Leigh - you haven't been called a bigot because your opinion differs. You've been called a bigot because you're bigotted.

The genetic reason for homosexuality is a curious question. Perhaps a simple conclusion to draw is that variation is essential for natural selection, and the more varied a gene pool, the stronger it is. Homosexuality could simply be a recurring variation - the genes wouldnt need to be passed on via the gay person, as they probably lie dormant in a large percentage of the population.

Or maybe I'm well off the mark...no idea. Interesting one though.

Onya Leigh :)

Isn't it amazing how "Every1 is a bigot but MEEEEEE" in C.Js. colorful little world .....

Mate.. have a peek at the Caliphate thread..and get on the phone to your 9 mates :)
If you have a chance, check out the web site http://www.caliphateprotest.wikispaces.com and see if you have any constructive advice ..which you can enter into the 'Discussion' section.

Country Gal.. very well said ! (P.s. do you have 9 friends also ? :)

Cheers all

Spendocrat,

I agree with your “no idea” confession:)

You pronouncement of my bigotry is an interesting one. Could you go a step further and explain to me how my views are based on bigotry, but your views are not? How can it be that I am bigoted, but you are not?

I’m sure that a clever fellow like you will be able to explain this to me and put me on the right track.

David,

I have saved the caliphate site for later. I had a quick look and notice that they are feeling the need for self-defence lessons. All adds grist to the mill and, if we didn’t have a cowardly do-nothing government, their “defence” training would also be looked into.

As for spreading the word, I doubt that people would listen to an old bigot like me:)

When I started this thread I was hoping to bypass the moral arguments for and against accepting homosexuality: these have been extensively shouted about on other threads, and I think most of us are aware of the positions of the various regulars on these kinds of threads on OLO (myself included). The trajectory of such arguments is that they generally devolve into insoluble arguments about personal taste, design, what God wants, and what is “natural” or “unnatural”.

Runner (and BOAZ), you’re quite correct that people have a choice about what consensual sexual acts they perform: but I’m hoping to keep the discussion to orientation rather than behavior, which is a separate issue. I don’t know if there are biological antecedents of paedophilia. Whether there are or not, I’m not sure what the connection is with adult homosexuality.

Country Gal, on the contrary, you sound like a thoughtful and open minded person whose views and beliefs deserve the same respect you are showing mine.

Porphyrin, the fact that the expression of genes (particularly those to do with human personality) is a function of their interaction with an environment is central to the hypothesis I’ve outlined. The existence of one or more gay-predisposing genotypes can be inferred from twin studies. The relevant environmental factors (and I suspect there are multiple) are obscure – except for birth order.

BOAZ, I certainly don’t exclude social factors affecting orientation – it’s just that I’m not aware of any evidence of these. The study makes clear that the older brothers thing is a biological rather than a social effect.

Philo, while it’s not possible for me to control the direction of a discussion between mature adults, there was a direction I was hoping to go with this thread, and you have hit the nail firmly on the head! I think questions of what constitutes “successful” masculinity are inevitably going to arise if an evolutionary “fraternal division of labour” hypothesis holds. It is not simply a question of homosexual versus heterosexual orientation (or the gradations in between), but goes to the heart of what is “real” masculinity

I generally don't regard people who disagree with me as bigoted - rather, I reserve that appellation for people like those who use terms like "pervert" or "deviate" for homosexuals. It also applies to religious nutters who are intolerant of any faith or worldview other than their own.

From the Concise Macquarie Dictionary:

"bigot. n. a person who is intolerantly convinced of the rightness of a particular creed, opinion, practice, etc."

Also from the same source:

"lie... n. 1. a false statement made with intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression."

I'll leave it to objective readers to decide to which prolific posters to this forum these terms are most applicable.

Leigh - I didn't think there was an explanation necessary, but if you insist: you are bigotted because you lack a basic understanding of homosexuality. You think it's perverted and/or weird. It isn't. Hence: bigotted.

Don't forget: it's been practised all through recorded human history, and only *ever* been stigmatised since...about 2000 years ago, funnily enough. Also, many of our ape cousins have been observed havin a go. I don't know how anyone could know these things and still consider it 'unnatural' in any sense that I understand the word, at least.

Sorry for being part of the tangent of the conversation, Snout.

My personal belief is that there isn't any cut/dry explanation for any persons sexual orientation/practices/desires/etc. I would say it's different for everyone...it may deeply embedded in your genes, or it may just be a case of meeting the right person.

The stigmatism of homosexuality in society certainly doesn't help us in understanding any better, of course.