Politcal-Correctness At It's Finest

[TwistofRKO]

There's a difference between saying "that's so gay" and saying "Jesus Christ!" or "oh my God"

The difference is that, something like "Oh my God" would typically only be said by people who believe in/worship God themselves. It's not meant as an offensive term. If the word "Jesus" suddenly became a fill-in word for 'lame' or 'stupid', like "gay" has become, then hell yes groups would be starting up to put an end to that.

When someone is offended by somebody else saying "God damn it", they are not necessarily being attacked on religious grounds because the person who said it may have the exact same religious beliefs, but just not see anything wrong with saying "Oh my God".

It would be equally offensive to use God's name in vain only if it were being used in vain solely by people who don't believe in / worship God. However, I being an atheist would feel really stupid saying "oh my God", and most of the non-religious people I know don't say it either. The only reason why groups don't start up to stop people from using His name in vain is because it's their own people doing it.

Besides, just because one group doesn't get riled up when they are offended, doesn't mean that another group should stay quiet when they get offended on national television. I mean what did GLAAD even do? The article said they tried to contact WWE. So they might be seeking a two-second apology, big fucking deal. It's not like they're encouraging people to boycott WWE forever or something.

What?????!!!

You have that completely backwards, re-read your stuff before you post.

Most people who believe in God or are in the Bible would see the Ten Commandments and try to abide by that. Are there some that would still say what they shouldn't? Sure, but the majority who use God's name in vain aren't religious, at all. It is an attack, almost everyone has heard of the Ten Commandments, and it's basically a slap in the face of Christians and the face of God to use his name in vain. Nearly everyone uses his name in vain, it IS offensive.

 

[TwistofRKO]

Slyfox, why don't you actually debate in here?

You cannot be serious when you try to require everyone to be uniform in policy on homosexuality, when not everyone agrees with it morally. Is that to say gay people are terrible people? Not at all. But not everyone agrees with the lifestyle, and by no means should "political correctness" propaganda be used to make everyone agree with it.

Where it would tie in with using the Creator of the entire universe's name is the fact that it's a downright attack, unsolicited. What would also be unwarranted is for me to go up to a homosexual and call them a ***. There are big differences.

If you want "political correctness" rid it of the brain-washing.

 

[X]

Slyfox, why don't you actually debate in here?

You cannot be serious when you try to require everyone to be uniform in policy on homosexuality, when not everyone agrees with it morally. Is that to say gay people are terrible people? Not at all. But not everyone agrees with the lifestyle, and by no means should "political correctness" propaganda be used to make everyone agree with it.

That's such a load of bullshit. "Oh, we just disagree with their lifestyle!" right, like you "disagree" with a terrorist or serial killer's "lifestyle choice". To say that what they do is wrong, and that they will burn in hell for it is damn well saying they are terrible people. Are anything less than terrible people condemned to Hell now?

This is where the entire religious opposition to homosexuality makes me laugh. That they think it's just a lifestyle choice, and not something you're born with. You don't choose to be attracted to some things and not to others. It doesn't work like that, sorry.

 

[TwistofRKO]

That's such a load of bullshit. "Oh, we just disagree with their lifestyle!" right, like you "disagree" with a terrorist or serial killer's "lifestyle choice". To say that what they do is wrong, and that they will burn in hell for it is damn well saying they are terrible people. Are anything less than terrible people condemned to Hell now?

This is where the entire religious opposition to homosexuality makes me laugh. That they think it's just a lifestyle choice, and not something you're born with. You don't choose to be attracted to some things and not to others. It doesn't work like that, sorry.

Don't put words in my mouth, that's immature.

Don't be ignorant on the issue, everyone has faults and makes mistakes, and according to God's word everyone is sentenced to Hell because nothing they can do on this earth with their own might is pure enough to erase sin. That's where Jesus comes in, but I'll hold that off for another topic. Plenty of very good people can be burning in hell right now, and although doubtful he would've, even Hitler could have accepted God's grace and gone to Heaven.

I'm not getting into another debate on whether it's natural or not, but we'll pretend that it is. Nobody taught you to lie as a youngster (if so, you have disturbing parents or guardians), yet you've lied. If you want to play that card, I'll sit here and tell you it's the same with any other sin. My dad didn't teach me to punch my brother when I was 2, but by age 4 I was a pro.

 

[X]

Don't put words in my mouth, that's immature.

I wasn't. You decided to defend the view of religious people who think that homosexuality is wrong, and I attacked that view. I'm attacking the idea that homosexuality is wrong, not you.

Don't be ignorant on the issue, everyone has faults and makes mistakes, and according to God's word everyone is sentenced to Hell because nothing they can do on this earth with their own might is pure enough to erase sin. That's where Jesus comes in, but I'll hold that off for another topic. Plenty of very good people can be burning in hell right now, and although doubtful he would've, even Hitler could have accepted God's grace and gone to Heaven.

I'm not getting into another debate on whether it's natural or not, but we'll pretend that it is. Nobody taught you to lie as a youngster (if so, you have disturbing parents or guardians), yet you've lied. If you want to play that card, I'll sit here and tell you it's the same with any other sin. My dad didn't teach me to punch my brother when I was 2, but by age 4 I was a pro.

I'm sorry, did you just compare homosexuality to punching your brother and lying? You're going to take that homophobic road, really?

Homosexuality is a biological thing. It's no different from saying "Oh I disagree with the choice of having black skin", it doesn't work like that.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Homosexuality isn't genetic. There are environmental factors involved.

Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s assessment:

The research is a decent piece of basic science and confirms what geneticists have long
known must be the case: That the hormonal milieu that causes sexual differentiation
between males and females is itself determined by genes, in mice as in men. This comes
as no surprise. But this research says absolutely nothing about homosexuality or transsexualism and any who claim it does are either ill-informed about genetics, or if not, are deliberately abusing their scientific knowledge and or credentials in the service of politics – in precisely the same way that Soviet-era geneticists such as Lysenko did – either in the naïve hope that distortion of the truth can produce a better society or out of fear for their career prospects. In either case they should be roundly rebuked for doing so.

Also, the first guy to publish information about biological differences, Dr. Simon LeVay states,

It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. …Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.

I've never believed that it was genetic. I don't believe that someone wakes up and decides to be gay either. I've always thought that a mixture of environmental factors, opportunity, and encouragement make some decide that something is missing in their life.

 

[X]

Homosexuality isn't genetic. There are environmental factors involved.

Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s assessment:

Also, the first guy to publish information about biological differences, Dr. Simon LeVay states

I've never believed that it was genetic. I don't believe that someone wakes up and decides to be gay either. I've always thought that a mixture of environmental factors, opportunity, and encouragement make some decide that something is missing in their life.

So, explain to me then FTS, how animals such as turtles are homosexual. They feel something is missing from their turtle life? What about dwarf chimpanzees, of which all are born bisexual? When did they choose to become bisexual?

I'm sorry, but to me something that you have absolutely zero control over at all is a biological thing, not a choice, or a lifestyle, or a product of your environment.

Honestly FTS I found that last bit to be kind of offensive. You're basically equating the background of homosexuality with, say, drug addiction. That they feel something is missing in their life and have to fill that hole in their soul with something.

 

[Evan Snow-Wolf]

I wasn't. You decided to defend the view of religious people who think that homosexuality is wrong, and I attacked that view. I'm attacking the idea that homosexuality is wrong, not you.

I'm with you at this point.......

I'm sorry, did you just compare homosexuality to punching your brother and lying? You're going to take that homophobic road, really?

...aaaand with you at this point here, too.....

Homosexuality is a biological thing. It's no different from saying "Oh I disagree with the choice of having black skin", it doesn't work like that.

.....aaaand there. Lost me here. Sorry, I don't subscribe to this idea that being gay is a genetic thing hardwired into the brain from the moment you pop out of your mother's vagina. There HAS to be some degree of enviornmental factors, things you started to believe as you develop. I don't buy the "gay" gene. The percentage of the population that is gay goes up every year, and I just am not buying the notion that there have "always been" this percentage of gay people and they were just quiet about it for the last several millenia. The percentage is going up because its more encouraged and popular and accepted, not because of a chromosome or strand of DNA.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Then stop being offended. If you are offended, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to get over it.

I would think that animals being homosexual is part of that urge that girls say that we have to "stick out dicks in hole we can find." Animals aren't homosexual, because that would imply some sort of monogamy. Animals are primal, and one primal urge is to stick it in something.

Being able to control primal urges is what makes us different that animals. I know you're smart enough to know that.

Should we move this to the lounge?

 

[X]

Then stop being offended. If you are offended, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to get over it.

Don't worry, I don't think any less of you. We completely disagree on most things like this, of course I'm going to disagree!

I would think that animals being homosexual is part of that urge that girls say that we have to "stick out dicks in hole we can find." Animals aren't homosexual, because that would imply some sort of monogamy. Animals are primal, and one primal urge is to stick it in something.

Right. That might make sense if there was no such thing as lesbianism among animals. Unfortunately for you, there is. Quite a bit of it. Explain to me the primal urge for two female animals to pair up? They can't have sex, so it's not because of a primal animal urge to feel pleasure. And you make homosexuality among animals sound like there's a friggin' gay pond that animals go to to discretely hook up in bathroom stalls or something. These animals don't just have sex with the same gender to get their rocks off, they pair up with that animal and spend their entire life with it.

Being able to control primal urges is what makes us different that animals. I know you're smart enough to know that.

And this is what I mean FTS. I love you, but you've just insulted me, M_F, ED, and other members of this board with that statement by saying we aren't intelligent or capable of controlling our "primal" urges, that we're not as strong as you or something. Just because I'm bisexual that doesn't mean I can't control myself or keep it in my pants or something FTS, please do not compare me to an animal who isn't capable of resisting humping a tree.

Should we move this to the lounge?

Probably.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Don't worry, I don't think any less of you. We completely disagree on most things like this, of course I'm going to disagree!

I know.

Right. That might make sense if there was no such thing as lesbianism among animals. Unfortunately for you, there is. Quite a bit of it. Explain to me the primal urge for two female animals to pair up? They can't have sex, so it's not because of a primal animal urge to feel pleasure. And you make homosexuality among animals sound like there's a friggin' gay pond that animals go to to discretely hook up in bathroom stalls or something. These animals don't just have sex with the same gender to get their rocks off, they pair up with that animal and spend their entire life with it.

If it's not sexual, it could easily be friendship. I mean, is there a way to prove that this pairing of female animals is an actual relationship? So few animals are monogamous. If some have no interest in reproducing, a couple of them pairing off could be a support system just as much as it is a relationship.

And this is what I mean FTS. I love you, but you've just insulted me, M_F, ED, and other members of this board with that statement by saying we aren't intelligent or capable of controlling our "primal" urges,

That's not at all what I said. I stated that there are differences between humans and animals. Animals being gay, primal urges. Humans being gay, something different. By equating me to a turtle, you've offended me. I like to think I am a little more capable of making decisions, using thumbs, and wiping my ass than a turtle. Let's differentiate between those of us with advanced brains, and those of us with shells.

that we're not as strong as you or something.

Never said that either. I think homosexuals, especially out and open ones, are some of the strongest people in the world. Knowing that you are going to face ridicule and still being open about the cause of that is admirable.

Just because I'm bisexual

Yeah, maybe you could have let me know this before, ummm, now.

that doesn't mean I can't control myself or keep it in my pants or something FTS, please do not compare me to an animal who isn't capable of resisting humping a tree.

OK, look. Up above you equate humans to animals to prove that homosexuality is genetic. Now you're bitching because I compare you to an animal. Pick one side please.

And, to tell you the truth, I've spent two or three posts now differentiating between humans and animals. I don't think I compared you to an animal at all. Look at what I've written.

I've been more than fair to homosexuality in my posting. All I claim is that it isn't genetic, but there are environmental factors. I never said anyone was weak, depraved, or morally inferior. I just understand that people are different, and accept that fact without looking for reasons, especially ones that might not exist, according to the guy credited for discovering the correlation. I have three posts now, and the only point I am trying to make is that correlation does not equal causation, and no definitive proof has ever been discovered which links genetics to homosexuality.



Probably.[/QUOTE]

 

[info62]

What?????!!!

You have that completely backwards, re-read your stuff before you post.

Most people who believe in God or are in the Bible would see the Ten Commandments and try to abide by that. Are there some that would still say what they shouldn't? Sure, but the majority who use God's name in vain aren't religious, at all. It is an attack, almost everyone has heard of the Ten Commandments, and it's basically a slap in the face of Christians and the face of God to use his name in vain. Nearly everyone uses his name in vain, it IS offensive.

I don't have it backwards and I did re-read it twice before I posted.

Most people that I know who are non-religious, including myself, would NEVER use God's name in vain, because it would make them look stupid. I said I'd feel like an idiot for saying "Oh my God", and I would, because I don't believe in a god. It is not an attack when a majority of people who use God's name in vain do worship that god, their self. Some other religious people may find it offensive but that doesn't mean that the ones who do not see anything wrong with saying "Oh my God" are any less religious. Some people interpret the Bible differently and do not see saying "my God" as using His name in vain, as other people may do.

And that's what I was trying to say, was that using God's name in vain was a horrible comparison to using gay as an insult. But thanks for red repping me anyway, especially when I don't have enough posts to do anything back.

 

[Goo Punch]

WWE deserves any flack they get for the comment and should issue an apology. For the owner of a "family-friendly" company to use any language considered to be discriminatory on national TV is reprehensible. Now, if this was the "Attitude" days, it would be different but what kind of message does WWE send when calling a move the "FU" is inappropriate but calling someone or something "gay" is funny? It teaches children that the word is fine to use when it's not.

And sorry, if this has already been said but I didn't feel like reading 3 pages worth of posts so only read the first.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Maybe if Vince still had Chris Kanyon on the roster maybe this debate wouldn't occur. Vince does seem a little homophobic, especially after firing Kanyon after finding out he was gay. Kanyon was no main eventer, but he was given a decent push until he came out of the closet. I didn't hear Vince say those words on Raw, because I was so tuned out with all the nonsense going on during that 30 minute skit I didn't notice. I honestly think that those Showgirls on Raw had more clothes on then Raesha Saeed.

Vince has a PG product, so he should apologize. Its a new day in age. People said the N word on television in the 70's, but that doesn't mean it was right. Using the term gay in a derogatory sense is just as bad. South Park gets away with it because they are for a mature audience, but they still get a lot of heat over it. Bottom line is that Vince should apologize to GLADD, and wrestling fans in general for bringing back Big Dick Johnson.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Maybe if Vince still had Chris Kanyon on the roster maybe this debate wouldn't occur. Vince does seem a little homophobic, especially after firing Kanyon after finding out he was gay. Kanyon was no main eventer, but he was given a decent push until he came out of the closet. I didn't hear Vince say those words on Raw, because I was so tuned out with all the nonsense going on during that 30 minute skit I didn't notice. I honestly think that those Showgirls on Raw had more clothes on then Raesha Saeed.

Vince has a PG product, so he should apologize. Its a new day in age. People said the N word on television in the 70's, but that doesn't mean it was right. Using the term gay in a derogatory sense is just as bad. South Park gets away with it because they are for a mature audience, but they still get a lot of heat over it. Bottom line is that Vince should apologize to GLADD, and wrestling fans in general for bringing back Big Dick Johnson.

I'm not convinced Kanyon was really fired for being Gay. He just wasn't getting over with the audience and was simply average at best. When I take a look at the other talent WWE has dropped over the years, Kanyon seems to fit right in. Just a very average worker. He may say he was fired for being Gay, but I'm not completely convinced of it.

Orlando Jordan was Bisexual and was released. However, he was apparently consistently bringing his boyfriend on the road with him and backstage at each of the events, which is apparently a No No.

On the other hand, I do hear a lot of people say that "Oh, Vince can't be homophobic. After all, he employs Pat Patterson and Pat is the Godfather of Stephanie." I don't necessarily think that equates to Vince necessarily being free of homophobia. He may have a good relationship with Pat, but that doesn't necessarily means that he approves of Pat's sexuality or other people being Gay. I don't think things are necessarily as black and white as that.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I wasn't. You decided to defend the view of religious people who think that homosexuality is wrong, and I attacked that view. I'm attacking the idea that homosexuality is wrong, not you.



I'm sorry, did you just compare homosexuality to punching your brother and lying? You're going to take that homophobic road, really?

Homosexuality is a biological thing. It's no different from saying "Oh I disagree with the choice of having black skin", it doesn't work like that.

How is it homophobic? I'm not attacking the individual, it's not as if I'd completely shun a gay person, I just disagree with their life style.

I for one don't take drugs, and don't support the use, but I can still talk to someone who does. Don't take the example as a complete equal to being gay, I didn't intend it to be.

It's not proven to be biological, it's being taught that it is,. Big differences, big differences.

I don't have it backwards and I did re-read it twice before I posted.

Most people that I know who are non-religious, including myself, would NEVER use God's name in vain, because it would make them look stupid. I said I'd feel like an idiot for saying "Oh my God", and I would, because I don't believe in a god. It is not an attack when a majority of people who use God's name in vain do worship that god, their self. Some other religious people may find it offensive but that doesn't mean that the ones who do not see anything wrong with saying "Oh my God" are any less religious. Some people interpret the Bible differently and do not see saying "my God" as using His name in vain, as other people may do.

And that's what I was trying to say, was that using God's name in vain was a horrible comparison to using gay as an insult. But thanks for red repping me anyway, especially when I don't have enough posts to do anything back.

They are little green dots, seriously not a big deal. Don't take offense from rep.

Anyways, there are plenty of non-religious people who say "OMG", it's probably one of the most used phrases in modern language. I'm not going to attack you for your opinion, but it's completely unfounded, and I don't find it well thought out.

Homosexuality isn't genetic. There are environmental factors involved.

Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s assessment:

Also, the first guy to publish information about biological differences, Dr. Simon LeVay states,



I've never believed that it was genetic. I don't believe that someone wakes up and decides to be gay either. I've always thought that a mixture of environmental factors, opportunity, and encouragement make some decide that something is missing in their life.

Thank you.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

How is it homophobic? I'm not attacking the individual, it's not as if I'd completely shun a gay person, I just disagree with their life style.

I for one don't take drugs, and don't support the use, but I can still talk to someone who does. Don't take the example as a complete equal to being gay, I didn't intend it to be.

It's not proven to be biological, it's being taught that it is,. Big differences, big differences.

It's not proven to be biological yet, however many scientists sure seem to think that it is a major contributing factor.

However, since there is so much discrepancy and controversy over it, is your post implying we should simply assume that Orientation is simply a choice, until it can be proven otherwise?

Here, you have so many Gay people coming out and saying that they "DID NOT CHOOSE THIS", yet instead people of faith are so blinded by their indoctrination (brainwashing) that they take the word of a book ... which could very well be a book made up of mostly fiction, as opposed to the word of an overwhelming portion of the Gay population ... people who are actually here and are real.

I have this need to understand why some people are so adamant about certain things in life being proven (ie: Orientation being proven to be Genetic) while they seemingly don't require proof for the legitimacy and authenticity of other things, like The Bible.

Being that this is a topic of so much controversy and you have virtually every Gay person say that they did not choose their Orientation, I think it would be wise to take an Agnostic and Non-Judging approach to Homosexuality until it can be proven what exactly does cause it. My instinct of the cause of one's Orientation is that it is extremely complicated, however I also feel that one day, science will uncover it.

Why do you disagree with a Gay person's lifestyle? What framed your judgment in this case, if I may ask?

 

[TwistofRKO]

I'm not steering this to far off topic, but the Bible definitely has legitimacy to it. I'm not getting to far into it, but one quick example would be the countless attempted exterminations and seizures of it, yet it still circulates the world. There's something special about it. When you meet people and hear their testimonies you feel something real. The Bible has stood the test of time, and isn't the source of brain-washing (that falls on corrupt individuals).

Play a different card.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I'm not steering this to far off topic, but the Bible definitely has legitimacy to it. I'm not getting to far into it, but one quick example would be the countless attempted exterminations and seizures of it, yet it still circulates the world. There's something special about it. When you meet people and hear their testimonies you feel something real. The Bible has stood the test of time, and isn't the source of brain-washing (that falls on corrupt individuals).

Play a different card.

Nope. Sorry.

That isn't proof whatsoever. And I think it is so incredibly sad that people will take what could very well be a Work of Fiction (a marvelous work, however) over the word of real people in this day and age, in the year 2009. Absolutely disgusting way to turn your back on your fellow man.

Did you choose your Sexual Orientation? Tell me about how your sexual feelings developed, and how you "chose" to be a Heterosexual.

Did you have a line of guys and a line of girls ... and go "Eenie Meenie Miney Moe"?

 

[TwistofRKO]

Work of fiction? Funny for someone, I'm assuming somewhat young, with limited knowledge on the issue to claim. It is one of the most despised books in the entire world, the Koran doesn't get that much heat, and it's been around much longer. You don't have the credibility to simply disprove these factors by simply saying it's "a work of fiction". Get over yourself.

Anyways, I'm not a psychologist, I'm not going to go in-depth on what goes on in a person's mind. At the same time, don't act like you have any supporting evidence, backed up by science that shows homosexuality is completely random. There are any number of variables that are tweaked with at any age and time, coupled with any amount of personal experiences that can completely change a person's life. Everyone reacts to everything differently.

One kid can be heartbroken by mommy not looking at his finger-painting when he gets home from school, planting a seed for emotional connection at a young age, while another kid isn't impacted by it.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Work of fiction? Funny for someone, I'm assuming somewhat young, with limited knowledge on the issue to claim. It is one of the most despised books in the entire world, the Koran doesn't get that much heat, and it's been around much longer. You don't have the credibility to simply disprove these factors by simply saying it's "a work of fiction". Get over yourself.

Anyways, I'm not a psychologist, I'm not going to go in-depth on what goes on in a person's mind. At the same time, don't act like you have any supporting evidence, backed up by science that shows homosexuality is completely random. There are any number of variables that are tweaked with at any age and time, coupled with any amount of personal experiences that can completely change a person's life. Everyone reacts to everything differently.

One kid can be heartbroken by mommy not looking at his finger-painting when he gets home from school, planting a seed for emotional connection at a young age, while another kid isn't impacted by it.

You didn't answer my question whatsoever, so I am going to ask you one more time.

I asked you to describe how you "chose to be straight" and describe to me the process of how you personally chose your sexual feelings. I asked you if you simply saw a group of guys and a group of girls and simply played "Eenie Meenie Miney Moe", until you chose your Orientation?

 

[TwistofRKO]

Don't ignore my points, I won't ignore yours.

I answered your question, but if I have to spell it out for you-

No, I didn't cast a vote personally. Going back to the answer you ignored, for whatever reason, you can't pretend to know what goes on in other people's heads. Your question is hardly scientific.

 

[X]

Don't ignore my points, I won't ignore yours.

I answered your question, but if I have to spell it out for you-

No, I didn't cast a vote personally. Going back to the answer you ignored, for whatever reason, you can't pretend to know what goes on in other people's heads. Your question is hardly scientific.

Okay, well guess what, I can talk for homosexual and bisexual people, because I myself am bisexual. And I can tell you from first hand experience (which trumps your book of fiction that's been edited more times then a Wikipedia page) that I did not choose whether to be attracted to women or men. The fact that you think something like that is what happens with homosexual and bisexual people is not only laughable, it actually saddens me that someone could be so willfully ignorant.

Continue your bullshit.

 

[Milkyway!]

So, explain to me then FTS, how animals such as turtles are homosexual. They feel something is missing from their turtle life?

Actually, theres very few animals with homosexual tendencies, compared to the natural order of things. Natural Selection runs its course, and weaves most homosexuals out.

What about dwarf chimpanzees, of which all are born bisexual? When did they choose to become bisexual?

Is Drawf Chimpanzees a slang term for Bonobo Chimpanzees? If not your species are mistaken. I'm too lazy to google it right now.

I saw an article on this the other day. It didn't prove that these animals were biologically bisexual. I assume it could be one of many things. The main being a product of its enviroment.

I'm sorry, but to me something that you have absolutely zero control over at all is a biological thing, not a choice, or a lifestyle, or a product of your environment.

I dissagree. If it were biological, wouldn't natural selection run its corse and weave all homosexual out? They can't reproduce, this leads me to believe that homosexuals are more of a product of environments.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

Here is the truth... while there are conflicting stories to both sides, and both sides have valid points, debate may never truly be settled, because it is skewed by a couple of simple factors. One, some people claim to be born gay, which I believe them. I believe some people are gay because that is the way they are born. Why do I believe this, because for one why would they lie about it? I've also seen someone who was tormented to suicide by their sexuality. They were gay, but they didn't want to be, how is that not genetic?

However I also believe some people choose to be gay. While I am neither gay nor bisexual, I have had fantasies as to what it would be like to be intimate with another male, I have also kissed another male to see what it would feel like, it did nothing for me, however perhaps some people who are born straight if you will, decide to try to see what it would be like, they try it, like it and they are now gay, that is choice and environmental. So you have to look at it from both sides. There are points that say each side is right, so maybe just maybe this is the one thing, that there is no wrong side. You either are or are not born gay, I believe that, but yet I believe you can also choose as well.