These topics are always amusing, particularly because people seem to expend so much effort on either proving that homosexuality is 'right' or that it is 'wrong'. However, most of the arguments put forward are extremely problematic, and in fact, look like people are really clutching at straws.

For example, "homsexuality has been practiced throughout time". Yes, murder and rape have also been around since the dawn of time, but that doesn't make them right or acceptable, does it?

Also "apes engage in homosexual acts". So? Apes also engage in behaviour we, as humans, wouldn't engage in or consider appropriate. One is eating their own feces (or the feces of others).

As for the whole genetic v. social conditioning thing, who cares? It might be an interesting topic in a first year psychology class, but it's one of those boring old subjects that has been done to death. Homosexuality is most likely a result of social conditioning, helped along by genetics (or, if you prefer, a dormant genetic trait, which is sometimes triggered by social conditioning). Either way, who cares?

I don't care about any person's sexual orientation or practices, so long as a) they don't shove it in my face all the time (no pun intended) and b) they're not hurting any innocent person. So be gay if you want, but please, don't try to convince us it's the best thing since sliced bread. Frankly, I don't give a s**t.

And a good weekend to all!

Cheers Leigh, it is indeed pretty obvious we're not going to be able to communicate ideas in any meaningful sense. There's no need for a retort from me, anyway, as your desperate need to classify me as someone of a lower intellect rather than go through that whole horrible process of, you know, actually considering what I have to say, speaks for itself.

Just so you know, however - my family has no problem with who they are. Thusly, I have no doubt they don't mind me mentioning my relationship to them on an anonymous forum where no names are used and no privacy can possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be breached.

Let me know next time you actually want to talk about the topic at hand - maybe we'll give it another go someday. If you can handle talking to someone with a disability.

I mean...disability? Ouch. Someone needs a nap.

Gekko - I didn’t point out those things as a defence for homosexuality being 'right', rather as my passage of reasoning for considering the term 'unnatural' to be completely inappropriate.

That's the other thing that annoys me, the 'I don't care what people do, just don't shove it in my face'. Aside from the obvious fact that the shoving of homosexuality into straight peoples faces is not a particularly common occurence in my experience, I might remind people to view it from the other side: we genuinely do see hetero culture celebrated everywhere we turn - magazines, tv, music, fashion, so on. This is a good thing, and so is the celebration of homosexuality. Dig?

Spendocrat “the term 'unnatural' to be completely inappropriate”

Read my previous posts then hear this

Homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.

It requires abnormal coupling in a manner deviant to that required for procreation, the basic reason for sexual union (although these days not the only reason).

I would never consider ostracizing someone because they are homosexual.

However, embracing someone socially and respecting their right of choice and fulfillment in their personal relationships is my way of suggesting “tolerance” works better for everyone than “intolerance” for those who were previously locked up for being unnatural or abnormal.

Snout, your three initial postings here are a neat summary of progress in solving the apparent paradox of why homosexuals haven’t simply died out. My first thought was to wonder why you didn’t publish them as a single article on OLO, but having read through the responses, I’m no longer wondering.

Should it be demonstrated that homosexuality has an evolutionary purpose, the intolerant views here would be compromised, indeed untenable. So even investigating the causes of homosexuality is seen as a challenge to those who irrationally condemn it. Eventually an explanation for homosexuality will be found, though I won’t be surprised if it turns out to be two explanations (hello Laurie), one for men and one for women.

Fortunately there’s some evidence that the younger you are, the more tolerant you are http://snipurl.com/sc8b, at least with respect to gay people. With any luck it won’t be necessary to wait for an explanation to discredit the intolerant people’s views: they are the ones dying out.

Indeed, I’m encouraged by the fact that respondents whom I normally associate with less tolerant and more conservative views have taken the position that ultimately the causes of homosexuality don’t matter – most important is being able to live happy and fulfilled lives.

Sorry I can’t add anything to help you answer your question. However, thanks for putting it, and for framing it so well.

Many other species engage in homosexual acts even when the opposite gender is available.

Homosexuality has been observed in birds, beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, oranguta, ostriches, penguins etc.

I firmly believe that homosexuals are born that way. Most could no more engage in heteresexual relations than I could in a homosexual act.

I am close to a family of 4 females and 3 males where all 3 males are homosexual.

When my children reached an age of curiosity, I advised them that it's hard enough to be "normal" so why would anyone choose to be homosexual? Therefore, they are to be viewed in the same vein as anyone else.

An experimentation on exposure to the nasty chemical dioxin revealed "that dioxin appears to interfere with the testosterone levels and permanently alters the distribution of androgen receptors.

"Dioxin's effect on testosterone may alter sexual differentiation of the brain during early developmental stages when male hormones imprint the brain for male-mating behaviour, male-type response in the hypothalamus and male-type biochemical response to chemicals such as LH (?). Dioxin's precise effects on testosterone remain to be determined.

"Dioxin exposure, even in single doses and at very low concentrations may seriously disrupt normal reproduction in humans and animals."

Since dioxin is persistent and bioaccumulative by invading the entire food chain from industrial and some natural sources, I would suppose that the older one is during pregnancy, the more dioxins one has accumulated. It is reported that one exposure to dioxin will take at least 7 years for the body to expel the chemical.

This could explain why younger brothers may be more prone to being born homosexual.

Of course it fails to explain the practice of many "respectable" heteresexual males who insist on sodomising their wives, whilst calling homosexuals "shirt lifters!"