50 abused homos

#1 Please for the love of all that is decent use Firefox with spell checking enabled
#2 :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

51.........

Well there are a ton of animals that have been documented as homosexuals. From fleas to sheep to giraffes. Were they all abused sexually as baby sheep? So to claim that nurture is the cause of it, you'd have to provide evidence supporting it across all the species of animals that exhibit homosexual behaivor.

As for how they procreate, there are a number of theories. In some animal groups, it's suggested that they are not as aggressive as heterosexuals, thus providing a longer lifespan. And being homosexual doesn't mean that you only have sex with men, there are tons of married men with children who are homosexual. Just ask Ted Haggard.

You can't mutate genes through acts of abuse :disgust

#1 We are talking about human homosexuality not animal homosexuality.
#2 I never said it was nurture, I just said it isnt natural
#3 Sure there may be a gene at birth, but that gene isnt common.
#4 Even if homosexuality isnt lifestyle/chosen/nurtured it certainly is unnatural.

I was wondering about that too.. I sounds like that excerpt is saying that having older brothers is the cause of men becomming gay - like some reversed oedipus complex thing..

No. They believe it has to do something with how the female body changes after giving birth to a male, and how during the pregnancy future male offspring are affected by extra hormones that the mother's body produces.

#1 We are animals. I really don't feel like regurgitating 6th grade Biology class to you, but I'm sure you can pull up some information on this.

#2 Well it's occured since the beginning of mankind. You can find homosexuality in Egyptian, Greek, and other ancient cultures. So in your mind it may be unnatural, but it is a naturally occurring presence throughout the history of mankind.

#3 Define common? Recent surveys have put the number of homosexuals between 2-5% of the population. They've also found between 10-15% of the population has had same sex attractions. So sure it's uncommon in a sense, just as type-O blood, being left handed, and having red hair is uncommon.

#4 This depends on your theory of natural. How can one describe their sexual attractions as natural or unnatural. Is it natural to want to screw fat chicks? Or have a fetish to be tied up in a dungeon and spanked? I think everyone has their buttons that turn them on sexually. To call one natural and another unnatural is difficult.

I believe youre born with a flaw that leads to homosexuality.

First you equate homosexuality with being "red haired" or "having type O blood" and on the next point you equate it to being an "attraction" or "fetish". That just completely blew away your argument. :1orglaugh

An attraction/fetish is not something you are born with, while being red haired or having type O blood is. Next thing you know you will be saying that murderers are naturally born.

Retardation is uncommon in births as well. Shall we put it on the same level as homosexuality? Fact is lots of these "abnormalities" have negative impacts on the persons life.

Homosexuality is abnormal and serves no proven scientific or natural purpose, PERIOD.

That being said I dont care who is or isnt homosexual or who is or isnt retarded, for instance I know you are retarded and I dont hold it against you.

I may be mistaken, but if something occurs in nature, doesn't that, by definition, make it natural?

nat·u·ral /ˈnætʃərəl, ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

in the "nature vs. nurture" argument, its totally absurd to say "it can't be a learned behavior, or the result of sexual/mental abuse or other causes outside of genetics"

ANYONE trying to say its 100% one way or the other is 100% afraid to explore the issue honestly... and lets be honest, there are many more reasons for a gay person to believe/proclaim its natural than not.

:2 cents:

Sure if you want to play word games but you cant argue the fact that homosexuality is preternatural, deviant and abnormal. :)

Would you like your ownage in paper or plastic?

It's not playing a word game, that is the definition of the term.

So you are saying that if you grew up in the same household as BoyAlley, you would be getting fucked in the ass nightly? That you're one different person in your life away from performing fellatio on men?

Well said :thumbsup

what BS. you can't say "naturally occuring" to explain its origins. that it existed doesn't explain why. you can only correctly state that it "has occured" - it can also be proven that it was more socially acceptable, and in some cultures even encouraged (in military for example), which can be offered as an explanation of instances homosexuality in different cultures.

I didn't say it was the same as having red hair or type O blood. I said those things were uncommon, but are close to the same percentage of people who are homosexual. You stated that homosexuality was uncommon, I'm saying that they are as common as the things I listed.

It's not? Are you saying that everyone is born the same exact way and that everything in society impacts it? That we are all born with the same taste buds and are not born with a pre-dispositioned liking toward certain tastes? That our brains are all the same and none of us have a genetic makeup that makes us prone to fight, be emotional, or any other charecteristic? That if you switched places with BoyAlley growing up, you'd be homosexual and he'd be spewing Republican talking points on a porn message board?

I don't think murderers are natually born, but I do think that their genetic makeup plays a role. I think homosexuality along with every other behaivoral quirk is a product of both your genetic makeup AND your environment.

But you feel it's based on nature which is fine. But with that thought, you'd have to believe that everyone could be changed. That a child molester can be rehabilitated, that a violent man can be peaceful, that everyone's wants and desires are strictly based on what others around them do.

The problem with your arguement when pertaining to homosexuality is you have no reason for why it occurs. You say it's nurture not nature, yet you can't find any natural coorelation in society. Homosexuals are rich, poor, black, white, have good parents, bad parents, and on and on. They've been around since before Christ. So if you believe homosexuality is nurture not nature, please tell us what causes it since no one on this planet has found any coorelation in society that causes it on a grand scale.

Thats only the outer shell... dig deeper and you will find similar characteristics: being abused as a child, having older brothers, etc.

I believe that being abused as a child can cause sexual confusion. But are you saying that every homosexual species on the planet is the product of being sexually abused or being the youngest child?

As for the youngest child, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of scientists who believe it has something to do with the mother and what happens to her after each male child she gives birth to. The reason why the youngest children are often less aggressive, intelligent, and other things.

Wait did you just say homosexuality is as common as those other uncommon things? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I told you this above pay attention but here it is again: I never said it was nurture please stop trying to put words into my mouth to fit your argument.

Its NOT nurture, while genetics may have some slight disposition to be more feminine, etc the cause of Homosexuality is CHOICE. There are no homosexual infants.

how do you know there are no homosexual infants? sexuality is not even part of an infants life. to be a homosexual, you have to have sexual attraction.

I would hope there are no homosexual infants. Just as there are no heterosexual infants. Infants don't have any sex drive. You've heard of puberty, right?

fake nic.

Oh yes there are heterosexual infants, they are born either male or female and their natural "equipment" is used to procreate with the opposite sex. Heterosexuals are sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex.
:1orglaugh

I just answered the question above. :)
You are either born with a dick or a pussy, those organs have specific natural functions, the primary reason of the difference between the two is for procreation purposes. WHEN those organs are used/full functional/etc is not the issue they are MADE(hardwired) for the purpose of procreation.

Seriously, pick up a biology book today. Infants have absolutely no sexual drive whatsoever.

But your theory would contradict your earlier stance that sexuality is a "choice". Infants can't make a choice.

you are confusing physical traits with pyschological traits. "homosexuality" requires sexual attraction. an infant is not capable of sexual attraction no matter what sex organ they have... so your argument not only has no merit, it is factually wrong.

HOMOsexuality is choice because it is not what the body is hardwired/designed for. Play semantics with the words all you want, but a male child is born with organs that are specifically used to procreate with females. That male child has a CHOICE to become a homosexual later on or follow his intended natural design.

No Im not, heterosexuals are born with physical manifestations of their intended sexuality, a penis is different from a vagina because it is made to naturally procreate with a vagina. A penis has nothing to do with "pyschological traits".

I realize the word "heterosexual" has various meanings but there is no other word to describe the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I could use the word "NORMAL" but that would be insensitive.

no one is disputing that a boy is born a boy and a girl is born a girl einstein. the question is "what causes sexual attraction to the same sex". you can't answer that question... you are simply trying to argue the obvious... a boy is born a boy, a girl is born a girl (almost always anyway), a penis is a penis and a vagina is a vagina - and pointing out their intended uses. believe it or not, everyone is aware of those facts... and also aware (as you appear not to be) that those facts, on thier own, do not conclusively answer the question at hand.

Yes I did answer that question in a previous post, Einstein. :1orglaugh

Homosexuality is a personal CHOICE, the homosexual is the only one that can choose to be homosexual. Its not rocket science.

no... you are stating that its a personal choice... stating it as fact. you go further to offer moronic reasoning about sexual organs at birth, which has absolutely nothing to do with same sex attraction or making the connection between sexual attraction and arousal and "choice".

i am not gay. i can't wake up tomorrow and choose to be turned on by a mans hairy ass. so... am i just incapable of "choosing"?

The thing I find funny about bible fundamentalists is they pick and choose what to be fundamental about.

No it IS a fact, there is no other scientific or natural proven reason. Show us proof that it ISNT a personal choice.

Sure you can. Just like you can choose to murder someone. :1orglaugh

Being Gay is not personal choice, either your attracted to the same sex or not. Its not something you can fake for long.

Either you are born gay or at some point you choose to be attracted to the same sex.

what your woefully limited capacity for reason is refusing to allow you to deduct by way of reason, is that you can't prove it is or isn't a personal choice 100% of the time in every single instance. no more than you can prove it is the personal choice of a male dog that only tries to fuck other male dogs.

you are confusing what you believe to be fact and what is fact. i can believe 2+2 is 7. i can argue all sorts of arguments just as you are. that doesn't mean i am right and when there is no consensus of peers or the scientific community, you might stop to reconsider your math... or at least accept the possibility of being wrong in your belief.

You are so thilly, I dont give a flying nun fuck what any of these people think of me, matter of fact I actually seriously DESPISE a lot of you. :1orglaugh
Actually the "majority" of people in the world are on my side, you are the freak of nature, not I. Now hush up before I have to smack you up woman. :thumbsup

The physical parts has nothing to do with their psychological disposition to like men or women. That is what we are discussing, what causes someone to prefer men over women, nature or nurture.

I don't feel it's a choice that you sit there and say "hmmmm, i think i'll choose men over women". Just as it's not really a choice that I have more sexual attraction to brunettes than blondes. Or some guys enjoy older women to younger ones. Of course I can choose a blonde over a brunette, but I have more sexual arousal to a brunette. I find it hard to believe that you could "choose" to be gay if you really wanted to.

In August of 1991, while I was on the faculty of the Salk Institute in San Diego, I published a short paper in Science in which I reported on a difference in brain structure between straight and gay men. The difference was in a group of nerve cells called "INAH3." This cell group is located in a brain region known as the hypothalamus, which among other tasks helps generate our sexual behavior. Other researchers had previously reported that INAH3 was larger (on average) in men than in women. What I reported, based on a study of about forty brains obtained at autopsy, was that INAH3 was also larger in straight men than in gay men.

Being a science nerd whose previous papers had been ignored by everyone except my mother, I didn't expect anyone to pay attention to this one either. So I was quite taken aback when the "Gay Brain," as it was quickly dubbed, provoked a tremendous media splash. On the front page of the San Diego Union-Tribune it even took precedence over the collapse of Communism, which happened on the same day. People's reactions to my report were very mixed: there were people who loved it and there were people who loathed it, but almost everyone had some opinion about it. One widely expressed opinion (with which I agreed) was that the study needed to be replicated before its findings could be considered part of accepted scientific knowledge.

One of the most outspoken critics of my paper was William Byne, a neuroscientist and psychiatrist who is now on the faculty at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York. Initially, Byne suggested that INAH3 might not even exist. If it did exist, he said, it was probably the same size in men and women. And any difference that I had found between gay and straight men was most likely due to differences in the men's cause of death, rather than their sexual orientation. (All the gay men in my study had died of complications of AIDS.)

Unlike most of my critics, who tended to be humanities professors or right-wing clerics, Byne had the appropriate training to do a replication study, and he quickly embarked on one. With the help of several colleagues, he set about collecting and analyzing a new set of brain samples. Before too long, Byne had verified that INAH3 does exist, that it is generally larger in men than women and that the cause of death (AIDS versus other diseases) does not affect its size. However, years went by without any announcement concerning the key question ? is there a size difference related to sexual orientation?

Finally, on August 6 of this year, Byne presented his data at an international conference in Madrid. According to an account of the meeting in the Spanish newspaper La Raz?n, Byne reported that INAH3 was indeed larger in the straight men than in the gay men in his sample, in line with my 1991 Science report. Byne tells me that the difference was not as large as I had found, however. He declined to discuss the details of his statistical analysis prior to publication in a scientific journal.

La Raz?n did mention an interesting new detail. In spite of the size difference, Byne found that INAH3 contained the same number of nerve cells in the gay and straight men. If confirmed, this finding would suggest that there is no difference between gay and straight men in the earliest phase of brain development, when nerve cells are being generated and assemble into functional groups. Rather, the difference may arise at some later time, when the nerve cells in INAH3 are growing and forming connections.

What could cause such a difference in growth? There is a wide range of possibilities, ranging from genetic differences between individuals, differences in the levels of hormones (especially testosterone) that regulate cell growth in the hypothalamus and even differences in pre- or postnatal environment that could impact the growth of INAH3 through a variety of means.

Thus the findings on INAH3 to date do not prove a particular theory of sexual orientation as much as they point to ways in which such theories could be tested in the future. For example, if the technology becomes available to image INAH3 in living people, one could hope to establish the age at which the development of gay and straight men's brains diverges. Obviously, the factors causing the divergence must operate at or before that age. My prediction, based on animal experiments, is that the divergence happens before birth, but we don't yet know that for a fact.

Even without my research, we knew that there has to be some structural or chemical difference between the brains of gay and straight people. The alternative ? that the difference resides only in patterns of brain activity ? has been ruled out, because sexual orientation remains unchanged after all brain activity has been temporarily halted (by brain cooling or deep anesthesia, for example). What's surprising about the gay/straight difference in INAH3, then, is simply that it is so localized and obvious, rather than being diffusely spread through the synaptic architecture of the entire brain. This offers the hope that we will eventually be able to understand the origins of sexual orientation at a cellular level.

So what you are saying is that there is a "i prefer blondes" gene you are born with? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh
These "preferences" are based on choices and experiences.

Oh please get real, all you have are theories.

Typically those who are against homosexuality and need to degrade it are dealing with sexual confusion and insecurity themselves. It is why you see so many Priests and religious leaders involved in homosexual relations.

there was science there. not my science.. science that you said didn't exist... and couldn't exist. you cant summarily define everyone elses belief on the issue "theory" and yours "fact". who do you think you are? the pope?

We have hormones in our body that are triggered by various things. Whether it's liking fat chicks, Asians, or anything, people are more by things than others. If not, you would have the same attraction to a 400 pound woman than a 110 pound supermodel. The same chemical releases go into homosexuality. When a homosexual man sees another man, he becomes more aroused than if he was seeing another woman.

Are you telling me that you can turn on and off your arousals by choice? That if you really wanted to, you could be aroused by another man?

I don't think at all that he is making a fool of himself in front of everybody. Since when discussing homosexuality is a sign of stupidity?

Besides, you continue to be on a very aggresive defensive stand. My guess it's that you are very sensitive about the topic i raised. I wonder why...

PS: And remember, no matter how many times you (or anybody else) call me names or whatever you think its clever to ridiculize me, the truth wont go away and still stands...

That probably has some merit sure.
As for me personally I dont care who is or isnt gay, its a moot point to me but I dont like people who "escape" reality by blaming their abnormalities on nature. Its just kind of funny to me that they argue they are born gay or are "naturally gay" when clearly science cant explain it. Soooo fun to prove them wrong and frustrate them and very good for post count to boot. :)

if you don't know why he is defensive... go to google or msn and search "causes of homosexuality" or "why are people homosexual".. see the top 100 results and there is your answer.