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.