Philo
How do you get from the fact that some societies persecuted homosexuals to the idea that it can't be genetic? They were prejudiced just as any group that will kill someone for being different is prejudiced. Face it philo the facts are against you. Homosexuality is, at least in part, genetic. All the research says the same thing.
By the way the research by zoologists I refered to in my last post stated that some rams prefered other rams exclusively, even when ewes were available & willing. I'm afraid your arguments don't have a leg to stand on. Genetic = natural. End of story. Homosexuality has a genetic factor & therefore it is NATURAL. Even if you can't accept it that remains the fact.
But you've never answered my question & I've asked it several times on another thread. What whould it take to convince you that you're wrong? What would you accept as proof? I'm betting that all the proof in the world is meaningless to you philo. That no matter what I show you you'll remain unconvinced.

Bosk,
Ive been reared and worked on farms for 39 years, I worked on animal research in Hawkesbury Agricultural College, never have I read so much nonsense. While breeding stock, Ive had two bulls penned from cows who engaged in such expressions, but put them with the cows and they would fight to the death or injury over a cow on heat. Their same sex behaviour was not genetic it was because they were restricted. No farmer who breeds animals would have kept a non breeder, [so the gene would become extinct] the gene was not a reoccurrent mutation. Young rams might express such in sexual play, but when full grown among the flock exhibit no such exclusive bonding. If such was the case their gene would not be transmitted to be reoccurrent in later offspring. It has become obvious you cannot follow natural logic.

Demonstrate how the homosexual gene is transmitted through a same sex relationship. If it is latent in the whole of the human genome, why does one child in a family become homosexual, and the others not since they are from the same parents? Note the placement in and sibling relationships and postnatal attitude of the parent to the infant, and the sexuality of other siblings. It is not linked to the gene, it is emotional bonding in infancy.

Philo
so what you're saying is if you haven't seen it then it doesn't exist? Read the literature. Don't dismiss something out of hand without examining the evidence. It's called the scientific method. Use it.
Why does one child in a family become a homosexual & another not? For the same reason that one child can get an inherited genetic defect & the other not. For the same reason that children from the same family can have different coloured hair & eyes.
Thank you for your reply though. I noticed that once again you NEVER answered what you would accept as evidence that you are wrong. perhaps because we both know the answer to that question. Nothing. No amount of evidence would convince you that you're wrong.
If I came with a billion points of evidence you would dismiss them out of hand as you did with this piece, merely because YOU had not seen it. Or refuse to discuss it.
Since this is the case, & I think I've demonstrated that now, I really can't see any further point in discussing this further philo.

Bosk,
Please explain:
Why persons become homosexual after having norman hetrosexual relationships and children?
Explain why some homosexuals remove the penis, when their genetic pool gave them one?
Please explain why some homosexuals have a fixation on children?
Please explain why some males and females have a sexual fixation on animals of the opposite sex?

I assume it can all be explained by normal genetic predetermined disposition!

Philo,
I think that Bosk’s point was that there is evidence (scientific and real) to suggest that homosexuality could be a genetic issue, as well as the nurture issue. Quite simple.

I do not think that either position is irrefutable and depending on the cases you claim, evidence will support either.

If this is the case, then each person who chooses (or is genetically driven) to make that choice is different. Again, quite simply.

At the end of the day, does it really matter? If a person chooses (or is genetically driven) to be homosexual, whose business is it? No one else’s. Again, quite simple.

Before you jump on the danger bandwagon, yes there are child molesters out there. They exist. That is not the general rule. Simply look at the number of homosexual men in Sydney. If they were all child molesters, the numbers the police would have to deal with would be phenomenal. I think it safe to say that most homosexuals revile child molestation as much as any other individual is.

In any case, the homosexual hurts no one – not even himself or herself. They choose a life and live it. Get that idea and you will not have a problem with them. Unless of course your religious beliefs say otherwise, in which case… well, that is another argument.

Bosk, my apologies if I misunderstood your point.

Maybe not the last post on this subject but my last post. It has been really interesting how the discussion has played out. I'm still frustrated how nobody seems interested in the issue of gay Muslims. In Sydney, not only CBD but Middle-Eastern Queers have started to challenge the idea that you can't be gay and Muslim at the same time. I don't know much about other cities and I should find out. Overseas, Lebanon and Egypt have active gay groups. Not that they don't have their problems (particularly Egypt). But now it is impossible to deny the existence of gays in the Arab and Muslim worlds. I believe the gay movement can play a part in liberalising the generally conservative Muslim subculture in Australia. But it would help if Howard and friends came to terms with their own anti-gay bigotry.