Discrimination of any kind is a bad thing. this is an indisputable fact.

Having said that, it is also true to to say that most discrimination is caused by the perception of one group towards another.
In the ensuing information/propaganda exchange received and supplied by all groups, further mythology is generated.
The gap between the truth and reality increases even more.

In any free society we would not discriminate against people making lifestyle choices,
providing those choices were not anti-social or destructive.
This of course is a basic tenet for any civil libertarian, "but when apportioning rights regarding people making lifestyle choices
it is important that the facts remain relevant".

In the case of the Gay debate we are asked to accept the proposition, that a gay gene exists.
No proof exists of the existence of such a gene. This is the fact.

We are expected to accept that 5/10% of us will possess this gay gene.

The percentage of people making gay lifestyle choices in a normal society have
throughout history been much much lower than that, and today are much lower than that.

Historically (in the absence of science enabling people living gay lifestyles to generate children),
the very absence of available science must have limited the amount/contribution
the gay gene has made to the overall gene pool by using the logic associated with this argument. I think this is unlikely.

I think it a disproportionate view of reality to accept that people are born gay,
without absolute proof of that?. Is it discriminatory of me to even say this?
I hope not, as a committed civil libertarian.

Gay lifestyles should be accepted as part of a normal framework of a normal society.
I don't have a problem with this. But then I ask myself the question,
"At any time in history pre science has the gay contribution/expertise to mankind been
well represented in the area or child rearing and descendancy".

I'm not sure that's correct?. Are their any figures on this ?.

What gives people an individual soul?

"I think it a disproportionate view of reality to accept that people are born gay,
without absolute proof of that?. Is it discriminatory of me to even say this?
I hope not, as a committed civil libertarian."

It is not discriminatory it is just an opposing view and asking questions is not a constraint of liberty. For many parents of a gay child there are often signs from a very young age even if those signs are not fully articulated or understood or even set in concrete. This suggests a biological mechanism rather than a social one but either might be possible without more extensive study/research. Maybe some people are gay or bisexual for other reasons but even if that were the case, as a civil libertarian you would bestow that right for one to live as they choose using the no-harm principle. Regardless, the fact is gay people exist and that is a form of evidence - it is what it is.

"At any time in history pre science has the gay contribution/expertise to mankind been
well represented in the area or child rearing and descendancy".

We wouldn't know as there would be no data. Given the historical attitudes to homosexuality many gays would be married but living a lie, many went into the Church. Gay people are present in many different occupations and have contributed just as any heterosexual has contributed. Sexuality does not influence the ability to 'contribute'.

"In the ensuing information/propaganda exchange received and supplied by all groups, further mythology is generated.
The gap between the truth and reality increases even more."

That is certainly possible in any debate but the fact is homosexuality has been around for centuries. It is not a peculiarly modern phenomenon which suggests something more at work than purely social/nuture factors. Moreso when you consider the dangers inherent in being openly homosexual even risk of death in medieval times.

"In the case of the Gay debate we are asked to accept the proposition, that a gay gene exists."

Not at all. You are asked to accept the proposition that sexual orientation is likely to have a biological basis and is not just a 'lifestyle choice'.

Not all phenotypic characteristics have a heritable genetic basis, eg. a 'gay gene'. There are plenty of phenotypic characters that are developmentally controlled or at least developmentally influenced. For example, nutrition is one factor that can have a great effect on brain development. Physiological stress in the mothers womb can also exert effects on development. Epigenetic mechanisms can also create phenotypic variability independently of genetic 'hardwiring'.

Please stop thinking that just because something may have a biological basis it must be genetic, or that if it's not genetic it must be a conscious 'choice'. This is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy.

Thinker 2 are you saying that gay people "choose" to be sexually attracted to the same sex?

I'm glad Pelican that it is OK to pose the question. And their is no doubt that homosexuality has been part of human relationships historically. However I think the importance of this is overstated, the proportions exaggerated and the real truth about this disappearing into the distance.

What are childhood gay tendencies?, do they even exist?. Gay Myth 2.

In my own case at 11 yrs old, I found myself in professional theatre. Would my soprano voice and acting ability be considered evidence of gay childhood tendencies. Not by me or my society at that time.

In todays media some advocates of the gay cause would have us think that gay children are naturally more artistic or sensitive than non-gay children and should be encouraged.

Going back to being 11 again, the last thing on my mind at the time would have been contemplating my sexual orientation, even though cast into a situation that was among some really talented inspirational and wonderful people (who were really nice to me inc the gay ones) at the time.

Do todays 11 yr olds get to think about the things 11 yr olds normally think about?.
I'm concerned that childhood is being sacrificed for advocates and interest groups.

I challenge the notion that sexual orientation has anything at all to do with artistic ability
or sensitivity in the human organism. Any more than it would in the community at large.

The percentage of gay people with artistic ability is probably about the same
as the rest of us.

And Bugsy in recent news there have been reports of substances now banned in
Australia that are pesticides known to affect the birth cycle and mimic the female
hormone oestrogen. This has been in the food chain for a long time.
Equally there is a chemical used to harden plastics of equal gravitas, toxicity, nature etc yet to banned in this country.
It is used in the manufacture of babies bottles.

I will look for links on these subjects.

Rudy and Stg can I post again re your very curly questions ?.

thinker

I don't think that homosexuality is evident because of artistic ability, or that more homo's are sexually artistic than straight people.
I do think however that when a person comes out of the closet, looking back, there may have been some evidence that offers some explanation, to ease the human mind at least. Like a mother saying "so that's why he liked ballet." There has to be reasoning for a sense of sanity I think.

I also think there are more homosexuals in the present because it is widely becoming accepted and fear of rejection is not so certain anymore.

I know a boy who I could tell was gay at the age of 10. Why? because he felt like a little girl. That is how his brain worked, his self image was female and butching him up wouldn't change a thing. He would still be gay. Being gay is definitely not a conscious decision or choice of lifestyle. The only choice is to be honest with yourself or live a life of misery as a straight human being.

"I don't think that homosexuality is evident because of artistic ability, or that more homo's are sexually artistic than straight people. "

hmm.. I mean

""I don't think that homosexuality is evident because of artistic ability, or that more homo's are MORE artistic than straight people."

For instance a boy tapes Britney spears and watches her videos over and over again. He grows up and get married and nothing is though of it.

The same boy, only he grows up to come out of the closet at 20yrs. Mum looks back and thinks "I should have known" because he watched Britney Spears.

I think that because at the back of the mind, people still see being homosexual as something "not normal" or wrong in a way, they have to justify the sexual orientation with "signs" from their childhood.

A tom boy being a lesbian or an artistic boy being gay. These are folktale reasons or signs of the kids sexuality.

Word has spread and now an artistic boy may in some cases be discouraged because a parent/s don't want him to be gay.

Without homosexuality explained scientifically, it is justified with childhood behavior or preference. A reason for being gay has to exist because people wont accept 'just is' for something seen as abnormal, however subconscious the thought.

Quote: Discrimination of any kind is a bad thing. this is an indisputable fact.

Survival over rules any indisputable fact.

right.

Lets lynch the infertile women and Mr Blank Shooters too, surely their inability to reproduce grants the breeders right to discriminate.

Survival overruling and all.

Don't forget that homosexuality is present amongst animals as well, and is extremely common amongst quite a large number of species.

*Physiological stress in the mothers womb can also exert effects on development.*

Bugsy, that is what it seemingly comes down to. A book called
"Brainsex", covered the scientific studies done, some of it in
East Germany. They got to the point of creating gay rats, by
fiddling with hormones affecting the developing brain of the
fetus, at critical stages of development.

Things like severe stress of the mother can affect those levels
in the fetus, at critical points, altering sexual inclinations etc.

But as all of this was not considered very PC, pressure was put
on people not to publicise too much.

Ha ha. Yabby's now blaming mothers for their gay sons. Hey Yabbs, it's the 21st century now.

Rudy brings me to Gay Myth 3, that homosexuality is prevalent in the animal kingdom.

I wondering if Rudy's cat is contemplating whether or not he or she is gay?

Preposterous, in fact this phenomena is highly unusual in the animal kingdom.
Pigs have been known to use this practice as a form of predation or showing whose boss.
I don't think think there is actually any preference issues going on in this instance.
And no piglets have been born as a result of this practice.

As illustrated in above instance, any such evidence touted of cognisant homosexual social practices in the animal kingdom
are interpretive advocacy at best.

Once again the Mythology is practically pious.

Rudy, show me where I claimed that the mother was to blame.

Do you actually read what others write?

Whether or not sexual orientation is affected in the womb remains to be seen. I was just using this as an example of non-genetic biological changes affecting development. Although there does seem to be some evidence for a fraternal birth order effect. Nothing conclusive as to whether this has a biological or social cause though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation

Either way, this doesn't indicate a conscious choice on the part of homosexuals. Behaviour is a choice, but one that is affected by orientation, which isn't. Homosexuals can choose not to engage in homosexual behaviour, but that doesn't make them not homosexual.

thinker 2, I wouldn't bother looking up pollutant oestrogen mimics with a view to making a connection with homosexuality or brain feminisation. The Japanese tried that a few years ago, when their rebellious teenagers started dressing funny and looking a bit foppish.

Easy Yabbs. Here's what you wrote about a rat experiment in that scientifically advanced hot spot East Germany, "Things like severe stress of the mother can affect those levels in the fetus altering sexual inclinations". You then went on to say this is all not very PC. What you're clearly 'implying' Yabbs is that mothers determine the gay sexual orientation of their children because of stress while pregnant. You're blaming mothers.

Thinker2 you also need to enter the 21st century. I see you're a homosexuality in animals denier. Read this and get educated
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Those that argue that some are born as homosexuals are left with the dilemma that some are also born with a bent towards kids. You can't argue one without the other. Then again secularism is full of hypocritical holes.

Where's the "dilemma"?

Some people ARE born with a whole lot of predilections.

That's life.

*What you're clearly 'implying' Yabbs is that mothers determine the gay sexual orientation of their children because of stress while pregnant. You're blaming mothers.*

I am doing no such thing. Mothers are in fact blameless, because
they have no control or even knowledge in the most part, of
their endocrine systems. Nor do they commonly have control of
the amount the stress and trauma in their lives, if others
inflict it.

Before spouting off and smartarsing Rudy, perhaps you should go
and read what was written about the topic in the original literature
that I quoted. Or at least try to think before you comment.

Nice "try" at getting out of the hole you dug for yourself Yabbs.

You're implying that mums are to blame. You quoted the East German rat experiment, extrapolated that to your "PC" comment, and by inference implied that the mother's stress during pregnancy results in gay children. Blaming the mother, blaming her biology, blaming her ability to cope because of stress. You're blaming, blaming, blaming the mother, mother, mother.

Ah Rudy, this is what happens when schoolkids like yourself
jump to conclusions, before informing themselves properly.

If you'd read the information, you'd know why there was a PC
problem. It had nothing at all to do with the mothers.
But it did have something to do with experiments conducted in
East Germany. conducting human trials might have been acceptable
in East Germany, but not in the West.

I've explained the rest, but its clearly over your head. Fair
enough, that is your problem.

If you want to quote the 21st century and science rudy, at
least inform yourself about the information available.

But Rudy, by saying "Some people ARE born with a whole lot of predilections", who are you blaming?

Specifically Rudy I was referring to the toxic chemical in the link below

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australia-joins-other-countries-in-banning-endosulfan-20101012-16ht7.html

I read your links and thank you for that information. It sounds that the scientist concerned in the animal study has an advocacy slant rather than conclusive evidence and as I have explained these explanations are more interpretive than factual. Any other studies.

I commenced this discussion to suggest that advocacy of Gay causes is overly fashionable
these days and over represented in the media and I wonder how this is of benefit to the vast majority of children in the world.
Hungry or needy children for example just wouldn't have the time to consider their sexual preferences at 10. Although they may have to endure the predatory behaviour of another's orientation to survive.

I don't think questioning one's sexual orientation has a lot to do with growing up at all or even has a place in growing up. We all in fact grow up when the time arrives and we do this through physiology without any helpful suggestions or advocacy from interest groups or others. All in our own good time.

Because of this simple truth I am inclined to believe that a percentage of people choosing gay lifestyles have indeed learnt this behaviour. Physiology itself determines that humans cannot procreate through same sex contact and hence this is natures primary primordial reason for humans being attracted to the opposite sex.

It's not necessary to advocate, mythologise, advertise or promote etc it just happens for obvious reasons.

Good-by. You can have your little site back.

There you go...Pat pat pat.

Now you can rule/bullsh@t all you like the customer you are. smile.

Well done.

TT

Runner
"Those that argue that some are born as homosexuals are left with the dilemma that some are also born with a bent towards kids. You can't argue one without the other. Then again secularism is full of hypocritical holes."

Pedophiles are born with this..they are sexually attracted toward children and can't help it
Just like gays are sexually attracted to the same sex and can't help it. The notion of attraction to the opposite sex is like the notion of you being attracted to the same sex..impossible right.

The difference being pedophiles want to have SEX with CHILDREN.
Gays want other CONSENTING ADULTS.

thinker2

A percentage may be gay because of their upbringing...but only a percentage.

Homosexuality is practised very frequently in the animal kingdom incl many apes cats (lions) and other group animals. So much so that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is far more common than monogamy.

Should we declare monogamous relationships as unnatural?

Thank you for acknowledging the probability of learn't of taught behaviour amongst the Gay Community Nicnoto.

And Sm the Myth I'm referring too is the Myth that animal behaviour has anything to do with sexual preference. And it may even be a fact that monogamy is uncommon in the animal kingdom because they are animals.

If monogamy has anything to do cognisant or higher concepts such as love, loyalty and devotion then you would have to know just how much these lions and apes love each other to be able to accurately determine just how much their sexual preference has anything to do with their animal behaviour.

It's preposterous as a proposition. My own male dog (not desexed) is always ready for sex
and if the odour of a female dog in season were applied too a box of tissues,
my dog would most likely attempt to inseminate that box of tissues.
Could this be interpreted as my dog having a preference for boxes of tissues?.
I don't think so.

And should the behaviour of lions and pygmy monkeys be used as a suitability model for human behaviour?. Why?. Couldn't we just continue to make decisions as the dominant species for ourselves?. Without influence, advocacy or mythology, about the gravitas or importance of any over represented interest group.

Finally why not accept sexual freedom?. Once again as a civil libertarian I think that it is important that "the small freedoms", such as sexual freedom be placed in context and understood, whilst "the big freedoms" such as the freedom to have free or independent thought are stifled and rapidly disappearing with hardly anyone seeming to notice or care at all.

"Couldn't we just continue to make decisions as the dominant species for ourselves?. Without influence, advocacy or mythology, about the gravitas or importance of any over represented interest group."

Indeed.

Finally something I can agree with.

*And it may even be a fact that monogamy is uncommon in the animal kingdom because they are animals.*

Believe it or not thinker 2, but science has already examined that
question. It is all about pair bonding and yes there is a gene
for it, which some species have, some don't.

Pair bonding makes perfect sense for those species, where extra
resources are required to raise the offspring. The work done was
on prairie voles. Unlike their cousins the kansas voles, prairie
voles are faithfull critters, even when tempted with cute and
younger female voles. What it came down to with the males, was
vasopressin receptors in certain part of the limbic system.

So do some humans carry the same gene? Quite possibly, we can't
really test it, for we can't just send radioactive substances
down human veins, as we can with prairie voles. But it would
explain alot.

As to sexual attraction, clearly its not just about choice and
so called free will. There are instinctive factors at play,
which we do not choose. The human brain is more complex then that.

If it were just about free will, then we could take the person
whom we find instinctivly repulsive and with a sheer wish, find
them attractive. It just ain't that simple I am afraid.

Nicnoto <"A percentage may be gay because of their upbringing...but only a percentage."

Where on earth did you get that idea from Nicnoto?
An evangelical christian website perhaps?

I can't imagine ANY upbringing that would 'encourage' anyone to be gay if they weren't born that way.

My godson was the first child of three to my best friend and her very homophobic, religious husband.

At no time in his early childhood did my godson even have an idea about homosexuality. He was educated at a strict Anglican school, and went to church every sunday with the family.

At the age of 4 he was noticeably feminine in manner and actions.
He preferred the company of girls all his childhood and teens.
He had trouble making male friends.

He finally 'came out' at 19 years old to his shocked family.
But no one else was shocked at all.
We had known he was gay from a young boy- before he even knew what that meant.

How can that have happened do you think?
He was born with homosexual genes- that's how.

Suz...but those who 'knew' he was 'gay'... also would know that his condition was by no means 'normal'...right?

While such a situation should be compassionately approached..if that kid popped up when he is 30 and tries to get homosexuality taught as 'normal' in the kindy where my grandaughter goes..he would have a very passionate 'enemy' in me.

By using the word 'condition', are suggesting that homosexuality is a pathology?

"Where on earth did you get that idea from Nicnoto?
An evangelical christian website perhaps?"

No Suz, I am entertaining that it may be possible (in SOME instances, where a person is homosexual) that a child's upbringing may have played a big part in the person being gay.
For instance a tom boy who is encouraged to wear boys clothes, hang out with all guy friends and play all the sports she can, could have something to do with them being gay.

I'm not stating it as fact, but these are the big things we don't know. I am only agreeing that the idea may be possible.

suzeonline
"How can that have happened do you think?
He was born with homosexual genes- that's how"

The fact is, you don't know what he was born with, genes, a chemical imbalance, improper hormone doses in the whom, brain dysfunction or maybe his souls identity is that of a woman, nobody knows.

Until there is scientific proof of what makes a person homosexual, we can't really dismiss other possibilities. Another thing to think about is not all homosexuals are the same. gay is not just gay, there are different types of gay and that could mean different factors into making them gay.

I see that when Nicnoto tries to explain reasons for homosexuality some of the terms he uses are brain dysfunction, a chemical imbalance, improper hormone doses.

He's 'already' made up his mind.

Note Bugsy’s comment early on. He identified a false dichotomy that is causing confusion so it deserves repeating.

”Please stop thinking that just because something may have a biological basis it must be genetic, or that if it's not genetic it must be a conscious 'choice'.” (or that if it is not a conscious choice it must have a biological basis)

Samsung,

“I see that when Nicnoto tries to explain reasons for homosexuality some of the terms he uses are brain dysfunction, a chemical imbalance, improper hormone doses. ”

Wasn’t it Yabby who believes based on a book that homosexuality is the product of hormones stuffing up before birth due to stress?

Yabby,

Have you checked the studies referred to or just read the book? Naturally it crosses my mind that this human subject PC explanation in the book might be the excuse for the studies being inaccessible. If so isn’t the corollary that the credibility is questionable if we can’t check.

“Couldn't we just continue to make decisions as the dominant species for ourselves?.”

Further, by doing the comparison with the animals in the article it seems to imply that homosexuality in humans is also “a social phenomenon”? It is normally no more “a social phenomenon” than heterosexuality. Don’t you know that some human adults have the orientation and are not attracted to the opposite sex?

(The last quote is from Thinker 2 not Yabby)

samsung

I'm female thank you, and don't even try to assess my mind. Your last assumption of my gender already proved incorrect.

If you weren't so one sided, you could see I am entertaining all possibilities as an explanation.
Including possibilities that you or anyone else may find offensive.

*Have you checked the studies referred to or just read the book?*

MJPB, I read the book, but its an extremely well known book and
is fully referenced. Some of the references on this particular
section go back to papers published in the german "Endokrinologie"
of the 80s. You are free to dig them up if you wish :)

The book was reprinted 12 times by the time I got my copy, but
I gather more have been printed and its still available. It dealt
with the scientific understanding of the biological differences
between men and women, as known at the time of its publication.

Fact is that because its such a non PC and controversial topic,
funding for this kind of research would be hard to find for any
scientist.

But if you read it, see what is known about experiments with other
species etc, it makes far too much sense to ignore the information.

It was also produced as a tv series, for the BBC, IIRC.

The thing is, endocrine systems in all mammal species are
very similar. We know that we can change both human behaviour and
appearance, by the use of hormones. That is extremely well
documented.

Nicnoto, the fact that you so willingly accept the possibility of homosexuality being biologically abnormal, via your "brain dysfunction/chemical imbalance/improper hormones" comments, shows where you are coming from.

Homosexuality is NOT a biological dysfunction, just as heterosexuality is NOT a biological dysfunction. Homosexuality is a biological function, just like heterosexuality is a biological function. Homosexuality is common amongst animals, and common amongst humans. Homosexuality is perfectly natural and normal, just like heterosexuality is perfectly normal and natural.

Homosexuality doesn't feel natural when practiced by a heterosexual, just like heterosexuality doesn't feel natural when practiced by a homosexual. Homosexuality is NOT a biological dysfunction IF you are homosexual. Heterosexuality is NOT a biological dysfunction IF you are heterosexual.

Do you get it now?

Willingly accept?

I think you're confused, do you have scientific proof that homosexuality is not a dysfunction? If not, then it can't be dismissed as a possibility, that is all I am saying.

Evidence suggests that the existence of nature is to procreate, therefore two breading pairs are biologically suited - a male and a female. So yes, heterosexuality is not a dysfunction...agreed.

You seem to think I am declined against homosexuality and have come out bearing arms.

Homosexuality is common in animals, but research shows that when given the opportunity, the animals tend to leave that homosexual "relationship" when presented with a mating partner of the opposite sex.

"Nicnoto, the fact that you so willingly accept the possibility of homosexuality being biologically abnormal, via your "brain dysfunction/chemical imbalance/improper hormones" comments, shows where you are coming from."

And where am I coming from?

I AM ENTERTAINING THE POSSIBILITY.... do you get it now?

No, you're doing more than merely "entertaining the possibility". You're going deeper than that. You're advocating that homosexuality is not quite right, that something is wrong biologically with an individual if they are sexually attracted to a member of the same sex. By using the term "possibility" you're providing for yourself a convenient way to manoeuvre.

In WW2 some Nazis thought that Aryans were biologically superior to the blacks and Jews and others. To them, if you weren't Aryan then it was "possible" that you had improper hormones, a brain dysfunction, a chemical imbalance. After all, they believed that science had not proven that this wasn't so, therefore they considered that they had open minds.

Homosexuality has everything to do with hormones, brains and chemicals. It has nothing to do with "IMPROPER" (your term) hormones/brains/chemicals.

Do you now get it?

Isn't it often said that the probability of Godwin's law applying something that increases with thread length? This is only 8 pages.

You're playing on my words.

Like I said, you have no scientific proof that homosexuality is not due to a chemical, hormonal, DYSFUNCTION/IMBALANCE/WHATEVER.

I say dysfunction because the function of nature is to reproduce MALE and FEMALE.

You can't rule it out without evidence.

Before the thread is filled with gay right activists freaking out at my posts, twisting what I say into something unmeant, can I just inform everyone that I am a very happy lesbian.

Having said that, I am open to believe that ANY explanation for homosexuality, given it is backed up by scientific evidence is possible.

Brave girl Nicnoto (if what you write is true)!
Good luck to you now :)

I don't like to think that my gay godson is 'abnormal' or 'dysfunctional' in any way.
He is a very intelligent young man who has a lot to contribute to society.
I believe he was 'naturally' born as a homosexual male.

The fact is the Bible only condemns the practise of anul sex among men as unclean and an abomination in society. It is the act that is condemned even as the act of adultery, the person in a wholesome society is to abstian from such practises. A person who wishes to maintain a wholesome society would not commit such unclean acts.

suzeonline,
How did you determine your godson was born homosexual? This appears to be a scientifically unfounded statement. He would not have any desire for anul sex at birth.

Philo, I take you then approve of anal sex between a man and a woman. If that's not so, please show us where in the bible it specifically states that "anal" sex between a "man and a woman" is wrong.

samsung,
My wife worked for a gynecologist in Cornell University Hospital USA as a senior nurse in midwifery, and in his lectures he identified that bacteria and viruses being excreted by the anus was the cause of many gynecological problems in women. It was important that the two were kept separate. In fact he forbade his staff from wearing briefs while working with the women as they could contain faeces.

The most suffers of HIV / AIDS engage in anus sex for casual pleasure. Those men who engage in anus sex with a man then have sex with their wife spread sexual disease. Does your wife approve of you engaging in anus sex with a man then expecting sex with her?

The anus was not constructed for sexual pleasure and those that do in both male and female have the highest incidence of perforated bowel.

Philo,

"How did you determine your godson was born homosexual? This appears to be a scientifically unfounded statement. He would not have any desire for anul sex at birth."

Obviously sexual behaviours and sexual attractions are something that start much later. I believe she was inferring that he was predisposed to develop a same sex attraction from an early age based on his early behaviour. This was presumably camp-like behaviour or stereotypically feminine behaviour. That behaviour she stereotyped with adults with same sex attractions. Because she and others interpreted his early behaviour as consistent with later behaviour she has inferred that he was born the way she believed him to be when he was young.

By contrast Nicnoto expressed the theory:

“I do think however that when a person comes out of the closet, looking back, there may have been some evidence that offers some explanation, to ease the human mind at least. Like a mother saying "so that's why he liked ballet." There has to be reasoning for a sense of sanity I think.”

The corollary is of course that if a boy liked ballet and ends up heterosexual noone bothers to look back.

Suzeonline seems to confirm the theory with:
“He finally 'came out' at 19 years old to his shocked family.
But no one else was shocked at all.
We had known he was gay from a young boy- before he even knew what that meant.”

If everyone thinks someone is something you’d expect they would eventually work it out and believe it themselves.

However in spite of this I’m sure that there is better evidence around that one can often identify someone who is likely to later develop a same sex attraction early on.

So rather than being homosexual from birth; because they exhibit some femenine traits they are identified as homosexual by their peers, parents and society so they are supposed to engage in homosexual acts. Though they they are able to father children in a hetrosexual relationship their peers divert them to believe they are to perform anul sex.

I have a young friend a ballet dancer currently studying dance in Switzland. His rugby peers identify him as gay though his family has identified him as man and he likes girls. He has three elder sisters who took up ballet dancing but have diverse interests one plays competition soccer with the girls.

My step grandson has been told from an early age that he is gay by his gay mother. He still claims that he is in fact not gay. One day he may eventually relent, considering the pressure he faces when not exceeding to the expectations of those around him. And if excluding him from the activities he enjoys has anything to do with it, more pressure.

In my boyhood experience, whilst not having any particular problem with gays (that I couldn't handle), I found them to be enclaving in the workplace. Elton John tells us that Rufus Wainright (whilst no Leonard Cohen) is the worlds greatest songwriter. Maybe the worlds greatest gay songwriter because you can count them on one hand.

Suzeonline has illustrated the point of my post by most likely providing her value's or wishes/predeterminations in the formation of her Godsons persona, rather than the other way around as so brutally and realistically described by Philo.

Begging the question asked by Philo that as yet remains unanswered.
Is this a scientifically unfounded statement.
I'll answer that.
No it's not scientifically founded it's pure conjecture.

In our extended family theare are three gay relatives, all part of families where all other siblings are heterosexual. In our rather large mainly Catholic influenced family, the percentage is a minority. The father of one was a tyrannical control freak and left the family when they were teens. However, all the other members of the family are not homosexual.

We can umm and aaarh all we like about what makes someone gay - biology, genes, environment - fact is gay people exist. We should not ostracise them or demonise them just because there is no scientific evidence to suggest what 'causes' homosexuality.

What if the answer is hormonal or genetic, what if it is proven to be some environmental influence - would that change the way we perceive homosexuality.

From my own personal experience, I tend to believe it is biological to a large extent having known some gay people as children and young adults - where there was always a question mark over sexuality. We cannot of course rule out environmental influences particularly if there is already some sexual ambivalence. But the environment is our natural world and we have to live in it, even if there is an infuencing external factor it suggests a biological possibility otherwise there would be no such thing as homosexuality. It is not a new phenomena having been recorded throughout history, which also suggests that it is not a new trend and something over which one has no control.

It is only an opinion but I fail to see how anyone can choose to be homosexual just for something to do. Perhaps some people might experiment, while not necessarily being gay but this is different to homosexuality. Given the wide range of heterosexual sexual activity we shouldn't try and pigeon hole too much the choices of homosexuals.

Swinging couples has never been my cup of tea but some like it, is that biological too or environmental? Maybe a bit of both but either way we don't usually hear stories about swinging couple bashings but we do hear about gay bashings.

Sadly in my own life experience, family friends whom were wonderful normal catholic parents allowed the older sister conduct the affairs of much younger siblings in a communal bath throughout their childhood.

The male siblings grew into gay men, both now deceased one assaulted,one suicided The older sister whilst (still alive) has a history of deviance and relationship issues.

Another female sibling also suicided later in life, I don't see the romance in this, nor to I feel comforted when people don't except the truth that most gay behaviour is learnt or taught.

The parents did this to save money. I still feel their pain.

I sympathise thinker 2, that is an awful situation.

However sexual abuse does not automatically determine homosexuality as a rule otherwise many women I have met through my previous work would be lesbians. Perhaps in some cases sexual abuse leads some to homosexuality where there is already ambivalence. Who among us really know as there is no strong scientific evidence one way or the other.

Correlation is not evidence of causation. What about all the homosexuals who were not abused? What influenced or determined their sexuality?

I don't claim to know but I think we do a disservice if we make up blanket rules about people to suit our own prejudices or experiences. It comes down to the 'do no harm principle' and issues of personal liberty. Homosexuality like heterosexuality is about two mutually consenting partners.

And on that we absolutely agree pelican.

I once worked briefly in a situation where several males from the company worked in the forest and during the day engaged in homosexual acts as pleasure, and these men went home to their wives at night. Homosexuality is a sexual act by two males not a sterotype of an efeminite person. Ask bikie gangs if they have male members sex orgies.

Lumberjacks can be like that, Philo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zey8567bcg

Thanks Suz

I think it's time to realise that obviously there each homosexual has a different story.
Some women can't stand the thought of being with a man, some are men haters because of abuse, some are just men haters, some want to be men, some feel masculine, some feel feminine, some just want to experiment.

Some gay men want to be women, some are blokey blokes and happen to be interested in other men, some grew up in their older sisters clothes,some grew up in a conservative family, some need a sexual release when away from their wives.

Some kill themselves, some find someone to be with in high school, some come out of the closet after they have created a family, some spend their lives alone, some flaunt their sexuality, some you wouldn't even know are gay, some are understanding and accepting, some are biased themselves.

Each case is different, if you ask suzeonline's grandson why he is gay, he would most likely answer 'I just am' or 'that's who I am'
not 'because my parents didn't want it'

But that is him, not every gay is the same so generalising all homosexuals will always generate a disagreement.

Nicnoto,
Very true! Not all people are the same or have the same story; which indicates it is not at all genetic, like maleness or femaleness. To identify a person from birth that they will prefer anul sex because they are effeminite is socially wrong.

All I know is that for one percent of the population they make a lot of noise,
not to mention putting a disproportionate strain on the healthcare system:
http://www.gcn.ie/Survey_One_Percent_of_UK_Openly_Gay_or_Lesbian
http://www.medindia.net/news/Study-Finds-One-Percent-of-UK-People-Openly-Gay-or-Lesbian-74544-1.htm
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iwO7-BLBo8nsPZltG4Mo-_pzXwhg