. (Continued …) . « Human sexual orientation is influenced by biological, cognitive, cultural, and subcultural variables in interaction, leading to multiple types of heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals… [T]here is so much variation within each group that the chances of finding any small set of variables which will account neatly both for average differences between groups with differing sexual orientations and for variations within groups approaches the vanishing point » [Van Wyk, Paul H., PhD, and Schiro-Geist, Chrisann, PhD. (1995). Biology of Bisexuality: Critique and Observations. Journal of Homosexuality, vol 28 (3-4)] . Is sexual orientation determined at birth ? Here is an interesting list of opinions, for and against. It’s worth consulting : http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001335 .

Yes, ALTRAV, most of the time.

<<I do well enough explaining.>>

You come up with the occasional unintelligible comment, but I don't think that's been the case this time around.

<<If you don't like it tough.>>

Again, this has nothing to do with what I do and do not like.

<<Stop asking me to prove things.>>

Then stop making unfounded and demonstrably false claims.

<<I make a statement, you disagree, but you don't give me a reason.>>

Yes, I do. Every single time, in fact. I have explained to you that your reasoning is fallacious, and why it is. The ball is now in your court to either explain why I am wrong, change your line of reasoning, or change your mind. Instead, you sit here and delay with ad hominems.

<<Your attacks/response to me is as fallacious as you contend of me …>>

At no point have I attacked you. Nor has anything I have said been fallacious.

<<... or have you conveniently forgotten your comments and associated links where you accuse me of being 'fallacious' re nature and history.>>

I said your arguments were fallacious, not you. You cannot, by definition, be fallacious. You are a person, not an argument. You don't actually understand at all what a fallacy is, do you?

<<Mate, honestly most of your phsycobable is incomprehensible ...>>

At no point have I discussed psychology or used technical jargon. I'm confident that everyone here is capable of understanding every word I have said. If you can't, then that is a real problem.

<<... the rest [of what you say] is irreprehensible!>>

Thanks… I guess

Banjo, I have considered some of the points in your posts. I can see where the authors are coming from.

The one thing I am reminded of as I read them is that science is a theoretical discipline, and as such it's conclusions are not 'set in concrete'.

I must however disagree with some of the conclusions I read.

I do not believe queers suddenly decide they are so inclined.

I do believe they are born with this, 'disorder'.

To believe that a straight person 'flip flops' in and out of poofterism, is also not a valid hypotheses as it means the person does not have an instinctive propensity to being queer, but one of petulance, and changes sides as a result of conscious decision.

I know exactly such a person. Others I have come into contact with, I would say they have serious identity issues, or much deeper historical problems, such as having been 'played' with when they were younger.

I reject totally the suggestion that poofterism is 'cultural and environmental rather than genetic'.

At this point I must highlight the fact that these comments are mainly due to PhD's.

These are not to be taken as fait accompli, but are the results of someone completing an academic requirement.

These utterings have not been tested by the greater scientific community and had 100% compliance or conformation.

Banjo, even though I applaud your posts and their detail, I cannot, in good conscience agree completely with all your comments.

I'm not a PhD, but my knowledge is garnered from exposure and experience relating to most of the topics I engage in.

I will not claim to know too much about queers over the years, but as I have socialised with, and still have friends who are queers, I am satisfied that my comments come from a base of experience rather than observer.

To ALTRAV
May i challenge you again (and test your patience)on the use of the word “normal”?
When using the word normal there is an unstated understanding that acknowledges a range of “not-normals” also exist.
Some examples:
A. For many it is considered normal to have 3 meals a day – many people, of course do not.
B. A person has a normal day at work – but some days were, and will be, not normal (eg. the day the person gets the sack is not a normal day).
C. Two people may view the same thing differently – one sees a normal event the other something out of the ordinary.
If there were no “not-normals” the word normal has no meaning.
Also what is considered as normal has a habit of changing over time –
A. For many slavery was once a normal state of affairs
B. That women could not vote, or own property was at one time the normal state of affairs
Also, using the word normal, does not imply anything is necessarily wrong with not being normal -
A. An elite tennis player is not normal when compared to the tennis abilities of most of us.
B. A 7ft plus basketball player is not normal. That he or she may play in the NBL, and earn millions is certainly not normal.

In your latest reply to Banjo, you state that:

“I do believe they are born with this, 'disorder'.”

Does that belief undermine your argument as to homosexuality being un-natural?
If same sex attraction is genetically determined then same sex attraction must be “within nature” ??!!

There is a common tendency among both believers and unbelievers, to think that the idea of religion that they had been taught by the age of 12, is what religion is. I've found this developmental problem revealed in even some of the more famous commentators such as philosopher, A C Grayling, and, of course, Richard Dawkins. Nonetheless they are to be forgiven, because many of the key spokepersons for Christianity have presented Christian though in that 12 year old version. In a time when materialism, a peculiarly unbelieving philosophy or 'way of life', is at its height, the most popular christian churches are mimicries of adolescent and young adult attitudes to life. I think Marx and Nietzsche would be very disturbed to see that some churches have become even better as an 'opium for the masses' all rock and roll. Nonetheless, there are increasing numbers of people of all religions who are taking the religious ideas fully into the maturity that their founders expressed. These, mostly as yet, unseen followers, are growing in number, while their main religious expression lives in service to humanity (not such a media sexy lifestyle). It is in that religion can evoke an extraordinary response by some in building communities of service and hospitality, that religion will continue to be effective, and vital, and attract the best of humanity to its doors, as well as many who just want to be close and work with, the best of humanity. There are no specifically aetheistic models of society that inspire towards building a social model according to the best humanitarian philosophy, there are no followers, no one doing the work

Ashbo, I look forward to your posts. And yes you can 'challenge me' and 'test my patience'. I have plenty if I am to deal with some posters in particular.

Ashbo, to begin; The norms you have described are physical and social.

The norms I speak of are genetic. They relate to mental norms.

It has previously been mentioned that there are certain chemical imbalances in the brain which tend to be responsible for such things as poofterism.

As for your suggestion that same sex attraction 'must' be in nature, correct. In the same way the same sex people are attracted to each other.

It is all within the boundaries of nature, but as I have said, sometimes it throws a curved ball and that's when we get these abnormal, un-natural, results.

We must establish a baseline for this type of debate.

Let's say that 99% of the population was queer and the 1% were straight. What would be normal/abnormal, natural/unnatural?

I may not be making myself understood and I am probably using the wrong words, but I'd like to think by now everyone gets what I'm trying to say.

If your not don't waste your time I don't think I can put it too many other ways than I already have