"Particular factor" is a point you seemed to have missed. There could be many factors involved. Were they also talking about non-genetic factors in that context? And they are not analogies, they are examples of developmental changes one natural (ambiguous genitalia) and one where the cause is known and indisputable (Thalidomide- as an example of external or environmental non-genetic factor). Brain sexualisation is quite possibly developmentally regulated (as opposed to genetically regulated). However, it is true that we don't know nearly enough about the brain yet but it cannot be ruled out.

As for "cures" for homosexuality, that's disputable. Particular behaviours can be avoided by "therapeutic techniques" or even training. Even rats can be trained. But does that actually change the underlying inclinations? The Catholic Church would probably say yes, a molested choirboy or pregnant widow may not. There is a great deal of societal pressure to be "normal", and in that context you will also notice the phrase "motivated individual".

The only problem with using the word 'cure' is that you tacitly seem to be saying that it's some sort of disease, or abnormality, which also implies that the cause is somewhat out of the control of the individuals in question. That doesn't seem consistent to me with what you appear to be thinking is merely a 'lifestyle choice'

It’s great that you’re engaging this issue, CJ and Bugsy, but what we’re seeing is just repetition of straw issues that have been dealt with in this discussion already. If I too may repeat myself:

“On sites like narth.com and "Americans for Truth about
Homosexuality" http://snipurl.com/gw7v3 there is no
shortage of people claiming that (a) homosexuality is a
pathology that (b) can be 'cured.' This claim has been dealt
with elsewhere (for example
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm ). When
claims about the 'curability' of homosexuality are raised in
a debate about gay rights, to me the most disturbing aspect
is the underlying assumption that it's a justification for
denying civil rights to homosexuals. Left-handedness is
'curable', but long ago we realised that the success rate was
extremely low and the cost to the individuals concerned
was unacceptably high. Obesity is curable, but we don't
award civil rights according to Body Mass Index.

Of itself, the homosexuality-is-curable argument is utterly
disreputable, but it would be illuminating to hear from the
people who use it why they single out homosexuals for the
denial of civil rights, while ignoring a host of other 'curable'
conditions. “
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#140156

They never did explain why 'curable' homosexuals deserve fewer rights, while 'curable' left-handers get the same rights as everyone else.

Because there are no reputable arguments against equal civil rights for same-sex-attracted people, those who nonetheless would deny us equality can only dump straw issues into the discussion, using lies and base prejudice as “evidence.” The steady, inexorable spread of same-sex marriage through one jurisdiction after another shows that ultimately the homophobes will not prevail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Current_status

To all those who have been supportive through this discussion, heartfelt thanks. For those driven by “an automatic, visceral rejection of homosexuality,” I hope that the inevitable coming of equality for same-sex-attracted people brings you the realisation that embracing diversity of all kinds (not just homosexuals) will greatly enrich your lives.

<”Are you saying that the APA got it wrong?
If so, where is your proof?
Stormbay has earlier claimed on this thread that "we are psychologically born with our sexual preferences".
The APA quote refutes that there is any factual basis for making this claim.
I'd previously quoted Peter Tatchell to refute the gay gene theory.”>

The APA don't have it wrong, there is no gene associated with homosexuality and they don't refute my claim at all. It's your lack of knowledge, understanding and desire to manipulate things to suit your fantasies. Read this article published by the APA, it will lead you to other relevant articles which don't support you at all.

http://www.psychologymatters.org/hooker.html

You clearly have no idea of the difference between genetics and Psychological attributes, which have little to do with your genetic inheritance. We don't know how we arrive at our psychological makeup, outlook and preferences, nor how we choose which sexual orientation we undertake for our lives. There is some evidence showing we are borne with hetro/homo/bi, psychological makeups of varying degrees, some have even more variations. Something which I would agree with. If we understood those things, we still may not be able to change them. Why would we want to, if they are no more harmful than another sexual orientation, which respects others right to be, without harassment.

I do belief this thread is about homosexual marriage, not genetics, an attack, or accusations on those who are different psychologically. One of the main reasons homosexuals have a problem with their sexualities, always revolves around the ideology they were brought up in, that's the only real conflict and it's just as illusionary as the ideology.

Stop wriggling, KMB, it's not a good look.

>>Pericles, Are you saying that WND inaccurately quoted the American Psychological Association? If not, then what is the relevance of what you're saying? Are you saying that the APA got it wrong? If so, where is your proof?<<

For a start - as I said - I cannot believe for a moment that anyone, even a body as august and respected as the American Psychological Association, could have been stupid enough to suggest that full-blown, unequivocal homosexuality is transmitted genetically, hence my surprise that someone suggested that they had changed their mind.

Incidentally, it is not up to me to prove or disprove. I am making an observation and stating an opinion.

Peter Tatchell is of course making his own observations (also without "proof", you will notice) from the position of having been gay as long as he can remember. But his view is that

"Sexual orientation appears to become fixed in the first few years of life. For most of us it is very difficult, if not impossible, to subsequently change our sexual orientation."

I'm not quite sure whether this supports your position or undermines it - can you help me out perhaps?

In fact, quite apart from the obvious - that you are afraid of homosexuals, that they might somehow pose a threat to you, and need therefore to be "cured" - what is your position? Because, leaving your own fears aside, there really is no reason not to accept homosexuals as fully functioning members of society, is there?

Or if there are such reasons, could you please state them clearly, without trying to hide behind your layman's interpretation of journals that are clearly beyond your comprehension.

The assertion by KMB that homosexuality can be cured is total rubbish.

That there are a handful of documented cases where individuals have learnt to curb their acting on their sexual preferences, (generally where the huge conflict between the prejudices inherent in their religion and their nature caused huge distress), but very few cases where their sexual preferences have actually changed

Pericles,

<<I cannot believe…that…the American Psychological Association, could have been stupid enough to suggest that…homosexuality is transmitted genetically>>
Here’s the APA being stupid:
"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html
APA has now backed down from this position.
<<there really is no reason not to accept homosexuals as fully functioning members of society>>
Is not the procreative function an important one in any society?
If so, then by definition homosexual behaviour excludes one from being fully functioning.

Woulfe,

<<embracing diversity of all kinds (not just homosexuals) will greatly enrich your lives>>
Embracing diversity of ALL kinds (including incestuous relationships? Or do you exclude them and on what basis?) will greatly enrich your lives.
“of course it's an arbitrary line (between legalising homosexuality and legalising incest)"…CJMorgan
"Ethically speaking there's nothing wrong with homosexual or incestuous mating"…stormbay

Shadow Minister
<< The assertion by KMB that homosexuality can be cured is total rubbish>>
“empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients” Maxmen, JS & Ward, NG.
Hmmm, whom should one give more credence?

- Life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 20 years less than the average Canadian man;
- GLBs commit suicide at rates ranging from twice to almost 14 times the general population (2-14xGP);
- GLBs have smoking rates ranging from 1.3-3xGP;
- GLBs become alcoholics at a rate 1.4-7xGP;
- GLBs use illicit drugs at a rate from 1.6-19xGP;
-GLBs experience depression at rates ranging from 1.8-3xGP;
- Homosexual men comprise 76% of AIDS cases and 45% of all new HIV infections;
- GLBs are at higher risk of lung and liver cancer;
- Homosexual and bisexual men suffer higher rate of anal cancer than heterosexual men 90xGP;
- Lesbians report a higher rate of breast cancer;
- GLBs experience verbal and physical abuse at a greater rate than most Canadians.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051403.html

Hmmm, I’d be looking for a cure if these pathologies were statistically linked to my behaviour….

http://ww2.cdph.ca.gov/programs/aids/Documents/HIVAIDSMergedMar09.pdf

and the beat goes on….

http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/health_equity/sexual_orientation_disparities_report.pdf