Elton john wants....

[anitram]

And comparing blacks to homosexuals isn't smart either. I know you're doing it to take a jab at me, but a lifestyle and a race are two different things. Don't use them to try to make a counter argument.

Really?

Where is the black gene? Chromosome and locus, please.

 

[indra]

Apples to oranges, indra.

How so? Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both sexual orientations, so if one is chosen then the other must also be chosen. So I repeat the question -- when did you decide to become a heterosexual?

 

[coemgen]

It's not up to me to prove that burden. Noted anthropologist, Margaret Mead, was able to disprove the old axiom that teenage rebellion was genetic by finding a non-Western culture that had no teenage rebellion whatsoever. In other words, "an exception to the rule" disproves the rule completely.

I didn't say there were exceptions to the rule exactly, I just didn't say all homosexuals are that way because of those two reasons. I'm sure there are other environmental reasons.

For what it's worth, anthropology doesn't believe that a "gay gene" will ever be found, believing that we're all inherently bisexual, after long observations of non-Western cultures. A cursory glance at ancient Greece and Rome would probably confirm that too.

I'm not willing to base anything on a cursory glance at history.

On the other hand, the fact that there are people who are exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual tends to leave a gaping hole in their argument for inherent bisexuality.

Yes.

Your views on homosexuality are colored with Freudian stereotypes of psychosis and mental illness (which is precisely where you got those notions of sexual abuse and distant fathers from), which, when stacked up to the sum total of human knowledge, is an aberration in itself. Rest assured, though, those Freudian theories on sexuality were disproven long ago, and homosexuality hasn't been listed as a mental illness since the early 1970s.

That's not actually precisely where I got the notions of sexual abuse and distant fathers -- that came primarily from the homosexuals I've known or met in my life, or those I've heard speak who are not homosexual anymore. I've also read it in a few places. Also, I never said it was a mental illness. Again, that's putting words in my mouth.

Methinks someone needs to take a cultural sensitivity course, if you can't see why I would find that insulting.

If you're referring to the terms "blacks," that's actually the preferred term. I'm a reporter so I rely heavily on the Associated Press style guide. When writing stories, it tells reporters/writers to use the term "black" over "African American." This is the guide newspapers and magazines use across the country.

 

[coemgen]

How so? Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both sexual orientations, so if one is chosen then the other must also be chosen. So I repeat the question -- when did you decide to become a heterosexual?

I believe we're born heterosexual. I believe there's a purposeful design to the penis and vagina.

 

[UberBeaver]

So instead of hating gays we need to hate the religious now? Gah. Noted.

Is any keeping a log of this? I friggin never know who I'm supposed to hate week to week. Jesus.

 

[Ormus]

I didn't say there were exceptions to the rule exactly, I just didn't say all homosexuals are that way because of those two reasons. I'm sure there are other environmental reasons.

So this is an excuse to deny homosexuals marriage rights then? Because *some* of them might be gay for "environmental reasons"?

I'm not willing to base anything on a cursory glance at history.

A cursory glance of history will reveal plenty about the nature of homosexuality. An in-depth study of history will more than confirm that nature several times over.

That's not actually precisely where I got the notions of sexual abuse and distant fathers -- that came primarily from the homosexuals I've known or met in my life, or those I've heard speak who are not homosexual anymore. I've also read it in a few places. Also, I never said it was a mental illness. Again, that's putting words in my mouth.

"Heard speak who are not homosexual anymore." Should've known you got infected by the "Focus on the Family" crowd. Those are the exact two arguments that Dobson uses to explain the existence of homosexuals: sexual abuse and distant fathers.

Never mind that both arguments are considered nonsense in the eyes of credible psychology and psychiatry. Like I said, go to a U2 concert sometime and you'll probably find that half the arena is full of heterosexuals who had experienced either sexual abuse or distant fathers. In fact, look at your average television sitcom and you'll find nothing but distant fathers. That is, after all, the stereotype of the heterosexual father.

That's why your argument and the entire underlying philosophy of the "ex-gay" movement is nothing but crap--and why credible psychologists and psychiatrists formally dismissed these exact same arguments nearly 35 years ago.

If you're referring to the terms "blacks," that's actually the preferred term. I'm a reporter so I rely heavily on the Associated Press style guide. When writing stories, it tells reporters/writers to use the term "black" over "African American." This is the guide newspapers and magazines use across the country.

I think Elton John was right. Religion should be banned completely.

 

[Ormus]

Here's why I laugh at the entire concept of "ex-gays," BTW:

From the point of view of ex-gay groups, a change in the sexual behavior of an individual from homosexuality to either celibacy or heterosexuality is generally regarded as "change," irrespective of any actual change in the underlying sexual orientation. Many ex-gays live celibate lives. Although the wisdom and moral necessity of doing so is hotly contested, the capacity of homosexuals to do so if they so choose is not disputed. Other ex-gays marry opposite-sex spouses and remain faithful to their spouses within their marriages. As a matter of morality, it is generally regarded that the spouse must be made aware of one's past and/or ongoing struggles with same-sex attractions before the marriage takes place. Some married ex-gays acknowledge that their sexual attractions remain primarily homosexual, but seek to make their marriages work anyway.

Because of the way that ex-gay groups regard homosexuality and because of the way they define the term "ex-gay" itself, "relapses" into homosexual behavior are hardly surprising to ex-gay groups. Since one may be "ex-gay" without having experienced a total, or even any, change in sexual orientation, that some ex-gays may "fall back" into "old patterns of behavior" is seen as something to be expected. Ex-gay groups regard embarrassing exposures of their leaders engaged in homosexual behavior in the same way that an Alcoholics Anonymous or similar group might regard the exposure of one of its leaders to have taken up drinking again.

So, basically, these people are "heterosexual" in the way that Brad Pitt can be "homosexual" in a Hollywood film: they're pretending.

 

[coemgen]

So this is an excuse to deny homosexuals marriage rights then? Because *some* of them might be gay for "environmental reasons"?

No, it's because they're all environmental, not just some.

A cursory glance of history will reveal plenty about the nature of homosexuality. An in-depth study of history will more than confirm that nature several times over.

That doesn't mean it's natural.

"Heard speak who are not homosexual anymore." Should've known you got infected by the "Focus on the Family" crowd. Those are the exact two arguments that Dobson uses to explain the existence of homosexuals: sexual abuse and distant fathers.

Actually, I destest Dobson. I'm in no way a Right-wing Christian.

Never mind that both arguments are considered nonsense in the eyes of credible psychology and psychiatry. Like I said, go to a U2 concert sometime and you'll probably find that half the arena is full of heterosexuals who had experienced either sexual abuse or distant fathers. In fact, look at your average television sitcom and you'll find nothing but distant fathers. That is, after all, the stereotype of the heterosexual father.

Credible psychology and psychiatry are claiming there's no evidence of a gay gene either. Also, I didn't claim all people who were abused or neglected become gay.

That's why your argument and the entire underlying philosophy of the "ex-gay" movement is nothing but crap--and why credible psychologists and psychiatrists formally dismissed these exact same arguments nearly 35 years ago.

Then why are these people happy? (And no, I don't mean gay. )
Why are they glad to be out of the lifestyle? Why do they go places speaking about their change?

I think Elton John was right. Religion should be banned completely.

Like I said, I'm not even bringing up religion in my reasoning for this. Nor politics.

 

[coemgen]

Here's why I laugh at the entire concept of "ex-gays," BTW:



So, basically, these people are "heterosexual" in the way that Brad Pitt can be "homosexual" in a Hollywood film: they're pretending.

It's not as simple as pretending.

 

[Ormus]

It's not as simple as pretending.

Yes, it is. It's pretending. It's putting on a show, pretending to be someone you're not. The underlying sexual orientation is completely unchanged, and while they're pretending to have sex with their wives, all they can do is think about men.

That's not "ex-gay" anything. It's window dressing to fit in with a group of people who have nothing but vile contempt for everything about you.

 

[Ormus]

No, it's because they're all environmental, not just some.

Pray tell, who do you cite for this nugget of wisdom?

That doesn't mean it's natural.

Homosexuality occurring in nature isn't natural? Better tell those gay penguins to pray to Jesus then.

Actually, I destest Dobson. I'm in no way a Right-wing Christian.

You're citing from his play book, whether you know it or not. Those are, nearly word-for-word, arguments that he has used, and, as a result, he's the most prominent figure in "ex-gay ministries."

Credible psychology and psychiatry are claiming there's no evidence of a gay gene either. Also, I didn't claim all people who were abused or neglected become gay.

There's no evidence of a straight gene. Science can confirm that. And, yet, it stands to reason that sexuality has a genetic component. In fact, it would have to have one, considering that, until the third month of pregnancy, all fetuses have a uterus, ovaries, penis, and testicles, regardless of whether they are XX (female) or XY (male). It then takes a complex series of hormones that must fully coordinate with a series of genes with both the mother and child in a narrow window. If there are genes missing in either the mother or the child, or certain hormones are not released at the exact narrow window, you're going to have demonstrable sexual variance with the intersexed population in the most extreme situation.

This is the likely origin of sexuality, mind you, and would fully explain why sexuality is both natural without a "gay gene" and still unchangeable.

Then why are these people happy? (And no, I don't mean gay. )
Why are they glad to be out of the lifestyle? Why do they go places speaking about their change?

Because they are craving for approval from their elders. They grew up in highly Christian households, their parents hate them to death for being gay, and they would rather march through hell and back than be hated by the same people they were told to respect growing up.

It's the equivalent of a Minstrel Show.

Like I said, I'm not even bringing up religion in my reasoning for this. Nor politics.

Unfortunately, most of these arguments have (pseudo-)religious origins.

 

[anitram]

Credible psychology and psychiatry are claiming there's no evidence of a gay gene either.

I ask you again, where is the black gene? Chromosome and locus, so that we're, you know, accurate.

 

[INDY500]

By AMANDA ONION

Dec. 14, 2005 — In a discovery that begins to shed light on what makes one person brown and another white, scientists have identified a gene that appears to be a key player in human pigmentation.

People share 99.9 percent of the same genes, yet pinpointing the very minor genetic variations that cause skin-color differences long has been a mystery to scientists. This discovery, published in the journal Science, marks a significant step toward understanding what's behind the panoply of human skin tones.

Cheng's team found that people with the normal form of the gene SLC24A5 had brown skin, while fair people of European descent carried a modified form of the gene that led to having fewer and smaller pigment packets, known as melanosomes.

Not the same thing as "a black gene" of coarse, but interesting all the same.

"Skin color is not race, race is a much more complicated concept that involves culture, religion and where your parents are from. It's an important part of society, but it's not about pigment alone."

Isn't it likely that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture as well?

 

[anitram]

Well, that was what I was trying to get at. I don't think you can say that because something does not have a defined gene, it doesn't exist. coemgen was arguing that there is no gene for homosexuality, therefore it is a lifestyle choice. Wrong. Because there is no gene for being black (the article you posted refers to a pigmentation gene which isn't absent in the white population, it is simply slightly modified in structure).

Race is biological and has a social component. I would venture a guess the same is true of homosexuality and a number of other traits as well. That much should be obvious.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Really?

Where is the black gene? Chromosome and locus, please.

The distribution and frequency of polymorphisms can show distinct trends in populations at the scale of broad geographic down to tribal levels, those differences influence more than melanin and they should be given consideration. Saying that there are differences does not make any one population inherently better than another; they are just suited to different niches. The idea of a pure racial population is a fallacy. Homosexuality does seem to have a significant environmental component (in utero through to upbringing) but the same cannot be said of the genes derived from ancestory.

Because there is no gene for being black (the article you posted refers to a pigmentation gene which isn't absent in the white population, it is simply slightly modified in structure).

Doesn't selection also act upon variant traits? Just because there is no single gene for population differences doesn't remove the underlying genetic basis for those differences.

Human sexuality is a complex issue, it is and deserves to be an active area of investigation. There is social conditioning involved and perhaps that can be viewed as choice, did they ancient Greeks have exceptionally high proportions of gay genetic variation during the days of pedestary or was there a social situation that encouraged that sexual attraction?

 

[AcrobatMan]

Elton John has a valid point.

 

[Ormus]

Isn't it likely that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture as well?

There's no underlying and unifying correlation. Gay people exist in a wide variety of cultures, a wide variety of parenting, and exist regardless of how approving or disapproving their environment is. And, indeed, there's certainly some repugnantly anti-gay environments out there.

"Skin color is not race, race is a much more complicated concept that involves culture, religion and where your parents are from. It's an important part of society, but it's not about pigment alone."

Well, this starts sounding like an existential discussion than actual science. And that's fine. We talk about Judaism as if it is a race, and we only say this because of its unifying culture and religion, and some people might be apt to make a derisive comment against Condi Rice or Taye Diggs because they don't "act black," despite clearly having all the physical traits.

But again. This is philosophy here, which is generally irrelevant to our topic here. At its most basic, race is genetic for the sheer fact that each child is automatically granted a pigment color that genetically represents that of their parents. It's thought that races didn't exist 80,000 years ago, which is the time period of the second African migration that we all descend from, but that evolutionary pressures selected these races, due to its crucial importance regarding UV and Vitamin D. That is, black people would've died of Vitamin D deficiencies in Europe's cold, relatively sunless climate, whereas white people would've died of skin cancer and possibly a Vitamin D overdose in Africa.

 

[Ormus]

Human sexuality is a complex issue, it is and deserves to be an active area of investigation. There is social conditioning involved and perhaps that can be viewed as choice, did they ancient Greeks have exceptionally high proportions of gay genetic variation during the days of pedestary or was there a social situation that encouraged that sexual attraction?

The problem with these arguments is that it doesn't explain why there's gay people in some of the most virulently homophobic places in the world like Iran, the Palestinian Territories, or Alabama. What "social conditioning" did these people arise out of?

 

[anitram]

Doesn't selection also act upon variant traits? Just because there is no single gene for population differences doesn't remove the underlying genetic basis for those differences.

I think you're missing my point. I was merely saying that if coemgen is relying on the fact that "there is no such thing as a homosexual gene" in order to argue that homosexuality is not a biologically occuring trait, then he should extend that (faulty) argument to race as well.

Obviously genetic composition is not a matter of single genes alone, and even not a matter of variance without them looked at out of context. The level of expression of gene products, for example plays a role. That is why coemgen's argument makes no sense, not in terms of molecular biology anyway.

 

[coemgen]

The lack of a gay gene was only part of my arguement anyway. Like Awanderer said, it deserves more investigation and there are people who say environment can be a factor.

 

[Ormus]

The lack of a gay gene was only part of my arguement anyway. Like Awanderer said, it deserves more investigation and there are people who say environment can be a factor.

Right. So, basically, you're just coming up with any old excuse to justify your prejudice.

"It deserves more investigation." That line is as full of crap as when people say that a nuclear power infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cells would take "20 years to build." In other words, it will never be built. And, in other words, no amount of "investigation" will ever be enough.

Yep. Elton John seems quite prophetic.

 

[coemgen]

Thanks for calling me prejudice. I appreciate your labeling me.

If you go back to my first post in this thread, you'll see I said "I don't think gay marriage should exist -- at this point."

That means I'm open to it, once there's a definitive answer that gay people are actually born that way. If that comes up tomorrow, so be it. I mean that.

And why bring up Elton John's point again -- I haven't used religion to argue this point. I don't think you can use religion to argue against gay marriage. It doesn't work. That's why I haven't even tried.

I have nothing against gay people as people. I'm just asking this to be looked at more. I don't see why that makes me a bad person or someone who's predudice. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

 

[Ormus]

Thanks for calling me prejudice. I appreciate your labeling me.

If you go back to my first post in this thread, you'll see I said "I don't think gay marriage should exist -- at this point."

That means I'm open to it, once there's a definitive answer that gay people are actually born that way. If that comes up tomorrow, so be it. I mean that.

And why bring up Elton John's point again -- I haven't used religion to argue this point. I don't think you can use religion to argue against gay marriage. It doesn't work. That's why I haven't even tried.

I have nothing against gay people as people. I'm just asking this to be looked at more. I don't see why that makes me a bad person or someone who's predudice. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

And speaking of the ad infinitum...(sorry...an allusion to the other thread here on this subject)...

I called out your prejudices based on several of your comments here:

There's no proof of homosexuality being genetic (Johns Hopkins and others have found no proof at least). If it's not genetic, then it's developed some other way. The sad thing is, many people who are homosexual were sexually abused or had an emotionally distant father. With this in mind, I can make the argument that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it cements a relationship that's based on something unnatural. I'm not using the word sin here and I don't have to quote the Bible to make an arguement. If anything, the Bible has pushed me to love homosexuals as they should be loved -- as humans like the rest of us.

Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions somewhere (and feel free to clarify if I have done so). The bold-faced region, essentially, is as offensive to homosexuals as using eugenics to explain why black people are more apt to commit crimes than white people. That's why I called out a prejudice on your part, unintentional perhaps.

 

[Ormus]

That means I'm open to it, once there's a definitive answer that gay people are actually born that way. If that comes up tomorrow, so be it. I mean that.

And one more thing. Why does this matter to you? There's no definitive answer as to the origin of heterosexuality, beyond some egocentric notion of "normal."

This is generally where I get offended by Western notions of "discovery." That is, until white heterosexual Westerners declare something to be so, then it is "undiscovered." The New World ends up being discovered by Christopher Columbus or, more generously, the Vikings. No, it was discovered 10,000+ years ago by Asiatic peoples that we now call "Native Americans." And now we're busy "discovering" all their traditional medicines with some condescending attitude that they just kind of threw together some weeds and didn't know what they were doing. Now it's up to "us" to let them know the "goldmine" that they were sitting on.

That's pretty much what you're doing here. It isn't enough that many gay youth understand that they're attracted to the same sex before they even knew that homosexuals ever existed. Or that anthropology has a wide body of examples that show that same-sex attraction is worldwide, regardless of the "nurture" aspects.

No. I guess we're all just supposed to wait for "whitey" to reinvent the wheel for us stupid minorities, and I'm not getting any younger, you know.

 

[coemgen]

Wow. You really like to make it personal, huh?

If people are offended, I'm sorry. That was not my intention. However, that's how I feel. Call it what you will. Let's just assume for a second, if that's possible, that it's not natural. That it is something learned or something developed abnormally. That doesn't seem fair to let people get married based on abnormal behavior and urges. I don't see any ounce of logic to that. And, once again, I'm not judging these people as people. I'm not saying they're horrible people.

Also, like I've said in a previous post, I know gay people who were sexually abused or had a horrible father figure. There's no prejudice there -- it's fact. They've told their stories to me. I've also read and heard stories of other homosexuals with similar backgrounds. You say it's just some right wing crap, yet the stories exist. How can you argue against that?

 

[coemgen]

And one more thing. Why does this matter to you?

As a voter, it means everything. It means my decision either way.

It isn't enough that many gay youth understand that they're attracted to the same sex before they even knew that homosexuals ever existed.

This proves nothing.

No. I guess we're all just supposed to wait for "whitey" to reinvent the wheel for us stupid minorities, and I'm not getting any younger, you know.

Take a chill pill, dude. I'm speaking from my pesonal point of view, which isn't going to change the world any time soon.

 

[Ormus]

Wow. You really like to make it personal, huh?

Looks like plenty of people took Elton John's comments personally here, and nobody's even born with a religion. In fact, I'm considering possibly maybe commissioning a study to see if religion is genetic or just the product of sexual abuse or a distant father. If it's conclusively genetic, I'll consider legalizing it. But it will have to take more than one study. Several actually. And I won't be happy until one of those studies confirms exactly the result that I wanted ahead of time. Then we can stop.

If people are offended, I'm sorry. That was not my intention. However, that's how I feel. Call it what you will. Let's just assume for a second, if that's possible, that it's not natural. That it is something learned or something developed abnormally. That doesn't seem fair to let people get married based on abnormal behavior and urges. I don't see any ounce of logic to that. And, once again, I'm not judging these people as people. I'm not saying they're horrible people.

No, I hear you. I mean, I really like white people. Some of them are my best friends. Really. But I like to keep to my own kind. I mean, you don't know if one of them is going to get into a drunken fit of rage and try to lynch me. I see what those whites did in the South all those years ago.

No offense.

I'm glad to hear that you have a definitive "anti-abnormal behavior" stance. I'd like a nice old fashioned hetero wedding myself. You know, one where I get crowned Holy Roman Emperor after marrying my first cousin, Whortense, Fürstin von Thurn and Taxis. It's kind of funny how many relatives we have in common!

And if Jesus was going to come back today, I can only hope that He can return into the arms of the Virgin Britney and her lovely husband, "K-Fed." I'm sure that a baby will patch their holy marriage back together. Maury Povich and I can only hope!

Also, like I've said in a previous post, I know gay people who were sexually abused or had a horrible father figure. There's no prejudice there -- it's fact. They've told their stories to me. I've also read and heard stories of other homosexuals with similar backgrounds. You say it's just some right wing crap, yet the stories exist. How can you argue against that?

Oh right. How can I argue against that? You know, I love defending marriage so much that I'm considering a moratorium against opposite-sex unions here. I was watching the TV the other day and I saw all these hetero people talking about how they were sexually abused by their priests, and I'm concerned that my children will catch some hetero disease from them. You can never be too careful, right?

I think we're going to have to study it carefully, though. Lots of studies over many many years. And then when I get the study that says that heteros were conditioned to "be that way" from sexual abuse and distant fathers....well, we can make sure to stop then.

 

[Ormus]

As a voter, it means everything. It means my decision either way.

Funny. I thought we were voting for politicians, not convening a papal conclave. Can I burn the ballots when we're done?!

This proves nothing.

No....it proves nothing until a white heterosexual says it proves something.

Take a chill pill, dude. I'm speaking from my pesonal point of view, which isn't going to change the world any time soon.

Ah you misread me. I just love spending $4000 trying to immigrate to Canada, so I can be with the love of my life. You know, since the Bible says that same-sex immigration is a form of marriage rite.

Oh sorry...there hasn't been a conclusive study telling me that I can love yet. I guess I'll have to wait to see what the study says before I know what I actually feel.

 

[coemgen]

Looks like plenty of people took Elton John's comments personally here, and nobody's even born with a religion. In fact, I'm considering possibly maybe commissioning a study to see if religion is genetic or just the product of sexual abuse or a distant father. If it's conclusively genetic, I'll consider legalizing it. But it will have to take more than one study. Several actually. And I won't be happy until one of those studies confirms exactly the result that I wanted ahead of time. Then we can stop.

Let me know what you find out.

No, I hear you. I mean, I really like white people. Some of them are my best friends. Really. But I like to keep to my own kind. I mean, you don't know if one of them is going to get into a drunken fit of rage and try to lynch me. I see what those whites did in the South all those years ago.

I'm glad to hear that you have a definitive "anti-abnormal behavior" stance. I'd like a nice old fashioned hetero wedding myself. You know, one where I get crowned Holy Roman Emperor after marrying my first cousin, Whortense, Fürstin von Thurn and Taxis. It's kind of funny how many relatives we have in common!

And if Jesus was going to come back today, I can only hope that He can return into the arms of the Virgin Britney and her lovely husband, "K-Fed." I'm sure that a baby will patch their holy marriage back together. Maury Povich and I can only hope!

When in doubt, use sarcasm.

Oh right. How can I argue against that? You know, I love defending marriage so much that I'm considering a moratorium against opposite-sex unions here. I was watching the TV the other day and I saw all these hetero people talking about how they were sexually abused by their priests, and I'm concerned that my children will catch some hetero disease from them. You can never be too careful, right?

I think we're going to have to study it carefully, though. Lots of studies over many many years. And then when I get the study that says that heteros were conditioned to "be that way" from sexual abuse and distant fathers....well, we can make sure to stop then.

You want so badly to label me as a hater. Is that what this disccusion has boiled down to? You shouldn't let emotions get into a good debate. Again, as I've said repeatedly, I'm just seeking to understand it before I support one way or the other. I think that's the case for most people. There's no hatred here or homophobia or whatever you want to throw at me -- just understanding. And yes, we do vote on this matter. It's called the amendment to ban gay marriage. It's been passed in nearly every state that's put it on the ballot. Some people might've voted it down out of hatred or fear. Not me. I need to understand it before I vote for it. Right now, there's not a lot out there for me to form a conclusive opinon. That's all I'm seeking. If it's such a big issue, why isn't there a healthy debate going on on TV, in print and elsewhere? Gay people saying "I'm born this way," isn't good enough for me, personally. (Again, to stress that, it's just me. One person.) Of course, the sad thing is that there may not be healthy dialogue or discussion or an open study on it because it's all political. And yes, I'm sincere when I say it's sad.

 

[The Tonic]

I can't believe I'm still hearing this argument in the 21st century. Have you ever actually TALKED to a gay person? The fact that so-called "ex-gays" exist proves only one thing: people have a vested interest in being straight. So why would anyone choose to be gay? The fact that ex-gays continually backslide proves something else again - try as it might, a leopard cannot change its spots.

As for the nature versus nurture thing: examine the scientific evidence (assuming you haven't given up on science yet). It proves that gay people more often than not are born that way, and their brains are wired differently from straight people. Does it matter whether it's environmental or not? Would you deny someone the right to happiness because of some unchangeable part of their character, based on its cause alone?

Honestly. I can't believe I'm still hearing this argument.