If it's 'genetic', why do we find that identical twins often have one gay and one straight person?

Much of it is a combination of pre-disposition and association (cultural).

Because identical twins are not really exactly identical, silly. That's why you can tell them apart!

Your theory regarding Identical twins is all wet. Obviously, you do not know too many Gay people. I know of three sets of twins that ARE all Gay. One set are females and the other two are males.

Additionally, Gay people are born with the orientation, it is not learned nor is it a choice.

Unfortunately , none of you have any reputable science to back up what you say. All you have is isolated anecdotal information; virtually no value.

And I don't believe that he was comparing it to a disease. He would have to believe that alcoholism is a disease, which I do not believe he said. (And the science here is not so good, either) He did say that there may be genetic predisposition, but that ultimately it is a choice.

Roy Wilson, that is because you don't understand genetics. Identical twins aren't 100% identical. There are over 20,000 different genes in the human genome...and even the same gene won't act exactly the same because the behavior and influence of the gene depends on when it is triggered to activate and whenand for how long. The idea that two people are identical is simply absurd.

I still dont see the rational in people thinking that being gay is a choice. Could you choose to be attracted to the same sex if it was socially beneficial to you? As a straight person, I say there is not a chance in hell!!! I was born with urges towards the opposite sex, and there is nothing at all that leads me to believe that it is the same feeling homosexuals have towards their sexuality. People are so @!$%#ing arrogant sometimes, they will rationalize anything to fit their agenda.....This is a shameful area of conservative view in my opinion.

A stupid thing to say, but I really don't care. It is about the economy this go around, and which candidate will put this country's best interest forward. Every election year the fringe emotional issues get in the way of what is really needed. And this year we need an economic turn around. Not a debate on the merits of whether or not one is born gay.

And, if someday we come to a definitive conclusion does it really matter? No. That person is still gay. Or straight. But still jobless.

Roy..You are of the same ignorance as Buck. You must be twins!

LOL @ Roy Wilson. It's one thing to be as ignorant as you obviously are but it's an entirely different thing to be that ignorant and yet open your mouth as if you really consider yourself to be some kind of scientific genius. You must feel very stupid right now, unless you are just too stupid to realize that you made yourself look like one of the biggest fools on the internet.

Roy and Languishing...If it's a choice, then, just for yucks and the sake of argument, why not take a month of your life and spend it as a gay person? Tell us when you're done what you've come up with. Don't use the whole "Well, I don't WANT to be gay" argument - take one for the team! You're doing it for the sake of research. Go on....

Who cares? Why are we still talking about if gay is a choice or not when we have an economy falling apart, job loss at high levels, and terrorists trying to blow us all up? Just let them get married and move on folks.

cdahl, the point is that someone like this who is willing to display this much ignorance on such a simple matter is probably not going to fare much better on the more complicated questions and matters that we face.

Your theory regarding Identical twins is all wet. Obviously, you do not know too many Gay people. I know of three sets of twins that ARE all Gay. One set are females and the other two are males.

Additionally, Gay people are born with the orientation, it is not learned nor is it a choice.

That is almost right. It has yet to be proven scientifically beyond a doubt, but the world of scientific research has determined that it is most likely a developmental and not a true genetic defect. Rather, low hormone levels during normal fetal development is the most likely culprit. It is not a choice for most nomore than say Down's Syndrome or autism is a choice. Some straight, gays and lesbians, however, find attraction to both sexes as they likely received more normal hormone levels during development than a completely gay or lesbian individual but not as much as say a common straight individual. So, one might make a slight argument that for those in that select group declaring it to be a choice. Remember no two people are alike. DNA and varying hormone levels is what make us all look and act differently. For those of you who point to twins as their basis for their argument one way or the other just need to know a few sets of twins to understand that while they may look similar they are most often very opposites or degrees different personality wise. Scientists have attributed this difference for years as one fetus in the womb "demanded" or received more of one hormone level during development than the other.

blah blah blah, according to people like Roy Wilson they can easily see themselves as being gay. They just choose not to be. Which leads you to think that they are probably just homosexuals living in denial because their cultural upbringing taught them it was evil. LOL

kpokeefe

You make a good point.

If people supposedly don't have a choice whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, then they saying people are also born bi-sexual?

It just doesn't make sense.

If being gay is a choice, then so is being straight (or anything in between).

So tell me, when did you decide to be straight? What went into your decision?

As far as twins go, identical twins are seldom 100% identical, however, they do share a high correlation of factors, including being gay or not.

@Wilson

For the same reason that most other conditions other than the most superficial of appearances are different despite genetic similarity or even absolute duplication. In genetics there is something called penetrance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetrance) , penetrance varies and is expressed as a percentage - for example, among identical twins, the other will be homosexual as well about 50% of the time -- a geneticist MIGHT express that as 50% penetrance, if it is a single gene - if it is an interaction of genes it gets more complex. Even in superficial appearance, there are differences between identicals. For example, a pair of my friends when young were identicals, and although their features were the same (with one exception I heard from friends), one ended up 2 inches taller -- different penetrance.

Hope that helps you understand.

Peace,

Reyn

radagast25 at gmail.com

Gwaarin, exactly why doesn't it make sense that someone can be born to be attracted to both sexes? Be specific, please.

It's really sad reading these posts. Most of you have set yourselves up as your own Island in the sea of humanity. You are your own god, all powerful, all knowing. Anyone who's opinion who differs from your own is then:

Bart Conner - Silly
Louis-452967 - All wet.
mundaetraversa - Out of touch, frightening
Doobie-1458862 - Makes up their own truths, create death panels, there where [thier will be] "beheadings in the desert" in Arizona, [belive] Elmo is real, the earth is flat, etc. etc.
ZProf - believe that the holocaust is all a lie, weak
Ken USN Active Duty - Hurtin
KlHinCalifornia - Hipocrites
Bgrngod - sad, and blatantly ignorant, bigoted
Nick-53083 - [pulls] the trigger of the gun in the mouths of every suicidal LGBT teen in America.
Robin-2254096 - out of touch, very sad
Fifth Horseman - a republican who had thier children die of AIDS
Don-907787 - rabid, extremists
Cryos - Freaky
Spicy Bluto - Ignorant bigots, hate mongers
Hypernovae 2358 - Idiots, disturbing, proud, ignorant, dimwitted, ultra-right wing, dorks

You all should look in the mirror before thrown stones. Discourse about ideas brings about understanding and having the ability to discuss ideas which differ from your own without debasing others is the only path to that understanding no matter how far off you may belive thier views from your own.

When you attack people and assign motives to them without trying to understand them, when you make huge leaps to charactize them, you aren't gaining anything. Instead you become the people you hate.

People are missing the bus on this completely. We shouldn't be asking, "Is it a choice?" What does it matter if it's a choice or not? Our Constitution and The Bible affords us free will and the right to choose. The question should be, "Why are we trying to limit the freedom of tax paying, productive Americans."

If you want to talk choice, lets talk choice. There is a choice in being a Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, or Evangelical. There are so many "options" in being a Christian and each group will say they are right and the ones going to heaven.

Making a choice is limiting American men and women based on a belief. One chooses to say, "We want you time, resources, and money but you can't participate fully in our Country."

For all those that say "Where's the gay gene." I say, "Where's the straight gene?" I personally hope they don't ever find it. If they do, then these people will start screaming for gene therapy to get rid of gays. Then therapy to get rid of other things they find offensive.

So you are agreeing because your particular religion says that it is not acceptable.

Fascinating.

Fortunately America allows FREEDOM OF RELIGION - which means that all those religions that disagree with you (I belong to one of them) should have the exact same rights that you do -- another words, the marriages we canonically allow and perform (along with dozens of other recognized faith groups) should be recognized JUST AS YOURS ARE.

As for Satan, ask a Jewish Rabbi who Satan is (remember, Christianity is a descendant religion from Judaism) -- my recollection of the theology of Judaism is that he was an advocate who argued against God. Any Rabbis willing to tell me if my recollection is right or not?

I believe I am right in saying that it was Christianity who made him into the big boogeyman he is to people like you.

Of course my faith community doesn't have him at all - he was a silly idea to start with, no need for dualism, but hey.

Regards,

Reyn

radagast25 at gmail.com

Poor Debora.

It's God In A Box for her. No adjustments to current living conditions, no looking at pesky facts. Just pull God out, dust it off, spout some words in it's name, and put it back in it's box until needed again.

It must be hell living in that small a comfort zone.

If being gay is a choice is a choice and not innate, why is it that gay people with Alzheimer’s will forget their name and what year it is, but continue with their same-sex attraction?

We all have choices on whether to act out our impulses. To say otherwise is to lie.

You make a choice and with that choice you have also chosen the consequence.

Don't like the consequence? Don't make the choice.

This applies to everything we do for our entire lives.

Dabble to answer your question about choosing to be gay or straight hummm Almighty God and His Word would be a good start. Not to mention Creation. Sperm in the rear end just don,t do the job. At the rate that gays are springing up now a days maybe one day creation will no longer exist. The harder the gays are pushing to make thier behavior seem acceptable the more people are confused at younger ages and thinking ok its ok and cool if I choose to be gay. Look at all the attention they seem to get and some people love that type of attention.

Don, I don't have God in a box. I serve him daily, I read His word and he says that homosexuality is perverse. Period. So why would it be a choice???

I keep asking this question & I keep getting the SAME answer-NOTHING!

Please, (those who believe) explain to me just WHAT it is that "influences" people to be homosexual in their environment? Not choosing MY sexuality, I have to assume others do the same. Wonder what influenced me to be heterosexual? And why, since it occurs in every culture in the world, do the outside differing influences have a causal effect since we live nothing like someone in a 3rd. World Country does, yet it exists there? How could such differences result in such same results?

I find it disturbing that people can offer very strong beliefs ( or better yet, "FACTS" ) that they KNOW being homosexual is a choice, but then either spout religion for justification or ramble on at some length off the subject.

Until I see non-empirical evidence, in double-blind, peer-reviewed studies stating that homosexuality is both genetic AND learned behavior, I find it very difficult to believe any of the arguments put forth so convincingly.

But I would like to at least hear what convinces others that it is both genetic/learned behavior.

Why would someone choose to be something when that "choice" is going to cause that person to be discrimated against by most and hated by some. It's not a choice.

people always try to demonize others for have opinions. i'm neither conservative or liberal but i'd have to say when it comes down to it, it is a choice. putting aside whether its right or wrong, even a straight person chooses to be straight. We choose to have relationships period. And I think the candidates analogy is accurate. A baby can be born addicted to crack, but that doesn't mean that the baby has no choice but to be a drug user. It'd be harder for him to avoid using drugs, if he wants to. But he can do it. Alternatively, for people who are offended by the comparisson, if a baby is born loving Chocolate, but later in life decides they want to give up chocolate to lose weight, they CAN choose to stop eating chocolate, as eating it all their life was a choice all along. You see Wanting chocolate and Eating chocolate are two different thing. Wanting chocolate may not be a choice, but eating chocolate is definitely a choice. And I think that's pretty rational. I know sometimes its hard for people to say things just the right way as to not offend anybody, but we should all be willing to listen and extract the rational, logical parts instead of throwing out the whole jar of honey because of one fly.

BBB,

Thank you. I have used this argument with straights before. It usually comes after I hear. "If you havent slept with a woman how do you know you won't like it." For some reason they do not want to try the experiment them selves.

And why,OMG WHY, do so many straight people think that just being gay makes us want to jump on them? No thanks.

To all of those who think being gay has some sort of 'choice' aspect, I'd like to challenge you to trying to sleep with a member of the same sex. Go ahead, CHOOSE to be attracted to another of your sex.....I'll wait while you try this out...

Oh, didn't work? Couldn't get it up? But that can't be, you did CHOOSE to be gay for a while, didn't you?

What preposterous inanity.....those who are not gay telling gay people why they are gay!! Why would anyone CHOOSE to be vilified on a daily basis? Why would folks CHOOSE to live in secrecy, because their CHOICE to sleep with same-sex individuals makes the ignorant want to hurt or KILL them?

Simple answer, it's not a choice. But CHOOSING to hate homosexuals IS. CHOOSING to demonize and marginalize 10% of Americans should be an affront to all of its citizens, but somehow it is the right's bread and butter.

Deride, belittle, divide and conquer. There's the Right's playbook on homosexuality in a nutshell.

#1.29. Then if it IS a choice, then how/what causes it?

(I never "chose" to be straight)

Gwaarin, exactly why doesn't it make sense that someone can be born to be attracted to both sexes? Be specific, please.

So now people aren't just born gay OR straight, they are now born both gay AND straight? If it is genetic, is it a genetic defect since there are so many fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals?

haha I think joe cools statement is hilarious... I love when someone pulls out the whole ITS GOING TO BRING ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR WORLD comments. Everyone should lighten up if someone wants to be who they want to be then let them. You can disagree, you may think it is against your holy word, or disaprove of their actions, but comeon if they arent hurting anybody and even if they are damning themselves in your eyes no need to actually feel hate towards these people. They are still Americans let them have their rights like everyone else. This is not like an abortion topic where pro life feels it is actually murder and I could see where they feel strongly on that topic but your emotions towards gays should not be in the same calibur. Most of the people who feel so strongly against gays if you have had premarital sex then you have committed a similar sin so dont throw stones.

I wasn't going to post at all since so many of you are off topic. Most of you totally missed Buck's point.

The choice is choosing to have a relationship, choosing WHO to have a relationship with, and/or choosing not to engage in a sexual relationship. These are the choices he is talking about. We all have those choices. It is the choice you make that labels you.

Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. Being schizophrenic with violent delusions isn't a choice, yet we still force them to take medication or put them in jail/mental wards. On the other hand, being an adulterer is a choice and we (in the US) don't punish it with any legality at all (except maybe divorce). Punishments and restrictions are not based on whether the behavior is a choice or not, but whether we find it to be detrimental or not. If it's not a choice, that only impacts how we address the restrictions (mental wards vs jail), not whether it's restricted in the first place.

Beyond that, genetics is not by any means the be-all-and-end-all of defining who and what we are or become. Environment plays a huge role in every facet of our development. Female gymnasts use near-starvation diets to delay the onset of puberty by years. As a result, they also cut their height growth to a fraction of what other women do. It doesn't matter how tall the mother and father were, how tall sisters are, even how tall a genetic twin is. Their diet plays a larger role than genetics does. Similarly, Japan and China have seen their average heights skyrocket in the past generation. This isn't because of any genetic change, but just developing children and teens having more and better food. There's more, too. How intelligent you are, how outgoing you are, how wide your shoulders grow, and tons of more features. All of these are impacted as much if not more by how you are raised, how you are taught, how you eat, how you exercise, etc. than by genetics.

On the other hand, genetics can completely define some of the most unexpected features. We laugh the way we are genetically programmed to. Adopted children laugh the same way as their biological parents do, not their adoptive parents, no matter how early they're adopted.

Overall, the truth is we have no idea if it's a choice or not, or even if we really have any choices about anything. But it's all moot because, as I said at the beginning, whether it's a choice or not doesn't impact whether it's detrimental or not. Only how we should treat it if we decide it is detrimental.

Itssimple said: even a straight person chooses to be straight.

Tell me more about that please. A choice means that you evaluated options and made a conscious decision. So, were you sitting around one day and considered your options? Did you think (if you are a guy), "I wonder if I am gay? Guys are attractive and I would like to have sex with them, but would I rather be with girls? Let's go with girls...I am going to choose to be straight."

I am gay. I knew when I was six or seven that I was different than other boys. I didn't know why - it certainly wasn't sexual attraction for me at that age. I didn't make a choice. At an early age I wished I was straight because my life would have been so much easier. But just like you probably could not choose to be gay - I can't choose to be straight.

Debora-389330 : Keep your silly fairy tales to yourself. You may wish to make life decisions based on stories proven to be myth, but you may not make others behave as if they believe your delusion, too. The First Amendment so often misquoted to justify abuse and denial of others' rights, is a double edged sword. Freedom *of* religion, by successive Supreme Court rulings, also means freedom *FROM* religion. Practice your magic thinking in your home and sanctuary, but keep it out of my face.

itssimple: you miss so many details in your analysis it's truly laughable. By your paradigm, eating and breathing are also choices. So, choose not to eat. Take an hour choosing not to breathe and see how you fare. Or, even better, take a year and choose not to have sex of any kind with anybody for any reason and see how fulfilled you become in your pursuit of happiness. It would be even more accurate a comparison if people could recognize your abstinance and condemn you for it because it would prevent procreation and was otherwise unnatural, dangerous, subversive, sinful. And, then people who hate you for being different sexually can take pot shots at you, deny you a place to live, fire you from your job, turn family and friends from you, marginalize you and make you an outcast simply for existing.

The long and the short of it is that people who claim they 'know' homosexuality is a choice just don't know what they're talking about. Using any justification for marginalizing others for any difference whatsoever is dysfunctional tribalism, we versus they mentality that became obsolete when mankind began farming instead of the hunter/gatherer model.

Using god nonsense to make yourselves feel superior is as stupid as it is delusional, and I don't mind telling you to your face. Shame on your parents for brainwashing you from infancy, and shame on you for not rising above it a ridding yourself of such magical thinking poison.

lucretia, well like i was saying, it is possible that a person may be attracted to the same sex, but that doesn't force him or her to have a same sex relationship. You made a choice to engage in a heterosexual relationship when you picked your first boyfriend or girlfriend, that's where the choice comes in. And I just want to make it clear that at this time i'm not trying to make a case for what's right and what's wrong. I just want to state my opinion that there is an aspect of choice. To those asking straight people to have a relationship with the same sex, the fact that they COULD do it, demonstrates the aspect of choice. They may not like it, but they could do it anyway.

I think where we get caught up is trying to invalidate what other people think. As a black man, I can't stop people from thinking that "being black" is a bad thing, or an unfortunate circumstance. But the Law says they have to treat me right. So when discussing homosexuality, you have to let people Think what they so desire, the law gives us all that right.

In a general way it's been proven that there are innate inescapable factors. But in some cases where those factors are not present, homosexuality can be acquired through socialization (this is the case of most people who like the two genders).

No matter what, as with heterosexuality, what a person does with his or her innate factors is a matter of choice. Like being celibate or not. Or being in a committed relationship or not. Or being promiscuous or not. In the states where it is possible ... getting married or not. There is no difference among human beings in that respect, all of them have free choice.

AND ONE SHOULD STOP ONCE AND FOR ALL MEDDLING WITH THE SEXUAL INCLINATIONS OF OTHERS, IT'S ENOUGH TO DO A DECENT THING WITH OUR OWN. WHAT OBSESSION FOR HEAVENS SAKE! WE ARE ALL HUMAN. PERIOD.

Buck has taken more controversial positions than this one. He probably should seriously avoid campaigning in Boulder, where he'd be tarred, feathered, and carried out of town on a rail. He should not be in the U.S. Senate - but he'd be welcomed on the city council in Colorado Springs, perhaps the most right-wing fundamentalist city in the world (even ahead of Teheran, Iran).

It is a choice. And there's nothing wrong with it as a choice. The only people who want to say it wrong are radicals who want to impose their values of what they 'think' are 'right' choices on someone else.

Oh, and P. S. don't bother argueing with Deborah. The lights are on but nobody's home.

IT IS A CHOICE...when you choose your partner you choose whatever sex you'd like. I totally am for gay rights BUT I do agreen it is a choice in the end.

To GTY and southpaugh, like i was explaining to lucretia, I think it is possible that one cannot control who or what they are attracted to. The choice comes in the relationships that we choose to engage in. I made a choice when I wrote my first "do you like me" note and gave it to a girl. And in this discussion, I don't want to imply that a person who is attracted to the same sex should fight that urge, but, i think it should be stated that people fight urges on daily basis, some much more difficult than others.

and southpaugh, im sorry that you see it as laughable, because i carefully wrote my statement to clearly express my thoughts, attempting not to offend, but logically arrive at a valid pattern of thought. If its difficult for you to follow that line and accept that different people can think differently without hurting each other, there's nothing I can do about that. As far as giving up eating an breathing, it seems like you're fighting yourself to understand the statement. I'm not defending anything so you trying to combat my statement only affects you.

and giving up sex, well that heavily depends on what you believe brings you happiness. Some people acquire great happines from waiting until marriage and sharing themselves with only one partner. So that's to relative for me to address. I wish I could, but there are so many varying belief structures that a mixed forum such as this could never come to a concensus.

41, 42, 43 and 44 all make valid points. and I think they are fair as well.

To quote what I was taught in the early 80's, being gay is a learned attitude. There is no gene or genes, no hereditary at all. At some point in time, a person makes a conscious decision to be gay or straight or bi-sexual. What influences that decision----that is the subject of debate. Now, there are situations of gender identity---think and act like a female in a male's body and vice versa. Sex change ops will handle that. I studied the very basics of it. Experts would know a lot more.

I am absolutely apposed to the idea that people are bound to one real choice by some sort of fated event at birth. Fate... is an offensive idea to me. Being homosexual may have some influence from nature, but I sincerely believe it has more to do with nurture.

For those who go by the bible, a sin begins with a thought, it's either up to you if you choose to go with that thought or to refuse it. All in all, you have a choice. For those who go by the bible, its simply saying homosexuality is a sin, it says nothing about being born gay, because, why would god make it a sin to begin with? In some ways, I tend to think some individual gays want to believe they were born gay to get away from the thought of themselves committing a sin (not all). They are afraid, and don't want to be judged. I can imagine this yes, and I'm talking about gays who are a believers in god and some who aren't who think this way. It still boggles my mind as someone who is a believer in god, I'm not sure how one can say they are born gay, but by the bible it says what it says, and I think choices do begin with thoughts, even thoughts are considered sins in gods eyes depending on what it is. Just a little something to throw into the topic here. I have close homosexual friends, and they respect my beliefs as I respect theirs and thoughts, and there should be respect for both sides. There's too much slamming against believers in god by homosexual individuals because they believe being gay is a sin. Just because one thinks that, doesn't mean they are homophobic or hate gays. This is happening too much in the media, there should be respect from gay individuals and heteros who follow the bible or not (vice versa)

Things are getting out of hand with this subject

I beg the question, if homosexuality is genetic and there is no choice, is it a genetic defect, since it goes against what the human body has clearly evolved to, which was to reproduce?

Explain Hermaphrodites Debbie, did they have a choice? Which way are they supposed to go with that? If I dated a Hermaphrodite would that make me gay? What about two hermaphrodites together, does that make them homosexual?

There are women that have the XX chromosome and men that are xy chromosome and that doesn't even pin them down as being gay because they go on to leading heterosexual lives.

I've heard that all women are bisexual.

I've heard that 85% of men have wondered what it would be like to be with another man.

If you guys woke up in the middle of the night from what you thought was going to be one of those dreams and discovered that it was really some guy that was actually being oral with you, would you push him away or let him finish?

What if it's a transexual coming on to you and was really convincing as being a woman and you had no clue until it came to getting undressed, would you go through with it or run?

In my opinion, I believe it is a choice and what determines your orientation is dependent upon how strong your convictions are. No matter what choice you've made, I will never hold that against you, your choice is none of my business.

People like Debora, and others on here, are completely wrong.

First, it is NOT a choice because homosexuality deals with attraction. They are attracted to the same sex. Attraction is NOT a choice. This is a FACT. The reason being is that attraction is the result of chemical and biological changes within the body. Dopamine and serotonin are released, triggering biological changes. Typically the eyes with dilate, blood flow will increase to the skin and face, non-verbal ques will be triggered . . . all of this is beyond your control. Thus, it is not a choice. If you disagree, please tell me how you make the "choice" to release dopamine and serotonin. Please tell me how you make the choice to dilate your eyes, and increase blood flow to your skin. You can't, because it is not a choice.

Second, (this is primarily for Debora) you are wrong about God wanting you to marry someone of the opposite sex. Your limited knowledge is evident in the fact that you do not realize that God, and the Christian religion, did NOT create marriage. In fact, marriage was not originally a religious union and did not exist in the first Christian doctrine. Marriage was originally a social institution first recorded in the Code of Hammurabi. When the Christians came to Babylon, looking to convert the citizens, theny discovered this code, and decided to copy the idea of marriage. If this was truly what "God" wanted, then he would have communicated this to his people in the beginning. Instead, they copied a different culture, and lied to you, in an effort to claim the idea as their own. Please, educate yourself.

Who you decide to have sex with is a choice, yes (as is whether you decide to have sex). Which gender you are attracted to, in my opinion and experience, is not a choice. The "As long as you choose not to have sex with someone of the same gender, you are not gay" argument holds no water. Whether I have sex with a man or a woman, I am attracted to men. That attraction makes me straight, no matter who I choose to have sex with.

Thoughts,

I disagree with you. Attraction is influenced by your environment just as much as everything else in your life is. Although I'll admit that there is some influence at birth, nurture plays a very strong role. You say that attraction is brought on by chemical and biological changes within the body. Are you saying, that you can't think yourself into a depressive state? You can't influence your own feelings? In the heart, mind, body and soul... all are interconnected. Saying that your feelings have nothing to do with thought is absurd, and ridiculously shallow. You heavily marginalize the choice that gays make by saying that they had no choice but to love their own sex. Shame on you. This is a country, and a WORLD of choice, not fate. We are free to make our own decisions, and our own physical nature reflects that.

Its just ridiculous. There are millions of gay persons in the US, does he believe they all chose to be gay? What an insult. This guy is either a moron or taking his marching orders from someone else.

K Chad - Respectfully, you are off-base here. Physical responses to external attractions are not by choice. Seeing a person of the opposite sex dancing does nothing for me. NO physical response from me based on any sort of attraction. I cannot even force myself to become aroused at the sight of another man's gyrations. Hence, NO CHOICE in attraction. A woman dancing has quite a different affect on me, even if I try to will such a response to stop. Again, no CHOICE involved, but immediate physical responses to external stimuli.

You cannot CHOOSE to make your pupil dilate in bright light, it does so on its own. Similarly, I cannot CHOOSE to become erect at the sight of a male dancer, I cannot even WILL it to happen.

Homosexuality as an attraction is NOT a choice, from everything I have seen, read, or learned from my gay friends. They, similarly, are totally unresponsive to stimuli from the opposite sex, it just doesn't work for them. They can appreciate the physical beauty of a person, but they have NO desire to be intimate with them. (Just as I can admit Russel Crowe is a handsome dude, I don't want to pork him...at all.....sorry Russell)

Now, as to whether it is nature or nurture, I have NO idea, and anyone who claims to have nailed it down either way, is fairly full of it. I have know twins where one was gay, on was not, so to me it absolutely is NOT totally genetic, there seems to me to be SOME sort of environmental factor that is of more direct affect.

K Chad Roberts,

Although attraction may be influenced by your environment, it is still not a choice. You never wake up and make the conscious decision on who you will be attracted to that day. The feeling you get, when in the presence of someone you are attracted to, was not a "choice". There are psychologists dedicated to helping women figure out why they are attracted to abusive men, or "jerks". Do these women simply "choose" to be attracted to abusive men? No, that is absurd. If you research attraction, you will find that many factors will contribute to who someone is attracted to. You will also learn that this is not a choice, but a result of many combined factors. Anecdotally, did you "think" yourself into being attracted to your partner? Did you use your thoughts to convince yourself that you were attracted to him/her? If you did, I feel sorry for you. It is a shame that someone would have to convince themselves into being attracted to someone else.

I will admit that you can make the "choice" to not act on your attraction. However, that would mean that straight people are allowed to follow their attraction, but gay people are not. Why the difference?

Anybody else interested in wearing t-shirts that say "@!$%# BUCK!"? ;-)

Does anyone “choose” to be heterosexual?

If not, then how can you “choose” to be homosexual?

Is it just me , or is everyone leaving out a key factor in this subject " FEELINGS"? it has everything to do with attraction, choice, the mind, the body.

Your genes are constantly changing. Identical twins may begin with identical genes, but as soon as they become distinct and seperate lifeforms, they begin their own seperate and distinct development. Our understanding of genetics in "identical" twins has advanced considerably in the last decade. We know now that identical twins are not all that identical genetically.

How can a man understand a pregnant woman or abortion for that matter?

I am not gay so what is it to be gay? I don't know?

I could sit here and decide what I think but I am not going to do that.

Why do skinny men like big woman why do black guys like big white woman? Don't I sound like a bigot?

You guys, were never going to come to an agreement on this issue. It's just better to let it be. Whether it's a choice or genetic doesn't matter. People have control over the decisions they make no matter how you feel you have the choice to act or not to act on those feelings.

itssimple: not at all. My comparison is valid and stands. The fact of the matter is that choosing to be gay or straight is exactly comparable to choosing to eat or not, or choosing to breathe or not. It's unfortunate one cannot see the logical distinction, and serves to reveal how those who don't see the connection are not equipped to judge the nature of being homosexual in comparison to being heterosexual.

You said you tried to not be offensive. I find the idea that anybody who is not gay finds it in himself or herself to descriptively declare aspects of such a status to be that which they quite simply cannot understand, relate to or empathize with to be profoundly offensive. You are out of your depth, you don't get it, and no amount of logical gymnastics will alter that obvious lack in faculties. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but you may not relabel such opinon as fact. You offer no evidence beyond heresay in support of your position, and the details of your opinion indicate you ignore well established, scientifically documented, peer reviewed, overwhelming expert opinion that contratdicts your opinion (provided you've even done any research among scientific documentaton, which I doubt, though I'm open to correction). You may look at the world through the polarized lenses of your bias, but you may not use such blinkered vision to rule others' lives, and you may not encourage others to micro manage my life without reality based challenges. The good news is that society as a whole is leaving your frame of mind behind, and it's only a matter of time before the likes of Ken Buck and his apologists are relegated to the sidelines as other anti-social demogogues, such as Jesse Helms, Joseph McCarthy, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan before them. Rail all you want at my prediction, but it's historically inevitable. It's only in the meantime that we liberal progressives must stave off the scortched earth damage right wing ideologues will inflict on society in the interim.

And, that's not even a slight exaggeration. You just wait and see.

ah yes here is good ol Roy running his mouth and not having a clue about the facts but I don't think he ever lets a fact get in the way of his religion.

I wonder if Roy believes that the world is flat too as that is suggested in the bible where there is a statement about the four corners of the world

one principle doctrine of the Church of Liberality: people cannot fight their own inclinations. Do whatever feels good at the moment (don't ever try to think rationally about the future, because you have no choice - you are the slave of your senses).

The entire premise of the "when did you choose to be straight 8]" argument is baloney. Anyone, with any introspection at all, knows that most lifestyle habits are not the result of a one-time, conscious Decision. People known as "clean-freaks" didn't have a Cleanliness Epiphany, they've just nurtured themselves over the years to prefer order to messiness. When do you think porn-addicts say to themselves, "I think I'll become addicted to hard-core child pornography today"?

You all know this doesn't happen. It's gradual, here a little and there a little, and many small decisions shape overpowering tendencies that can be difficult to escape from.

I'm amused by those who so strongly disagree with fighting what appear to be natural tendencies, not realizing that at they same time, they, by their "be-yourself-at-all-costs" mantra, rationalize not only deviant sexual behavior, but also racism, drug abuse, laziness, and every other ill that has ever plagued society.

You cannot rationalize EVERY urge or inclination. Yet, I have never seen a rationalization of homosexuality that is not solely based on the argument that "it is an inclination, and so we must condone it."

HAHA!

If people supposedly don't have a choice whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, then they saying people are also born bi-sexual?

It just doesn't make sense.

I didn't say ALL don't have a choice. Many or Most do not! Fact is there are a lot of bisexuals in this world. Many men and women find themselves attracted to both sexes. This phenomenon is what keeps scientists from declaring the root cause for homosexuality. In other-words, what is the right amount or combination of hormone levels does it take to produce a straight child verses a gay or lesbian child during fetal development? If you can answer that you will win a Nobel Peace Prize! I speak only from the scientific question of the situation and not the legal or moral one.

Only26 -

As a straight man, I can tell you with 100% certainty that there was NEVER any "little" urge or inclination towards men. There was never a gradual urge, "here a little, there a little" to even consider it. Ever since I was 9, sneaking peeks at my dad's Playboys, I knew it was only girls.

According to you, there would have to be little "urges" that most of society ignores, but homosexuals give in to. I don't know any straight man that has had these "little urges", do you? Did you have these little inclinations? Did you ignore them because they would build up to a lifestyle habit? I'm sorry buddy, but if you ever had even the smallest urge, I would say that makes you at least Bi . . . if not a full-on closet case.

And "deviant sexual behavior" . . . this made me laugh. I guarantee I can, and have been, way more deviant with girls.

In other-words, what is the right amount or combination of hormone levels does it take to produce a straight child verses a gay or lesbian child during fetal development?

So, if homosexuality is because of a hormone, gene, chemical, or something else that could be explained with science, which would make them born this way, would this be considered a human defect since it goes against the fact that the human body was designed/evolved to reproduce?

Gwaarin -

Given the fact that the human body was designed to reproduce, it can also be concluded that homosexuality was created/evolved as population control. The human population has the capacity to grow at exponential rates. To prevent the complete eradication of all natural resources by over-population, homosexuals may have been created, or evolved, to maintain stable population numbers.

The animal kingdom has natural safeguards to prevent over-population, through the predator/prey food chain. In addition, homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. Because humans are at the top of the food chain, there is no predator to maintain population numbers. Thus, homosexuality plays a more important factor.

Thus, it is quite possible that it is all part of the natural order to maintain life. If everyone was straight, and produced as many children as possible, the exponential population growth would destroy the planet.

The animal kingdom has natural safeguards to prevent over-population, through the predator/prey food chain. In addition, homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom

Ummm okay and some animals eat their own young, cannibalize, and eat feces. I'm not sure that we should be using "what happens in the animal kingdom" as our moral compass.

Given the fact that the human body was designed to reproduce, it can also be concluded that homosexuality was created/evolved as population control. The human population has the capacity to grow at exponential rates. To prevent the complete eradication of all natural resources by over-population, homosexuals may have been created, or evolved, to maintain stable population numbers.

Whoa, way over the top. Wow, is that a scientific statement or something you made up just now?

Never said "what happens in the animal kingdom should be our moral compass" . . . thus you have earned the obligatory, L2R (learn to read).

Given your next comment, I can see that you are unable to comprehend growth rates based on historic evidence. So I will make it easy for you. Let's say the conservative Christians are right, and all life stemmed from 2 people. Over the course of a few thousand years, humans have come to cover the planet. Keep in mind that mortality rates were much higher thousands of years ago. So considering this, what happens to the population numbers over the next thousand years?

Whoa, where did the religion come from.

Should I not have used the word "moral"...okay, how about "guiding compass".

Some animals eat their own young, practice cannibalism, and eat feces. I don't think we should use the animal kingdom as our "guiding compass".

So now that I have you back on topic is that fair to state?

Plus you're trying to state how humans may have evolved into having homosexual urges for population control, yet the human body has not evolved with it. Meaning during anal sex, the anus does not secrete a lubricant and as a result anal fissures may occur which may become infected with fecal bacteria. The human body hasn't even evolved to deal with male to female anal sex.

How is it that the human body is intelligent enough to have evolved to the point of homosexual urges for population control, but the body has not evolved to deal with the effects?

You stated:

homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom

This was meant to imply that if it happens in nature then it must be normal.

Christianity in a nutshell:

Bible: A measuring stick of laws/rules to measure yourself up to. The rules could vary from obvious to all (Don’t kill), to the ridiculous (Don’t tie your shoes on Sunday), because the actual rules aren’t the point. The point is that every person on earth when measured finds themselves a “Sinner” i.e. a breaker of the Law/Rules.

God: The ultimate embodiment of Goodness and Perfection. These are tied together. Goodness and perfection can’t be goodness and perfection unless (Sin, law breaking, rule breaking) has consequences. Metaphorically: The darkness cannot dwell in the light. When a darkness (sin) is presented to the light it is destroyed (punished).

Mankind: Gods creation which finds itself in a dilemma. Since none are free from being a “sinner” (i.e. a law breaker) they cannot ever dwell with God, and are effectively dead spiritually. There is NO relationship between God and the sinner, and when brought before the light (upon our deaths) we will be punished by the only one that has a right to punish us.

The Solution: Since mankind is in a state of imperfection, we can never do anything to become perfect. We can’t be “good people” and undo even one infraction of the law/rules that were broken. So in our stead God Himself paid the price for us. He took all our imperfections/rule breakings/sin and “placed” them on Himself (in the form of a man) and then took our punishment for us, and by doing so imparted (to those that believe by faith that He did this) his perfection in the Spiritual world. He resurrected the spiritual relationship between Him and His creation for believers. Those people are no longer under the law. None of the rules apply to them anymore. (If these leaves you with questions read “Romans”.) Again Metaphorically: When they stand before the light for judgment, they will be seen as perfect and without flaw.

Note: Both Judaism and Islam are works righteousness based. They don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah (the fixer of their broken relationship with God because of law breaking). So they continue to operate “under the law”. For them following the rules as best you can makes your relationship with God ok. The more you work to follow the better your relationship is supposed to be.

Both Christians and non-Christians need to remember/realize what the real point of "the Laws" are from a Christian perspective. Simply put - the laws are "the tool by which we come to understand our need for redemption".

It's this the whole reason judging others that "do sin" is wrong. The point isn't to puff yourself up and make your self holier than your bother or sister. Paul got in trouble for saying the gentiles shouldn't be eating pork and was told "don't be a stumbling block in another's walk" [basically with what he was personally convicted of as being "sin"]. That means each person that would read the bible will be convicted in thier own personal way. Running around telling everyone what laws they broke and that they are "wrong" is the Pharisees way.

God offers redemption to all. Judge not lest you be judged.

Note: Both Judaism and Islam are works righteousness based. They don't believe Jesus was the Messiah (the fixer of their broken relationship with God because of law breaking). So they continue to operate "under the law". For them following the rules as best you can makes your relationship with God ok. The more you work to follow the better your relationship is supposed to be.

So you're saying one doesn't have to believe in Christ to go to Heaven? The point of Christ's suffering was for what??? Why not just let us all operate "under the law"? and Christ not have to suffer at all for our sins?

Christ must have been mistaken when he stated this: "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life, no one cometh unto the Father but by me"?

"So you're saying one doesn't have to believe in Christ to go to Heaven?"

I didn't say that at all. I only pointed out the difference between Christianity and the other two biblical religons as a side "note".

So what was the whole "under the law" which makes their relationship with God okay then?

Christ clearly stated there is no other way but by Him. That is why he said, "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life, no one cometh unto the Father but by me."

Don't get wrapped up in being so afraid to offend other religions that you deny the truth from others. They aren't worried about offending you.

Gw, your posts seem a little hostile.

I never declared as you attempted to pin on me "...makes their relationship with God okay".

Factually Judaism and Islam are works righteouness based. They are "deed" before "creed".

Purposely, nothing I wrote was said in a way to offend anyone or declare anyone "right", and if your goading me to see where I fall, I have no one to answer to but God.

If you want people to find the truth it can't can from me or you. "Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened." That's a personal journey, not one rammed down peoples throats.

I'm sorry for seeming hostile. That wasn't the intent. I was only using your words when you said this:

So they continue to operate "under the law". For them following the rules as best you can makes your relationship with God ok.

I just wanted you to remember John 14:6. That's all

Following the rules the best you can does not make your relationship with God okay. God sent the reconciliation Whom suffered greatly. He is the only way.

Roy, there is a reason the good book says not to stand in the way of sinners.

We are imperfect for reasons not of our own doings, other than be the offspring of other imperfect creatures. To date, no "gay" gene has been found. I know researchers are still looking. If not found, the question now becomes is gay tendencies just another result of interference with normal genetics.

Love is a choice. Attraction emotional response to a criteria you are comfortable with or find enjoyable. The feelings of comfort or enjoyment are learned by trial and error.

Thoughts from Cali. Totally disagree with you and agree with what someone else here said. You may not choose who you are attracted to initially, but you do actually choose who you have sex with regardless of attraction. Simply stated. If you want to have sex with everything you were attracted to sexually, you wouldn't have much of a society for marriage.

It is generally smart, however, to CHOOSE to be in relationships with the sex you are attracted to the most. So if its the same sex, I recommend being gay and getting over proving, somehow, that you didn't make a choice about it.

Now I understand why you are so simple minded Gwaarin. The Bible is your go to source for facts.

So now people aren't just born gay OR straight, they are now born both gay AND straight? If it is genetic, is it a genetic defect since there are so many fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals?

Geeee, I guess left handed people must be genetic defects since the right handed people outnumber them. OH My God, and you mean to tell that some people are born ambidextrous! Derrrrrrrr.

"You may not choose who you are attracted to initially, but you do actually choose who you have sex with regardless of attraction. Simply stated. If you want to have sex with everything you were attracted to sexually, you wouldn't have much of a society for marriage.

It is generally smart, however, to CHOOSE to be in relationships with the sex you are attracted to the most. So if its the same sex, I recommend being gay and getting over proving, somehow, that you didn't make a choice about it."

AHA! Ok, I think I get it. You are playing with semantics. You are saying that regardless of who/what sex someone is attracted to, their relationship/sexual partners are a CHOICE, regardless of their sexual orientation, right? That if they simply made a different choice, they could sleep with opposite-sex partners, and everything would be ok, right?

Yet you seem to continue to ignore the fact that they are attracted to the SAME sex, and feel NO attraction to the opposite sex. How are you going to make a choice for a hetero relationship, when it holds ZERO attraction for you?
That's like saying a heterosexual should CHOOSE to have a relationship with the living room couch. The fact that you aren't attracted to it is irrelevant, because you can CHOOSE to have a relationship with it anyways!

Such word games only make these discussions harder, because you are arguing an obscure, fairly irrelevant point, while you are ignoring the real point. That homosexuals CAN NOT choose who they are physically attracted to (just as heterosexuals cannot, still sorry Russell Crowe). If you are NOT attracted to someone, you will not CHOOSE to be in a relationship with them, much less have SEX with them!

The CHOICE is NOT in which sex you attracted to. That CANNOT be changed. That homosexuals would then CHOOSE to be in relationships with same-sex partners is thusly NOT a choice, except in WHICH same-sex partner it is.

Ok, get it now?

LOL Fred, I seriously doubt they will ever get it. Using their logic, virgins or those who have never been intimate with someone else are neither heterosexual or homosexual since they haven't chosen anyone to be with yet. Simpletons.

Fred, it isn't semantics. 'Heterosexuals' do choose who they sleep with too. I think you are just all up in arms that people actually do choose whether to follow their instincts or not. And they do. Sorry. People choose not to do a lot of things they probably have instincts to do on a regular basis, such as not steal, not kill people, not just go eat food off a plate. And it is a choice that goes beyond basic word play.

Maybe you should try 'getting it.' Like I said, I have no problem with soemone's choice to follow their instincts. But it is ridiculous to remove the step where they actually make a conscious decision to follow their instincts. And if they are only attracted to one particular sex, then its a smart choice to follow that instinct instead of some ridiculous sort of 'morality' they have no interest in.

People choose not to do a lot of things they probably have instincts to do on a regular basis, such as not steal, not kill people, not just go eat food off a plate.

Only a moron would compare choosing to act upon one's nature as a homosexual to choosing to steal or kill. Being homosexual or acting upon it is not a crime. Stealing and murder are crimes. You've shown your true irrational and immoral colors.

Derek, I was wrong, I simply don't understand your 'logic.' To be frank, I have read back through your posts, and I don't even understand what point you are trying to make.

Are you saying being gay is ok, but choosing to act on it is not?

abolish taxes

Now I understand why you are so simple minded Gwaarin. The Bible is your go to source for facts.

I gave you a checkmark for the above statement. The above statement is, for the most part, a true statement and I'm not the least bit ashamed.

Now if you can produce the scientific facts, I'd be interested in looking at them.

Good day.

No, it is you that have to prove that the Bible is correct if you want to use it to keep people from being what they are when it has no effect on your own personal choices or life, and you cannot. Obviously, the Bible doesn't have it all right or else you'd be burning or stoning people to death for adultery, which I would hope most all people would find to be sadistic, immoral and barbaric. You can say all you want about Jesus bringing in the New Testament, but an infallible God would not need someone to rewrite his Law. If you want to live in a land that uses the Bible as its law you should go live in a Theocracy. This is not and never has been one. Shall I now quote John Adams and Thomas Jefferson for you? Ok, here you go, maybe you'll learn something about this nation.

From Jefferson:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

From John Adams:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal li...berty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

"Numberless have been the systems of iniquity The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own Order They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and Crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude...."

"Of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness around the idea of a priest as no mortal could deserve ... the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers."

Wow, people like you really would have despised the Founding Fathers.

I think, Fred, you are throwing my comments in with the psychotic right wing (as opposed to the thinking right wing) who want to claim that being gay is a choice and because it is a choice, it is wrong, and the person is going to 'Hell' (if only those psychotics realized that they are living in a private hell themselves...)

Look, anyway, what I am saying is so what if being gay is a choice or so what if someone chooses to follow their instincts and be gay? Is that wrong, ABSOLUTELY NOT! Sorry. It isn't unless you allow your brain's opinions to be given to you by some outdated book of mythology....

abolish taxes

Are you here to attack the bible, me, or discuss whether or not people are born gay?

Human bodies have evolved with the ability to reproduce, if it is a gene that causes homosexuality, that effects only a few, and indeed they are born gay, is it a genetic defect? The question is a plausible scientific question worth pondering. If science discovers that indeed it is a gene or series of genes, then science will begin to research what it is about the gene(s) that causes people to be attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex. This attraction opposes the very chemical processes their bodies have gone through during puberty in preparation for reproduction.

BTW, there were more than 2 founding fathers and please point out where I would believe their authority is greater than that of God's??

Cut Buck some slack. We all say things we wish we hadn't.

I believe homosexuality can be both: a choice, or something a person is born with.

Over 95% of all homosexuals coexist, befriend, and tolerate straight people. I see no reason why straight people can't do the same.

This attraction opposes the very chemical processes their bodies have gone through during puberty in preparation for reproduction.

Their homosexuality does not prevent them from reproducing if they wish to do so. An act which can lead to reproduction IS a choice. A natural attraction towards the same or opposite sex is not. Homosexuals also have other options for reproduction thanks to science.

Being gay is no more a genetic defect than being born left-handed. Many devices were originally designed for right handed individuals, such as a guitar, and some people have had to awkwardly learn how to deal with those devices, while some like Jimi Hendrix spun the device on its head and made it adapt to their nature. Then the manufacturers and designers realize they can adapt their devices to the nature of these individuals.

BTW, there were more than 2 founding fathers and please point out where I would believe their authority is greater than that of God's??

In this country the authority created by these men IS greater than that of YOUR god. We do not defer to the Bible when we consider whether or not something is Constitutional.

In this country the authority created by these men IS greater than that of YOUR god. We do not defer to the Bible when we consider whether or not something is Constitutional.

I have never once spoke of removing anybody's Constitutional rights of equality. If you can't wrap your mind around the idea that somebody might merely be trying to debate whether a person is born a certain way, is your problem.

I'm sure you would also like to know what causes it so you could be even more biased toward religion and justify your own disbelief? Comparing homosexuality to being right or left handed is something to ponder. However, It is obvious, the chemical or genetic reasoning, if any, is far more complex. Science still doesn't know what causes a person to be attracted to member of the same sex while regecting the opposite.

Also, if this is true and it is genetics, then why has the body not evolved with it? For instance, during vaginal sex the female body secretes a lubricant. However, in the thosands upon huncreds of thousands of years that humans, hetero and homo, have practiced anal sex, why has the body not evolved to secrete a lubricant? Anal fissures which is common during anal sex can occur and fecal bacteria can enter these fissures causing infection. Some of these anal fissures become chronic.

Their homosexuality does not prevent them from reproducing if they wish to do so. An act which can lead to reproduction IS a choice.

So you're saying sex to reproduce is a choice, but sex for pleasure is not?

If you say I must have hated the founding fathers who did not believe, then is it fair for me to say you must have hated the founding fathers that DID believe?

So you're saying sex to reproduce is a choice, but sex for pleasure is not?

Where in the world do you get this nonsense.? It is clear that what I said is which sex you are naturally attracted to is not a choice, it is a biological reaction. What is a choice is the type of sex you choose to engage in.

If you say I must have hated the founding fathers who did not believe, then is it fair for me to say you must have hated the founding fathers that DID believe?

Can you name a single founding father who thought that the Bible should be used as the basis for our laws in place of the Constitution? And please, provide sources. If you can, I would say that person was a fool to think that you can maintain liberty and religious freedom yet create a country based on one religious text.

I have never once spoke of removing anybody's Constitutional rights of equality. If you can't wrap your mind around the idea that somebody might merely be trying to debate whether a person is born a certain way, is your problem.

You asked specifically why you should believe that the authority of these founding fathers is greater than that of your God, and I merely pointed out the fact that in this country their authority is greater than your god's for they established a country in which we are protected from the dogma of your religion.

Also, if this is true and it is genetics, then why has the body not evolved with it? For instance, during vaginal sex the female body secretes a lubricant. However, in the thosands upon huncreds of thousands of years that humans, hetero and homo, have practiced anal sex, why has the body not evolved to secrete a lubricant?

If you want to bring evolution into this, you are going to have to first understand that evolution is something that happens over MILLIONS of years, not tens of thousands, and it happens when an anomaly is born and that anomaly is able to survive to pass on those particular genes that are responsible for the anomaly.

So homosexual tendancies and/or anal sex have supposedly been around since the dawn of mankind right? We lost our tales, gained opposable thumbs, lost our body hair, and learned at an exponential rate, but our bodies haven't yet evolved to deal with consequences that anal sex may bring. Makes perfect sense.

Gwaarin, you clearly do not understand evolution. Those changes you speak of took millions of years. It was our ancestors that gained opposable thumbs (like 65 million years ago) and that was long after any evolution from something which would have had a tail. You really need to study evolution before you misrepresent how it is actually laid out. This might give you a start so you can understand your ignorance and thus your confusion on the matter. This is why simply relying on a religious text for your information isn't a great idea.

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

So you're saying that humans will eventually evolve to deal with the consequences of anal sex. When was it exactly that humans began practicing homosexuality? Was it shorly after we obtained opposable thumbs or was it when we self realized? Got a number on that one?

Well, seeing as other primates engage in homosexuality, it could be that our common ancestor also did so. But, what you seem to still fail to understand is that it was not us who first gained the opposable thumb.

So you're saying that humans will eventually evolve to deal with the consequences of anal sex.

No, I never said that at all. You still seem to not understand evolution. Just because a species engages in a type of behavior that is natural to their instincts does not mean they will automatically evolve as a result. You cannot really know what evolution has in store unless you can look into the future millions of years. I can say that one common catalyst our scientists have identified in past evolutions is the pressure put upon a species in how it needs to gather food.

It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans are so inclined to deny the facts just because they don't want them to be true and find it easy to make up their OWN truths, as in: gays CHOOSE to be gay, global warming is NOT happening, cutting taxes for the rich "creates more jobs," health care reform will result in "death panels, there were "beheadings in the desert" in Arizona, Elmo is real, the earth is flat, etc. etc.

RT101 - You're hurtin, dude.

mundaetraversa sadly there are quite a few people who believe as this guy does and people will elect them.

you certainly don't know anyone from AA then. they constantly preach to you and tell you they are recovering alchoholics.

ReformedTheology101 - I don't really get why you're bringing Eugenics into this. No reasonable person believes in things like that. That's like saying someone with dyslexia, by saying that they were born dyslexic, is calling themselves a lower form of human being. Why would you even bring such a ridiculous idea into a discussion?

And you're going to suggest that if homosexuals are born that way, then we must allow that Hitler was born a mass murderer? There are so many fallacies in your statement I'm insulted. You do not understand logic, so please stop speaking until you learn how to use it.

RT101:

"have our minds freed from the burden of claiming that we know nothing for certain and being absolutely certain."

Therein lies the problem. Your absolute certainty of the ultimate "rightness" of your opinions (yes... I know... because you are Right, they aren't opinions they are Truth), beliefs (yes... I know... because you are Right, they aren't beliefs they are Truth) and prejudices (yes... I know... because you are Right, they aren't prejudices they are Truth), there is no room in your universe for contrary viewpoints. Those who hold such viewpoints are all either misguided or evil and are doomed to Perdition.

Unfortunately, such absolute certainty is pathological. It flies in the face of both logic and evidence. It is symptomatic of mental disease.

The entire Eugenics and Nazi parallel was, of course, both a "Straw Man Fallacy" and a thinly veiled Argumentum ad Hominem. A freshman year Logic 101 professor would fail you on the spot for presenting it as a rational argument. And your "argument" that only by dispensing with critical thought can we think logically ("Thus we can reason" above) is oxymoronic - unless you are Humpty Dumpty, this is Alice's Wonderland and here words mean whatever you want them to mean and not what the dictionary says they mean.

Your closing statement (f you dislike this or reject this it is only because of your commitment to independence) flagrantly violates so many rules of logic that it becomes pointless to enumerate them all (Suggestion: Google "logical fallacies" and tick off most of the boxes...). I reject it because it is, frankly, insane.

Wait a minute, Doobie. I'm a republican and I know damn well that being gay is not a choice. Where's your argument now and what could politics possibly have to do with sexual orientaion except for breeding discrimination?

Damn it, people, identical twins ARE exactly identical in their genetic codes!!! They are the result of a single fertilized egg dividing (the one DNA code) and then developing into separate, identical people.

Fraternal twins, on the other hand, aren't genetically identical as they are the result of multiple eggs being fertilized and all being nurtured in separate locales in the uterine wall.

And, scientists have NOT located the gene sequences that turn a person "on or off" for homosexuality. There may be traits present (as researchers say "possible") that become manifested in preferences (such as love of things that aren't with the accepted social norms for masculinity/femininity), but environment plays a huge role in social behavior and activities, too.

I don't really get why you're bringing Eugenics into this

Because he is an unbalanced loon?

I don't know anyone who has come out proudly as an alcoholic.

Alcoholism is a predisposition in some, but they do have a choice, inebriation or sobriety. I have had family members who suffer from that problem. Pedophilia is a predisposition in some, but they also have a choice, jail or not. Homosexuals claim they are born that way. What is that except another way of saying they are predisposed?

Now, before anyone goes off the deep end and accuses me of homophobia or being a pedophile (or condoning the latter), please think about it. I am not saying anything derogatory about ones chosen life-style as long as it brings no harm to another. In other words: Ones right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. But I do think that we as a nation have taken things beyond reason with our politcally correct agenda.

You diagree with a man who doesn't like homosexuality as a life style. You literally insult him with words not acceptable in polite society, disparage his character and his family, and call him a beast. Why? Because you disagree with him. How does this make you a better person than you accuse him of being?

I suggest that anyone who agrees with Buck (and Buck himself) should just go ahead and choose to live as a gay person for a while, just so they can get a glimpse of what it must be like when we expect gay people to live as straight people.

Boy, isn't this ALWAYS the way it goes? One ignorant comment from a "teabagger" brings the rest snarling about things they have no understanding about it. Let's be clear: if you want to scream from the rooftops about getting the government out of your lives, don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously when you want to use the force of law to deprive a group of citizens rights that you enjoy. Like, the right to decide whom to marry, getting the benefits that accrue from marriage, and the right to be protected from discrimination in jobs and housing. To the Bible Thumpers, a group I get particularly impatient with: If you believe that God created all and all that he created was perfect how on earth do you DARE to judge our gay brethren? Do you consider yourselves worthy of sitting in judgment of God, because I think the Almighty might take that badly.

The standard of objective truth seems to have been replaced with the idea of "truthiness". Or, people making statements that sound like they could be true presented as absolute truth.

There have been some efforts by some of the news services to fact check statements and publish them. However, in our internet driven world, the truth doesn't ever seem to get caught up with disinformation.

A big part of this election is about creating fear in the electorate. Fear of the other be they, homosexuals, tree huggers, socialists, ... It's an important and deliberate tactic. They counter by harkening back to some golden age where everything was good.

This is very consistent with Joseph Goebbels who was the Reichsminister for propaganda and national enlightenment in 1933 Germany. I've extracted a couple relevent items. For the full list you can check out: http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html There are 19 of them.

7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.

100% right on, Dennis.

Frankly, I don't understand why it's a problem even if it were a choice (which I don't believe it is). Why shouldn't two consenting, unrelated adults be able to choose to be with each other? I just don't get it.

Come out of the closet or stay in the closet....I don't really give a damn.

Try to teach my kids that what you're doing is good, right, and completely natural, your going to have a fight on your hands.

Let me know when they find that "gay" gene.

Gwaarin, if your kids turn out to be gay, it's because they are gay. I guess you'll just have to hate them for it.

Ha! I can add nothing too that; you said it perfectly.

Gwaarin, if your kids turn out to be gay, it's because they are gay. I guess you'll just have to hate them for it.

I don't remember saying anything about hating anyone.

I can still love a person wholly all the while disagreeing with what they choose to do. Loving a person dispite their choices is also a choice.

Homosexuality is not a natural act.

Dennis #3: I am the PROUD mother of a gay man with a wonderful partner (work-a-holic) who also has great parents. He works hard, pays his taxes, is involved in charity work, is kind to everyone he meets ( & I can't even say that), has hobbies, & helps people out financially, physically & emotionally giving far more than he EVER receives back, but he still does what he KNOWS is right.

I am also the Aunt of a convicted pedophile-married w/3 kids-who abused his step-daughter, a beautiful little girl who is now a teen & in a juvenile facility after doing what we teach our kids to do-TELL SOMEONE! HER OWN "MOTHER" & MY NEPHEW LIED THEIR WAY OUT OF IT THE 1ST. TIME. So she stayed living in a home being constantly abused even more. When it finally DID get known, & she was removed, she changed from the happy little girl we knew to a teen ( facebook pic.) that was quite disturbing. Mother divorced, but the damage has already been done. And both my husband & my hearts hurt so badly for her I could take a baseball bat to my now disowned nephew.

So! Whose kid would you want for a son? Ain't rocket science here.

So the point of your writing is what?

That some homosexual people are better people than heterosexual people? I would tend to agree but:

I'm certain there are cases where the homosexual is the pedophile in the family and the heterosexual is the father of 3 children that obeys all the laws and is an emotionally supportive person that would never harm a single hair on his children's head.

Of course we all have choices! There have been heterosexuals who have chosen to, for example, join a nunnery or monastary and remain celebate for their entire lives. Likewise, there are surely homosexuals who have chosen to remain celebate throughout history because there was a chance of being killed/thrown in jail, etc., if they acted on their homosexuality!

I feel that orientation itself is genetic, and certainly the choice to act on that orientation is indeed a choice.

If homosexuality is a choice,then I guess so is heterosexuality....BUT I do not remember choosing. Does anyone here remember choosing to be gay OR straight?

Gwaarin, whether it is natural or not is something that are not to judge. We aren't walking in the shoes of other poeple to know how they feel about themselves. They are free to choose to do what ever they want to choose. It is up to God to deal with them if their choices are wrong. If someone perfers to be with someone of the same sex, they are consenting adults, right or wrong, that is their issue to resolve and not mine, nor is it yours.

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't judged anybody. I was making a point that for every @!$%#ty "heterosexual" in existance there is more than likely a @!$%#ty "homosexual" in existance. I don't want it taught to my kids. No different than an atheist not wanting their kids taught about God.

Like I have asked over and over again:

If the human body has evolved into something that is clearly designed to reproduce and a gene or something else has caused a person to be born homosexual, is that a human genetic defect?

Oh I'm sorry Gwaarin, I guess you'll just have to consider your child an unnatural abomination and simply be disgusted by them.

He was too busy fawning.

You're correct about that should have been the next question. However, I don't think any of the network newspeople would have the cojones to ask that question.

Don't be so sure that he's straight. I would guess that he may be defending his decision to be straight even though he's not.

D. Winmill,

The Chinese have a saying: "Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." I think Buck and those like him should heed that advice. It's best not to talk about something of which one has no understanding.

Well ya know, Buck really wanted to suck all his friends off, but he had to choose really hard to not do it.

You really help your view with comments like this. You need to stay off the adult sights.

Mickey #4.4: Good quote, but it was from Samuel Clemons aka Mark Twain.

Good reply, D. Winmill! I knew I was attracted to the same sex when I was 8 years old! I didn't make a choice, it just was. I tried choosing to be straight so I would fit in to society, but after years of failed relationships, I quit living the lie and chose to be happy, and I am.

don, how can you says "it just was" dont you think u made a choice to be attracted to the same sex as you made a choice of trying to be straight? didn't have feelings before you began to think you were attracted to the oposite? I just want to understand from another point of view, because in my opinion, choices are made at any age, it starts with feelings and then a thought or even other way around. It's up to you to act on that thought or not. Your choosing every second of the day , you choose to walk, u choose to move a part of the body , your choosing every second of the day. Can you honestly say, you didn't have thoughts? Everyone has feelings, but it's up to you to choose if you want those feelings or not. I've had feelings towards the same sex my self but i chose the opposite because of my feelings. People at young ages have feelings, everyone has feelings, when there's feelings then come thoughts. My point is, can anyone honestly deny what is to be a reasonable fact of how choosing begins and ends? Can you say thoughts/feelings have nothing to do with it? if you do, that's quite a hard argument you need to back up.

jane: your body tells you what it finds sexually attractive not the other way around. All the Viagra in the world isn't going to make me want a guy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

feelings tell you what it finds attractive. when you see someone for the first time, you either get a feeling or not, feelings can be a tingle, an itch, etc. whatever those feelings are, determine what your mind thinks about it, you instantly get a thought, and then comes a choice.

You need to stay off the adult sights.

You really need to first learn how adults spell sites.

If the person "chose" to be gay then it's easier to get away with discriminating toward them since it wasn't something "they had no choice in" such as being black or being a woman etc.

It's just an excuse they try to use to justify their bigotry as not being the same as racism. Government CAN intrude for what they believe is a "bad choice" to be gay....

A sad, and blatantly ignorant, excuse to justify a bigoted point of view.

The sad thing is that this is part of the appeal of the Republicans..an oversimplified world view of almost everything. If you go in trying to explain to them the flaws in their logic, you have already lost their attention.

Still, for myself, I am glad that you guys have taken the time to make intelligent posts.

Stop the hyperbole. A person can still have an opinion on a matter, even if a election candidate.

The government already has laws (that have been upheld constitutionally) about who can marry whom (blodd relatives and minors can't, for example), nor can you practice polygamy legally, etc.

The issue of gay "marriage" is not about equality (if so, their agenda would include these same 'rights' to anyone who is single regardless of sexual orientation, even those who choose to remain celibate). It's all about societal acceptance of an accepted lifestyle choice.

On the Authority of God's Word, do I state that it is a choice....it is an abomonation unto God, do you know what that means? God gives you free will to make your choices, but there are consquences at the end of the day...make no mistake about it.

Gimme,

Actually it is about equal rights. It's not just the right to marry. It includes medical rights, inheritance rights, adoption rights....

In many states we can not adopt. In my state it is still on the books that I can be fired for being gay. You can't be out in the military. It's difficult if not impossible to have your loved one in charge of you medical rights is you are unable.

In many cases it just takes one contentious family member to to block a long term partner from anything. How would you feel if you were unconscious and your husband/wife were cut off or thrown out because a your parent or sibling didn't like them?

NacioS 5.4: Even were your god business not made up, the Constitution explicitly states, and is backed up by multiple Federal District, Appeals and Supreme Court precedents, religious opinions have neither merit nor standing on any statutory issue. Besides that, because god assertions cannot be proven, they cannot be enforced by law and cannot withstand challenges in a court of law. So, make all the noise you want thumping your Bible. Once your delusion is tested in court, it'll necessarily fall moot, and for good reason. The only choice applicable in your argument is that of following religion: you choose to worship mythical entities. You choose to make life choices based on magical thinking. You have no right to force others to enable your delusion or in any way behave as if they agree with you.

And, that applies equally to all the other religion elitists spouting ignorant inanities.

Awww, Mark, that is horrible. You can disagree with someone's point of view, or their life choices, but for heaven's sake, don't wish them all dead just so you don't have to deal with it anymore.

as the greaseman says, georgia gal, somebody been using that thang

@Mark - I'd like to know if you consider yourself a Christian and/or a moral person. If not, that's one thing. However, if you base your beliefs on Christianity (or some other religion) and/or morality - you are sadly lacking on both fronts.

Funny, you're questioning somebody on morality all the while supporting homosexual acts.

Wow! These are people's children! This could be your child!! That is the most offensive thing I have ever read! YOU sir are the abomination!!!

Let's also keep in mind that suicide IS a self-induced act. Murder is murder, whether of someone else or yourself. Tragic and preventable, nonetheless. When society seems to let anything "fly", more and more images, talk and precendent is showing others that suicide is a valid/acceptable way to "check out."

Gwaarin needs to come out of the closet already.

Funny, you're questioning somebody on morality all the while supporting homosexual acts.

I find it funny that you are more concerned with someone supporting homosexuals than you are of someone supporting the suicide of homosexuals. It really shows that your facade of morals is a corrupt one.

Gwaarin needs to come out of the closet already.

But he has to concentrate so hard to fight the homosexual urges. Don't you think that he's earned the right to stay in the closet? After all, it's only thanks to his tremendous strength and will that he's managed to not be gay, or rather not act upon those urges.

It is a sham that a lot of people do not understand that the gays do not chose to be gay. I knew a boy once that was gay , and very pretty should have been a girl. He was well adjusted with it. His Mother accepted him as he was. Beautiful blond hair, blue eyes fair skin. It was a shame he couldn't afford the operation to be a girl. He would come into the dress shop after hours a couple times a week and try on cloths. We talked a lot. Very intelligent young person. He didn't chose to be gay it was clearly genetic. I know a boy that is trans gender, his was a very normal boy hood, but had a very dominating Father and Mother that was always trying to protect him from the Father . To complicated to put in a few words. It left him with mental problems and he became a trans gender. A lot of times they become gay or trans gender because of family and the way they are treated as children, have mental problems. Some are genetic . But no matter why they are different it is not up to us to judge, but to accept them for the person they are. If you do not like their life style you don't have to go with them or be friends with them. If you look at the person and see a good person you like then be friends. Easy solved. As you chose friends you don't look at how they have a different life for picking a partner, you look at the person. No I don't think it is a choice, as it is a hard one for them. Accept the person not how they pick a partner. It is not our place to judge anyone. No I would not vote for anyone that was against any religion, race or gender factor.They couldn't care about people and we need people in high offices that care about the people.

Mary: You had me up until you said, "it's a shame he couldn't afford the operation to be a girl." You seem open minded, so I will try to help you understand that "cross-dressing" is not ALL gays. In fact, if you had read Dear Abbey for enough yrs., you would know that MOST of the cross-dressers are HETEROSEXUAL MEN.; it's their WIVES who are writing to Dear Abbey, NOT them.

A trans-gendered person is, for some as yet medically unexplained reason, someone who feels they should have been born the opposite sex. They are a small minority. The vast majority of gay people do NOT want to change their physical sex. The vast majority of gay people do NOT cross-dress; only the more flamboyant ones who do are what you see.

And I've yet to meet a gay person who CHOSE to be gay.

Hope this helps a bit!

Gwaarin: Religion has created needless, gratuitous and bogus classes of immorality in order to control the flock. The intrinsic meaning of morals pertains to how behavior helps or hurts others. What one does with ones self is inherently morally neutral because it involves nobody beside the first person. Religions have demonized some of the most basic human needs, regardless of their necessity for psychological health, in order to more easily control the flock. Demonizing sex in all its forms was a singular stroke of nefarious genius. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with masturbation, for instance, and scientific studies show that regular masturbation ensures fresh and viable gametes for better success in times of actuall procreative intercourse. (Move over Galileo, I'll bet it'll take the Vatican more than 400 years to come to grips over that one!) Further, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong between two consentual, un-related and unattached adults having sex, wether they're the same gender or unmarried or any other description. Religious positions on sex, contraception, and a host of other dogmatic issues are anachonism, archaic, dysfunctional in that they solve no problems because the actualy difficulties they're meant to address just don't exist any more. Overall, religious dogma leads to separatist tribalism, gratuitous stress, engenders self loathing, is anti-social in its institutionalization of codependence as a lifestyle.

TinyBarb, people like Mark and Gwaarin would hate their own child for being gay. They'd probably wish that they'd commit suicide just to save face in the eyes of their bigoted associates.

abolish taxes

TinyBarb, people like Mark and Gwaarin would hate their own child for being gay.

I haven't said anything about hate, have I?

Because I disagree with homosexuality, you see that as hate.

You say I'm intolerant. Look at you go!

But he has to concentrate so hard to fight the homosexual urges. Don't you think that he's earned the right to stay in the closet? After all, it's only thanks to his tremendous strength and will that he's managed to not be gay, or rather not act upon those urges.

LOL....Making fun of people....we're in high school again.

Ahhhhhh Gwaarin, we're not making fun of you, buddy. We actually feel sorry for you since you have to fight so hard against the gay urges, you know, since it's a choice.

Okay...I came across pretty sadistic with that remark. I was making fun of the you vote for Buck and you are killing these LGBT teens"

" Anybody who pulls the lever for this man, or Carl Paladino in NY, is also pulling the trigger of the gun in the mouths of every suicidal LGBT teen in America"

I was showing how bad the concept of Nick's statement was by playing the devils advocate, although when Nick's veiw was restated from the other side you all thought I was terrible.

Hey, Nick started it!

Const Rights, to answer your question, No.

I am an agnostic.

Tiny Barb, I do have children. Raised two boys. Both are Hetero, thank goodness!

Look, I do see sexuality preference as a choice. I feel as passionate about that as people that see it as genetic.

I find homosexuality to be a dysfunctional part of modern society that must be tolerated in order to sustain a democracy. I do know some LGBT and most of them are very mixed up individuals.

Mark, you sound more mixed up than any of the LGBT individuals that I know, and I know many. They would never make the kind of cruel and sadistic remarks that you have. In the end, however, people like you will be inconsequential to those of us who will preserve the dignity of liberty upon which our Democracy will thrive.

Out of tough with what, Robin? I live in the real world where I see crimes of all horrible types committed. I see wicked, lying politicians trying to sell us all a pack of their convenient lies. Yet, I see truth and freedom in loving all people (regardless of any choices they make), and attempting to live a Christian life, while upholding "traditional values", which I believe to be right and good. There's nothing out of touch with that at all. It's a great way to live, and I would recommend it to anyone!

mintjulip, can you define for all of us just exactly what these "traditional values" are that you and other "christians" so fondly speak of? Whose values are they? Whose traditions are they?

Just a little reminder while you people are judging all Repubs. Obama is against Gay marriage, but it's so easy to group everyone

Than how can some people, both men and women, be "bisexual", or have "flings" with a member of the same sex as an act of adultery since the spouse "isn't putting out at home"?

Just as many here are stating Republicans and Christian tradition-holders are out of touch and making sweeping generalities, so too is anyone that assumes homosexual acts can only be from a genetic trigger somewhere in the DNA?

Can be genetic or psychological. I have seen both. Not something they have a choice of.

There is absolutely no statistical proof to back up your nonsensical ramblings

5th Horseman: It was gay people of ALL kinds of parents. There was even a U.S. Rep. from Ct., I think it was, who received an HIV infection from a blood transfusion as was Ryan White, from Indiana who was a Hemophiliac. The incidence among Lesbians has always been very low.

Being GAY does NOT = STUPID. The greatest % of people getting HIV today in the U.S. are black women who either get it by I.V. drugs or from their boyfriends/husbands, many of whom are on the "down low."

AIDS, a retrovirus, is not a respecter of sex, gender, age, race, etc. It is an equal opportunity disease of all.

R.N., BSN, MSN

P.S. I have a family member who has it & frankly no body knows where he got it from over 20 yrs ago-could have been being gay or doing I.V. drugs. Again, equal opportunity.

@Don, define "fascist", since you have thrown it out there. People like you display your intelligence, or lack thereof, when you throw out terms without having any idea what they mean.

When speech is used to disparage a minority it is clearly intolerable to civilized humans. So Donny boy, I guess that leaves you out. You're just a big mouthed bigot that has his right to free speech so stop whining about the lack of it. You've disproven your own argument.

I find your stupidity boring. Your twisted sense of what is right and wrong completely lacking any real standing in truth. And your attention span on que with that of a squirrel. 1) It wasn't a commercial, it is from a new Vince Vaughn movie. 2) Get off the computer, stop masturbating and get a real job. Yes, it's time for you to get out of Walmart.

Would it be acceptable to have a commercial for a movie that kept spouting that something was so "N-Word" or other derogatory name for Jews, Hispanics or other minorities? I'll answer that for you - no. People like you misunderstand freedom of speech. Nobody "outlawed" the speech. The movie producers used the statement and advertised using the statement. Are you trying to say that other people must accept offensive statements and not protest their use? The people who were offended then exercised their right to free speech and if the commercial was removed that was the choice of the programmers to do so. They were free to exercise their right of free speech and then also free to reap the consequences thereof. They decided that the consequences of the prejudicial and insensitive statements weren't worth the negative press. No free speech violation there.

Don, it is quite obvious that you have not spent any time on a college campus if you think the "left" is squelching any debate there. Unless one attends Bob Jones University, most any college campus is fertile ground for all sorts of debate and free speech. In fact, the aim of most colleges is unfettered exchange of information, ideas, and viewpoints. That is how progress is made on any topic.

I believe you are correct Gary. Mr. Buck doesn't appear to be suggesting the "choice" is a particular individual, but rather a gender. I don't think anyone's happiness has entered his mind. It would seem he would prioritize ideological conformity with a particular part of society in a person's desire to be accepted, above the individual's freedom to pursue happiness.

We allow our children many freedoms, which I believe they shouldn't have at early ages. Children want to play with the same sex because the opposite sex has "cooties". At what age should we let them "decide" they are gay? If you wouldn't want your son or daughter to have sex before the age of 16 then why would you allow them to think they are gay, because the girls cant get pregnant? And what about aids? At this age should they have an idea of sexual orientation? In our society, we are not allowed to drink, own a gun or drive until we are adults (this is a loose term I use because 18 is still not mature enough to make decisions to me). I know 30 year olds who have lived a gay life style while young and decided it was wrong later in life. I agree with the candidate above, I believe for most it is a choice (or maybe the way they were raised?)and I feel sorry for them. Why else would they try so hard to convince me that it was "ok"? And please don't bring up the Bible if your speaking of justification. I could quote verse to disprove what you say. Romans 1:24

AIDS??? Really what does that have to do with a person's sexual orientation. It is apparent that you agree with him only because you are ignorant and simpled minded like him.

Its great that you the Bible has all those verses "abominizing" homosexuality, but the Bible is the most conflicting "reference" material ever made. To quote the Bible is like quoting Wikipedia.

You believe it is a choice because you made the conscious decision to be straight correct? Which in turn means everyone is predisposed to choosing whether to be straight or gay. Am I starting to make sense to you???

Annie #14.2: Just when you think it can't get ANY dumber................! God help YOUR kids even if none are gay.

Read posts: #1.27 & #3.6. It won't change your mind, but at least you can get a little "factual" knowledge.

Annie's ignorance is typical of the gay bashers.

APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality
De-emphasizes the Biological Argument, Supports
a Client's Right to Self-Determination

The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality."

Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with "editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns"), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.

Consider the following statement from the first document:

"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."

Wow, @Cryos, judgemental much? I assume it will be OK if I make fun of you, or better yet, your kids, parents, or siblings, if they have a mannerism or two that I don't like. That's OK, right? Are you on the board that defines "freaky"?

What is the 'flaming' bit? Define it cyros. Why is it your business to judge anyone? What makes you the judge? Are you some perfect creation of God. I doubt you have a God or wouldn't be so hateful and judgmental. I hope a flaming queen is your boss some day and you have to do exactly as your told. Wouldn't that be the ultimate humiliation.

Better yet, a flaming dominatrix queen!

What puts the 'flame' in some gays, is the same thing that puts the smug sneer, on the perfectly groomed faces of the evangelicals. I find I can easily pick out either, in a crowd... It is nothing more than a comfort level, with who they are.

I happen to prefer the 'queens', they are ever so much more real...and fun! If it bothers you, that is your problem, not theirs...

Please! Please! Cryos: DO NOT GO TO MARTI GRAS IN NEW ORLEANS; FREAKY PEOPLE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

LOL @ Cryos. Sounds like he would bash his own child for being too gay. Maybe his daddy did the same to him and it just stuck.

There is no proof. If there were proof that sexual preference was genetic liberals would be putting it out there everywhere.

Instead they just scream louder thinking being obnoxious makes it true.

I will give you the "flaming" argument up to a point. How could anyone choose their sexuality without some predisposition towards it? How would you fake an erection while you are giving head to a man that you don't find attractive? There would be plenty of signs that you are faking your homosexuality.

Cyros, I doubt there are too many science labs out there trying to find the gene for homosexuality since it is not something that needs a cure. Besides there is no profit in it. This isn't an excuse, it is just the facts when there are a lot more pressing matters to research.

That being said, gentics is really complicated..and we are discovering more and more that it is not just some blocks arranged in a certain order that can affect individuals. I posted previously that there are triggers of genes..and it also depends on when these triggers activate and for how long that influence a gene. Are you starting to understand how complicated this research can get?

Bob - you really have lost it.... "state run"? When they opposed Bush on some issues, wasn't he the president and "the state" at the time?

Your logic is lacking.

If Buck can't handle an interview, he would surely qualify for Tea Party membership. That's what they all do if they can't handle msm interviews - run, hide, and only talk to powder puff interviewers. Can't stand up for themselves.... real leadership material, right?

I don't think so.

Interesting, @Bob - "state run media MSNBC". Cool. And, since MSNBC has been around for years (since the mid-90s, I believe), that would mean that Bush and his administration were running it for eight years. Odd that they became more left-leaning during his terms, since he was running it, huh? Nobody from the left, that I am aware of, has ever said that Fox News is "state run media", although there are indications that, at least at times, the opposite may have been true.

I guess the right wing's mantra is to lash out and make stuff up when you have difficulty coming up with a valid argument. Yeah, that awful leftie media coming up with set-up questions like "what magazines do you read" and "what is your stance on a current social issue" and "are there any recent SCOTUS decisions you disagree with". YOU are the one that wants media that is beholden to YOUR party so they don't expose the ignorance of your candidates.

@Bob: You're blaming the media for the question and the answer, too? That's quite far to go in this or any case. Buck said what he said, and he should be held responsible for his own words and attitude at the minimum. You aren't even holding him to that.

Responsible: a duty, obligation or burden. Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior, words, or actions. It's a good word.

If you want to know the news, read newspapers (there are still a few left). Networks care more about ratings and attracting controversy than informing the public.

Absolutely akneed! I am the very proud father of a daughter who just happens to be a lesbian. The lies, discrimination, & hatred spewed by ignorant bigots like Buck must stop. He & his kind need to realize that homophobic propaganda not only hurts homosexuals but their families & friends too. Homosexuals are human beings & deserve to be treated & respected as such. No one has the right to dictate who they love or punish them for it. That includes hate mongers, religion, & especially government.

akneed: You go girl. Read my posts @ #1.27 & #3.6.

We did nothing to influence our children's sexual orientation just as no one "influenced" ours! Hang tight!

I'm really amused at your use of the proper word "penis" in conjunction with the infantile term "pooper (sic) shooter". LOL

But to answer your question: Yes, it is a choice whether or where to "stick" your penis and whether to have one "stuck" anywhere. (Unless you're a woman, of course, in which you have no choices.) (That's not funny.) The point, though, is that just as (presumably) a heterosexual male has a choice about which teetee he sticks his peepee in (or whether he does at all) so does a homosexual male have a choice about which and whether.

Contrary to popular homophobic belief, homosexuals are no more compelled to rape every rump they see than heterosexuals are compelled to rape every woman that crosses their path. (I AM right about that, aren't I?)

It may come as a surprise to a lot of you but there are tons of men who identify as straight (and married to women) but love to have sex with men. Do you consider these individuals gay? Being gay is not all about sex!!! There is much more to it.

Way to take it to the most base level. I know many heterosexual couples that participate in back door action. The act has nothing to do with the inate physical and emotional attraction that exists.

Read comment #16.2 until you understand it. It may take a while.

And by the way, heterosexuality often involves a good deal of anal sex.

Couldnt have said it more perfectly.

a digit in the gromet

Just because you do or don't engage in anal sex does not make you gay or straight. It is who you are attracted to. Hypernoave had it right, why would someone choose to engage in a life style where they may not be accepted and are ridiculed? You are born gay. Talk to people who are gay and they say they have known for a long time that they weren't attracted to the same sex from a young age.

The other thing that is really bothering me is the support of "Don't ask, don't tell." Whether you support they gays or not, this is beyond disturbing. You don't have to support or be best friends with the person, but let them share their relationship status with the world. I can't believe these are the things people are focusing on! There are so many actual important issues. EVERYONE has the right to happiness, that is what we should be in support of, not who people find that happiness with.

The whole 'Don't ask, Don't tell' and the 'we have all kinds of other things to be concerned about' statement would be true, if, only the homosexual agenda movement didn't make such a big deal out of the issue in the first place. If it's not such a big deal, then why are so many gay activist tirelessly infiltrating the executive and justice systems to move fwd their liberal agenda, so, that one day we can all be just happy to talk about how 'Johnny just loves Johnny.' Man, I was in the military twenty-one years and the policy, Don't sk, Don't Tell, suited me just fine (African-American, BTW). I was happy not to have all of 'that' up in my face, everywhere I went...dudes holding hands and all that...come on people! There's nothing natural about it and that's my strong opinion. Pls don't give me the whole 'race distinction' thing either. I don't buy the comparison analysis between the Gay Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Mvmt of the 50's and 60's (apples and oranges). Now, if that's what you like, then do what you do, but we don't have to hear about your sexual orientation, pushed into believing that it's all natural, and be pressed to conform to the notion that 'everyones' accepting it these days and things have changed. Give me a break!

JohnB, as heterosexuals we have the advantage of being in the majority. We are accepted everywhere due to the fact that our orientation is considered normal. If we lived in a society where the opposite were true, then I cannot believe you would accept, "Don't ask, don't tell," as a suits-me military policy. Would you have lasted 21 years under such a policy? Your post reveals otherwise as you seem outspoken in what you believe. The DADT policy is asinine. If the person is serving our country the policy does not change the fact the person is gay. A heads in the sand approach is not only avoidance, but a lie. You are, obviously, anti-gay. I hold hands with my wife as I am not attracted to men. I am secure in that. People, like you, who are offended by, 'dudes holding hands,' are really the insecure dudes. That is why you dislike seeing them. Since you admit you are strongly opinionated, you immediately become part of the problem. How nice of you to be the expert and tell us there is nothing natural about it.? A man who discriminates against others he finds to be lesser humans than he is. I am sure there is a word that defines that.

John B,

I for one would never belittle what the black population had to go through to archive their rights. But I find it compelling that you have the same argument points as the whites of the 50s and 60s. "It's not natural. I don't want to see it." Ihe whies of the 50s era also didnot want blacks around their children or women. I find it amusing that straights don't want us around their children or women or men. Give me a break.

That's just reactionary and ... plain stupid!

Not really, the Dark Ages are always just around the corner if you can believe some of the archaic crap Buck believes. Sooner or later "believers" believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, that they are good and everyone else is evil, and then they decide that it is their mission to rid the world of evil. And that's when the Inquisition begins. It keeps happening over and over again throughout histroy and guys like a Buck, who probably also has a reasonable side, soon loose control over the atavistic forces they incite. Another question for Buck could have been, " Sir, on which day, date, and hour did you decide to be hetrosexual?" I would just bet he doesn't have an answer!

You miss his point, YOU can decide WHO to have sex with. So your question could be on what day did you decide to have sex with a women.

Marine,

Anyone who has homosexual family members or friends knows that homosexuality is not a choice, they are made that way the same way that others are made hetrosexual. Suggesting that they have a choice is both cruel and stupid, and for an educated lawyer and candidate for the US senate to hold such an opinion, belies a serious problem in his own makeup, a problem where he is forcing his stated opinion to conform to religion and ideology instead of the reality he can clearly see. Such people never make good problem solvers and they are dangerous because they let these false pretenses govern their lives and their decision making.