

Oh relly. How coem. =?

Originally Posted by sgkoneko

Haven't you heard of pride? Isn't that what the army is supposed to have for their country? Shouldn't the same be allowed for the people IN the army? Yes they are allowed in, but that is on the basis that the army is assuming everyone is straight unless proven otherwise. They aren't allowing gays in. They are allowing what they assume are straight people in.

A case of "Innocent until proven guilty" taken the wrong way, it is...now it's "Straight until proven gay." What kind of trash is that. If homosexuals want to die for our country, then by Karl Rove, they should be allowed to die for our country. I agree that it's inefficient and a waste of military time enforcing this "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. If anything, there has to be FAR more cases per year of men "interfering with military duties" with women than there is of men and men or women and women--that's just basic probability. Less than 10% of the military is non-heterosexual, so obviously, there HAS to be more heterosexual "distractions" than there are homosexual "distractions". That means 90+% of military personnel are straight--why not make it illegal for them to tell the opposite gender/sex that they themselves are straight? "Look out, women, I'm a guy and I like women! CONTROVERSY." Just make everyone stay ambiguous (or make the default sexuality asexuality, heh) and there'll be even fewer interferences. Makes sense, right? By the military's logic?

They should be allowed to express themselves and be who they are. The military is shorthanded anyways, most people don't want to join, and they are being idiots and excluding a group of people that actually WANTS to join based on their sexuality. It's wrong and the law should be repealed.

Amen, Brother. I-I mean....Awoman.

Originally Posted by sgkoneko

They can't be in the military unless they hide themselves and basically pretend to be someone they aren't. I said gays aren't allowed, presumed straight men and women are. There is a difference. If they hide themselves they can join, but that's not being allowed in, that's not acceptance, thus they aren't really allowed to join.

It's almost like lying about your credentials in order to get the position you want, except here there's probably a bit less of greed involved. It's bad enough not being able to be myself, my true self, in school (not that I'm gay). If I want to potentially forfeit my life for the good of my nation, I still have to lie about myself to others? Are you serious?! It's ridiculous.

Sorry if I don't base most of my arguments off of facts and links to articles of import; I'm more of a logos debater than a knowledge debater.* Logic is one of my specialties, though plenty of knowledge is there, as well. I'm just exhausted from too much staying up into the wee hours of the morning attempting to finish school projects.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Sorry to say, nothing there is particularly conclusive or enlightening.

Why not? That seems like a very interesting subsite to me. I will definitely check it out more when I have time later.


* +1 if you know what logos is.

[T0rajir0u]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

Why not? That seems like a very interesting subsite to me. I will definitely check it out more when I have time later.

"ooh look, twins! One gay, one straight! That must mean behavioral causes rather than biological". Yeah, no. While it is true that twins more often share cognitive, genetic, and biological traits even in "identical" twins there are no traits shared perfectly. This holds in Psychology and Biology. "suggestive"? Not even close. Similarly a lot of other studies shown have no implications whatsoever. Rats respond to hormone treatment in utero? That's nice, Rats also have faster development cycles. Human beings cognitive development is drastically different from that of a Rat. People can pick out Homosexuals from videos of their motions? The supposed implication is that there is "feminization" of the part of the brain responsible for motion. Well, despite this being fairly comparable to a centuries old Jungian psychological concept, this doesn't actually give us any important data. Even if we were to accept this assumption, it hardly answers the question of whether homosexuality is an acquired or ascribed state of being. No, that page is mostly a regurgitation of the same fuss that's been going around on the subject since it first entered academia. It's good to know about, but not new, nor helpful.

[ckj846]

Sorry if I'm going off on a tangent here but I was thinking a lot about the whole "is gay a choice or a genetic thing or what lawl?" thing. I think that it has a lot to do with environment. I'm not saying 100%, but it does play a very big role.

When I was a kid, I was always closer with my mom and I was somewhat "anti-social" in elementary school during Kindergarten. I remember I was always around my sister's friends and they always considered me as part of the 'girls" so I naturally thought it was ok. I've talked to a lot of my gay friends and they also say that they've been closer to their mothers and also surrounded by girls at a young age. Also, many of them have been abused at some point or another. I think this explains the large Filipino homosexual population, because Filipino parents are known to be very abusive to their children.

I'm just going out on a limb here. It was on my mind so I just decided to type something up. Nothing very logical or "critical thinking'ish" but it gets my ideas across.

O_o

[Kilroy_x]

That's a reasonably common perspective. It was actually fairly prevalent in mainstream psychology until a couple decades ago. The Psychoanalytic method typically addresses homosexually in that or similar ways.

Problems: correlation does not imply causation. Even if we accept the validity of your observations, the interpretation you've provided explains things as if they could only come from one side. It's entirely possible homosexuals are abused frequently because people have an instinctive tendency to abuse them, that the inherent biological traits associated with homosexuality lead to closer bonding with females than males, and that perceived anti-social behavior occurs as a result of cognitive dyshoria associated with specifically homosexual biological functions of thought. Just because everything stacks up a certain way doesn't mean you're looking at it right side up. Remember, society is a function of biology.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Logical Fallacy and You

Cum Hoc ergo Propter Hoc or Correlation implies Causation - This fallacy is where you conclude that because two events happend one after the other, that the latter must have been caused by the former. Example: The day GuidoHunter joined the forum, the forum crashed, therefore, GuidoHunter caused the forum crash.

<Insert "The More You Know!" banner>

[JonoSasson]

I like to think I'm more of the not-one-bit-flamboyant gays... it came as a surprise when I told my friends. I watched those videos and maybe some of it's true. Some things maybe I don't agree with, but like Kilroy said, it's all stuff we already knew, or a whole load of crap that people come up with to I dunno, pretend they're proving a point. For instance, yes you can sometimes tell gays from the way they move and speak, and yes some gays you can't tell at all (like me)... but rats? And twins? Big brothers? What on earth have you been smoking?!

In response to cjk's comment...

Well, I've lived most my life with my dad, my closest friends are both guys and girls (4 guys, 2 girls if you're wondering), and I've never been abused (thank god). Maybe for some it is the environment. I can tell you that I wasn't 'officially' gay until grade 7. I had a girlfriend (ahaha young love...) for two or three years and I'd gotten with a couple of girls before grade 7. I changed schools at year 7 and realised I was attracted to guys, wasn't that big a deal to me.

I suppose environment COULD be a factor... but I don't understand how it affected me so much that it turned me gay. Genetics have shown that there have been no gays in my family before me (unless they were all closeted... unlikely). Is it maybe safe to assume that someone is gay... just because? In my humble opinion, I don't care what makes me gay, but hearing some of the stuff that these 'scienticians' (lol simpsons) come up with is good for a laugh every now and then.

Originally Posted by kamunt

Amen, Brother. I-I mean....Awoman.

What's THAT supposed to mean?! If I take how I think you've implied it, then I'll tell you now I'm just as masculine as the next guy.

Anyways, these are my insights, and coming from a gay guy himself, maybe it might explain something... if anything... or disprove stuff. Take it as you will.

Jono

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

"ooh look, twins! One gay, one straight! That must mean behavioral causes rather than biological". Yeah, no. While it is true that twins more often share cognitive, genetic, and biological traits even in "identical" twins there are no traits shared perfectly. This holds in Psychology and Biology. Other stuff and things.

Veerry eenteresting stuff here. The twins thing was pretty weird, I thought, but it's an interesting article to read about, I thought. I never implied that there was groundbreaking research and articles there--I never thought there were. I merely noted that there was likely some interesting articles there that could further the mystery on what exactly could cause non-heterosexuality. I agree that the "Guess who's gay based on their movements and voices on-camera!!" crap is nothing but crap. That's practically insulting homosexuals and furthering the stereotype that you can instantly tell who's gay and who ain't just by observing their motions and voices. "Omg he has a lisp, he's teh gay!!!1" Bull pies. "HAI his but wigglez lawl hes gaaayy.!" GTHO my office. Mine does too, kind of--and I'm not gay. I gotta concentrate to not do it sometimes, lol...

Originally Posted by T0rajir0u

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Originally Posted by Wikipedia's 'Critical thinking' entry

Critical thinking consists of the mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. ...

Critical thinkers can gather such information from verbal or written expression, reflection, observation, experience and reasoning. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual criteria that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance and fairness.

...a large part of critical thinking goes beyond informal logic and includes assessment of beliefs and identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.

Critical thinking is based on concepts and principles. It has a purpose, raises particular questions, accesses information, makes inferences, utilizes concepts, makes assumptions, generates implications, embodies a point of view. Nevertheless there is no pre-designed sequence of thought, or method, that can be said to apply across all domains of thought. There are, in other words, universal critical concepts, values, and principles, but not universal methods and procedures. Critical thinking is principle but not procedure based.

Critical thinking does not assure that one will reach either the truth or correct conclusions. First, one may not have all the relevant information; indeed, important information may remain undiscovered, or the information may not even be knowable. Furthermore, one may make unjustified inferences, use inappropriate concepts, fail to notice important implications, use a narrow or unfair point of view. One may be a victim of self-delusion, egocentricity or sociocentricity, or closed-mindedness. One's thinking may be unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant, narrow, shallow, illogical, or trivial. One may be intellectually arrogant, intellectually lazy, or intellectually hypocritical.

Glad we've cleared this up. I wish the Bible-pushers and incoherent nincompoops would read this.

Originally Posted by ckj846

Sorry if I'm going off on a tangent here but I was thinking a lot about the whole "is gay a choice or a genetic thing or what lawl?" thing. I think that it has a lot to do with environment. I'm not saying 100%, but it does play a very big role.

When I was a kid, I was always closer with my mom and I was somewhat "anti-social" in elementary school during Kindergarten. I remember I was always around my sister's friends and they always considered me as part of the 'girls" so I naturally thought it was ok. I've talked to a lot of my gay friends and they also say that they've been closer to their mothers and also surrounded by girls at a young age.

I'm just going out on a limb here. It was on my mind so I just decided to type something up. Nothing very logical or "critical thinking'ish" but it gets my ideas across.

Don't apologize, I think this is very important and relevant information regarding the topic at-hand. According to Wikipedia's infallible Critical Thinking article, at least. If I may pull another quote from Kilroy/Statistics-in-general here for a sec:

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

correlation does not imply causation. Even if we accept the validity of your observations, the interpretation you've provided explains things as if they could only come from one side.

I somehow doubt that this is due to my previous use of it on this forum(s). Oh well. It's true that you having a closer relationship with your mother and always being good friends with your sister's friends was probably a large factor in you ending up as gay. However, it far more probably wasn't the only factor that made you gay. For example, I've always been closer with my mother, as well, but again, I'm not gay. Could this have had something to do that I never had an older sister to be friends with or older girls to be friends with? Possibly, but we'll never really know, will we? And that's why this topic still exists, and has actually once again picked up speed.

Remember, society is a function of biology.

This I don't understand, again. I can make several inferences, but I'm afraid I can't tell for sure. Could you clarify here, Kilroy? Sorry I keep misunderstanding what you're implying.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by JonoSasson

Genetics have shown that there have been no gays in my family before me (unless they were all closeted... unlikely).

Any of your ancestors beyond your parents' generation would probably not have openly admitted their homosexuality. It is actually likely that, if you had gay ancestors, they did not admit it and lived out their lives like normal heterosexuals, but with a terrible secret.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

I merely noted that there was likely some interesting articles there that could further the mystery on what exactly could cause non-heterosexuality.

There aren't. Or rather, if they haven't revealed anything about homosexuality for as much as the past 2 centuries they probably won't now. "Non-heterosexuality"? You make it sound like homosexuality is a degradation from an original state. This is a baseless assumption at best.

It's true that you having a closer relationship with your mother and always being good friends with your sister's friends was probably a large factor in you ending up as gay.

No, it isn't. It's probably more likely that his homosexuality was a large factor in his closeness to his mother and sister's friends, if there is even a relationship between the two which there just as likely isn't.

However, it far more probably wasn't the only factor that made you gay.

You're still making the classic mistake of assuming causes of homosexuality can only come from social conditions, rather than from preceding biological causes that occur in the womb. A person doesn't degrade from heterosexual to homosexual, they are likely just homosexual as soon as they develop past a certain point in the womb. IE, they likely are just homosexual as soon as they are at all.

This I don't understand, again. I can make several inferences, but I'm afraid I can't tell for sure. Could you clarify here, Kilroy? Sorry I keep misunderstanding what you're implying.

Not a problem. The brain is responsible for human thought and action. Human thought and action are responsible for the entity we call "society". Therefore, following a classical syllogism, since the brain is a biological entity, society is a function of biology in the sense the interaction between human beings is an interaction between minds. The question then is, what causes minds to be the way they are? There's long been a concept of human beings as a blank slate, and society as the thing which grants minds their properties. However I think we could easily borrow from Kant and point out that in order for human beings to be capable of interacting with the world at all, they must have built in mechanisms for at least learning and comprehension of basic patterns. We could also borrow from Nietzsche and point out the absurdity of a causa sui, since from the perspective of society as a cause for individuals, the cause of society is then society, and for something to be its own cause is patently ridiculous.

So, sexuality can conceivably be something learned or something ingrained fundamentally in a human being. In both cases it remains a biological function. However, given that traits passed on reproductively are done so with much greater efficiency than traits communicated between human beings, and that traits gained by communication between human beings are rarely as powerful as traits ingrained reproductively in human life (and also in all life, something else which is suggestive), such as the desire to eat, to sleep, to- dare I say; reproduce... The fact that reproduction doesn't occur hardly speaks against the possibility of the ingrained nature of sexual desire, it just suggests that even powerful, fundamental and ingrained biological processes can sometimes manifest in atypical ways.

[devonin]

It's true that you having a closer relationship with your mother and always being good friends with your sister's friends was probably a large factor in you ending up as gay.

No, it isn't. It's probably more likely that his homosexuality was a large factor in his closeness to his mother and sister's friends, if there is even a relationship between the two which there just as likely isn't.

I had a closer relationship with my mother, and was always more friends with females than males, and I'm quite straight. If your one example is supposed to count, then my one example can counter it, and we can get on with discussing causes that are actually causes.

[psychopete]

Originally Posted by ToshX

Yahoo! News did a report on why people end up gay(or straight) proving that it isn't entirely genetic, but also has a lot to do with the environment as well. It's quite an interesting set of videos, and I recommend people to watch all of them all the way through(it isn't boring, I promise).

So really, if the environment affects it, then for all we know, sexuality could also be something we're influenced into deciding, something we don't naturally have decided for us in the first place.

While it isn't entirely genetic, it's not entirely environmental.

Honestly, I would follow just about none of the stereotypes. I don't have a lisp, I don't move differently, I was never close to my mother and the majority of the people I hung around and still hang around are guys. As a child, I wasn't exactly 'feminine' as I was just frail. I did get abused, but then again, I got abused because my parents thought I was a waste of flesh. =\

[Kamunt]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

There aren't. Or rather, if they haven't revealed anything about homosexuality for as much as the past 2 centuries they probably won't now. "Non-heterosexuality"? You make it sound like homosexuality is a degradation from an original state. This is a baseless assumption at best.

Maybe because heterosexuality and homosexuality aren't the only two kinds of sexualities out there? Bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, autosexuals, etc. Although I could have just said "GLB" or "LGB" and gotten the same basic point across, couldn't I have?

No, it isn't. It's probably more likely that his homosexuality was a large factor in his closeness to his mother and sister's friends, if there is even a relationship between the two which there just as likely isn't.

So the exact opposite is what you're saying. But as you would say, you can't just assume that. He was closer with his mother and his sister's friends because he was homosexual? That doesn't exactly seem fair to assume, either.

You're still making the classic mistake of assuming causes of homosexuality can only come from social conditions, rather than from preceding biological causes that occur in the womb. A person doesn't degrade from heterosexual to homosexual, they are likely just homosexual as soon as they develop past a certain point in the womb. IE, they likely are just homosexual as soon as they are at all.

No, actually, I wasn't making that mistake. I never said that ending up not a heterosexual was all social. If I didn't properly communicate that, my apologies, I was in Intro to Computer Science while posting that. Just because a boy is closer to his mother than with his father and he's good friends with all of his sister's friends doesn't mean that he's gay, or will turn out gay; however, if there IS, in fact, something in his DNA or whatever that could possibly make him turn out gay, then being closer with his mother and sister's friends could help push him towards that end result. Did that make sense? I'm hoping I was more clear this time.

Like....just because you have something in your biology that could be largely in part responsible for making you homo- or bisexual, that doesn't mean that that's the only reason why--studies have been performed which have shown that atypical sexualities are in your DNA and others have shown that they aren't in your DNA. It's all more or less inconclusive, I think, but it's logically impossible to completely agree with either side of the debate and be 100% sure of your stance because we still don't know for sure what the exact causes for each sexuality are. Yes, DNA is assuredly part of it, but it can't be and, as far as I can tell, isn't the sole factor in determining sexuality.

Not a problem. The brain is responsible for human thought and action. Human thought and action are responsible for the entity we call "society". Therefore, following a classical syllogism, since the brain is a biological entity, society is a function of biology in the sense the interaction between human beings is an interaction between minds. The question then is, what causes minds to be the way they are? There's long been a concept of human beings as a blank slate, and society as the thing which grants minds their properties. However I think we could easily borrow from Kant and point out that in order for human beings to be capable of interacting with the world at all, they must have built in mechanisms for at least learning and comprehension of basic patterns. We could also borrow from Nietzsche and point out the absurdity of a causa sui, since from the perspective of society as a cause for individuals, the cause of society is then society, and for something to be its own cause is patently ridiculous.

So, sexuality can conceivably be something learned or something ingrained fundamentally in a human being. In both cases it remains a biological function. However, given that traits passed on reproductively are done so with much greater efficiency than traits communicated between human beings, and that traits gained by communication between human beings are rarely as powerful as traits ingrained reproductively in human life (and also in all life, something else which is suggestive), such as the desire to eat, to sleep, to- dare I say; reproduce... The fact that reproduction doesn't occur hardly speaks against the possibility of the ingrained nature of sexual desire, it just suggests that even powerful, fundamental and ingrained biological processes can sometimes manifest in atypical ways.

OK, yeah, I can understand that. Wow, I never really thought of it that way, but you're absolutely correct--society wouldn't even exist if it weren't for humans wanting to create and uphold it. That's very interesting, thank you for that.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Ok... I understand that what people say have something to do with homosexuality, but why does it matter how or why a person is homosexual? The main issue is whether or not homosexual marriages should be allowed. Genetics or reasons for a homosexual existing as the homosexual he/she is, does not really have much to do with what people argue are their rights.

[devonin]

Well, we long since exhausted that discussion you see. There was no compelling reason at all for people who weren't biased by relgious beliefs to deny homosexuals the right to -legal- marriage, and even the most ardent liberal acknowledged that there was no basis for forcing religions to allow -religious- marriage if it was against the tenets of their faith.

The crux of that debate spun off into the Church vs State thread, and people just kinda kept riffing on various homosexuality topics, and here we are.

[T0rajir0u]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

Glad we've cleared this up. You posting this link makes you a poster of irrelevent information. Good to know.

I fail to understand how the information I posted was irrelevant. The primary deterrent to my posting in this particular subforum is that what is supposed to be a place devoted to Critical Thinking is too often devoid of exactly that. I particularly have a bone with people who post their lazy and/or cornpone opinions without actually doing any thinking (I am not accusing you of this).

I posted that link to remind some of the posters in here to at least attempt to conform to a somewhat higher intellectual standard, since I don't have to read this discussion to know that that's not what's going on here. I mean, this is the FlashFlashRevolution website. Why this subforum even exists (in a non-invite-only format) is beyond me.

I do appreciate your bolding of the relevant parts of the article. They were precisely my point.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Kamunt

Maybe because heterosexuality and homosexuality aren't the only two kinds of sexualities out there? Bisexuals, asexuals, pansexuals, autosexuals, etc. Although I could have just said "GLB" or "LGB" and gotten the same basic point across, couldn't I have?

GLBT would have worked, but it also would have been too broad for the context of the discussion in some senses. The variance in the acronym opens up the possibility of different causes for each among other things, you see.

So the exact opposite is what you're saying. But as you would say, you can't just assume that. He was closer with his mother and his sister's friends because he was homosexual? That doesn't exactly seem fair to assume, either.

When working in the dark it's not unreasonable to strike out equally in all available directions. If you assume a position, why shouldn't I assume the contradictory position? That's how debate is done about issues with little empirical evidence to interpret.

No, actually, I wasn't making that mistake. I never said that ending up not a heterosexual was all social. If I didn't properly communicate that, my apologies, I was in Intro to Computer Science while posting that. Just because a boy is closer to his mother than with his father and he's good friends with all of his sister's friends doesn't mean that he's gay, or will turn out gay; however, if there IS, in fact, something in his DNA or whatever that could possibly make him turn out gay, then being closer with his mother and sister's friends could help push him towards that end result. Did that make sense? I'm hoping I was more clear this time.

So in this model homosexuality is some sort of recessive trait which can be triggered by risk factors? This is more coherent, but I would still object to it as I doubt sexuality is generally influenced by external events.

Like....just because you have something in your biology that could be largely in part responsible for making you homo- or bisexual, that doesn't mean that that's the only reason why--studies have been performed which have shown that atypical sexualities are in your DNA and others have shown that they aren't in your DNA. It's all more or less inconclusive, I think, but it's logically impossible to completely agree with either side of the debate and be 100% sure of your stance because we still don't know for sure what the exact causes for each sexuality are.

That shouldn't stop me from advocating a position as long as the position isn't one of violence or coercion.

Yes, DNA is assuredly part of it, but it can't be and, as far as I can tell, isn't the sole factor in determining sexuality.

I don't think DNA is necessarily part of it, because the last time I checked not everything which is biological is genetic.

OK, yeah, I can understand that. Wow, I never really thought of it that way, but you're absolutely correct--society wouldn't even exist if it weren't for humans wanting to create and uphold it. That's very interesting, thank you for that.

No problem.

[sgkoneko]

Originally Posted by JonoSasson

What's THAT supposed to mean?! If I take how I think you've implied it, then I'll tell you now I'm just as masculine as the next guy.

Anyways, these are my insights, and coming from a gay guy himself, maybe it might explain something... if anything... or disprove stuff. Take it as you will.

Jono

Um Kamunt said that in reply to one of my quotes. And I'm a girl. Most people assume everyone on the internet is a guy, I have no idea why, but they do. Probably found out otherwise and fixed it.

They weren't implying anything at all to you.

[JonoSasson]

My apologies. It's easy to get caught up in the moment!

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

homosexuality is some sort of recessive trait which can be triggered by risk factors?

It's hard to say. I dunno what made me turn gay. I was completely heterosexual until the age of 13. It was like a time bomb waiting to happen perhaps? It's interesting... I mean you can't compare it with anything because we don't know the actual cause. For the sake of argument however, we COULD compare it with say... personality traits. These aren't decided for us right from the word go. They're something that develop as we do as a human being. And from one instant to the next, personality can change in an instant. Not that that's exactly possible with homosexuality, but remember, this is just for the sake of argument...

It's funny, I was watching Boston Legal the other night, and there was a case involving a judge sueing a religious-based... franchise I suppose you could call it. This group aimed at targetting homosexuals into renouncing their 'gay faith' for what Christianity belived to be morally and socially correct. This judge sued this company because they failed to 'de-homosexualise' (for lack of a better term) him. Of course, he won the case on the grounds that there wasn't much of a case to be had anyway! They said things along the lines of, "In 50% of cases we convince homosexuals that they're not actually gay" and in support of this, they showed a few guys who had been healed. What was funny/wrong about it though was that there was this completely flamboyant, undoubtedly gay man who was on the witness stand, renouncing his gay faith. He said something like, "Oh no, it's like so wrong, just thinking about two guys makes me sick, like totally" with the lisp and all. I found it amusing. Also, David Spader is a great actor lol

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by JonoSasson

It's hard to say. I dunno what made me turn gay. I was completely heterosexual until the age of 13. It was like a time bomb waiting to happen perhaps? It's interesting... I mean you can't compare it with anything because we don't know the actual cause.

Good point. We can't compare it to anything.

For the sake of argument however, we COULD compare it with say... personality traits. These aren't decided for us right from the word go. They're something that develop as we do as a human being. And from one instant to the next, personality can change in an instant. Not that that's exactly possible with homosexuality, but remember, this is just for the sake of argument...

We don't know what causes personality either, but the assumption is generally that personality is more fluid than sexuality, unless you're Gore Vidal. However personality is generally thought not to be hereditary at all, although this is somewhat silly because there virtually has to be something other than society at least partially responsible for one of the fundamental aspects of individuals which determines how society operates.