Homosexuals, Variation or Disorder? Options

[sammi rules you]

i think it's just an unhealthy idea. like incest or punching the wall or jumping off of a cliff....

those are things you can control. people can't control whether they're homosexual or not. that metaphor was completely incorrect.

again..WHY WOULD SOMEONE CHOOSE TO BE HOMOSEXUAL?! they get persecution, made fun of, shunned, etc. for being homosexual..WHO WOULD WANT TO?!

[JC4P]

i think homosexual's r gay...
"AHAHAHAHAHH j/k...

[*kryogenix*]

I'm going to bring this debate back up.

My hypothesis is that homosexuality is caused by environment.

I don't believe in a gay gene. If there was gay gene, it would be gone by now. Even if somehow it became passed along, there should be a much greater amount of homosexual men than homosexual women because of the lack of another X chromosome in men.

If you are not born a homosexual, then you must "adopt" it. But I don't think it's a matter of choice either. If it was a matter of choice, then it would be pretty easy for a person of one orientation to switch to another. I think it's better to compare it to taste for a certain kind of food. For exampel, I grew up eating bacon, and I love it. Many people I know who did not eat bacon said they have tried it and hated it. I cannot all of a sudden decide that I don't like bacon anymore. Another example: eskimo children eat blubber, those most other people find it disgusting.

I think homosexuals develop their desire for people of the same sex. Those who grow up in strong religious families are much less likely to develop homosexual tendencies. Cultures that tended to be more respectful and reverent to women have lower homsexuality rates. Cultures that did not value women tend to have higher homosexuality rates.

For example, the Greeks viewed women simply as a way to reproduce. They were not valued in society nearly as much as men. In Iran, women were supposed to be subservient. Homosexuality was prevalent and tolerated in both.

Compare this to Jewish and Christian culture. Both placed emphasis on honoring the parents. Both condemned homosexual behavior. Homosexuality was not overtly practiced in either.

Homosexuality is by no means normal or natural behavior. To me, homosexuality is a fetish for men, not normal behavior. I see it no differently than people who develop sexual desires to animals, or desires for young children, or any other deviant behavior. But in a quest to be more "progressive," we've come to accept homsexuals as normal behavior. I see nothing wrong with accepting the people themselves, but the lifestyle has to go. As the saying goes, hate the sin, love the sinner.

That's enough out of me for now.

[*disco infiltrator*]

A fetish for men, eh?

I love how people tend to disregard the existence of lesbians completely when discussing homosexuality. Gay guys are not the only gay people in the world.

And your statistics are quite wrong. Every gay person that I've ever met has grown up in a highly religious family. It's quite prevalent, even though some children may not admit it to their highly religious parents in fear of their parents getting mad and overreactive.

Homosexuality is not prevalent and accepted in Iran. Where in the world did you get that?

The Embassy of Iran in The Hague wrote in 1987 that "homosexuality in Iran, treated according to the Islamic law, is a sin in the eyes of God and a crime for society. In Islam generally homosexuality is among the worst possible sins you can imagine" (PB). Under Iran's 1991 Islamic penal law the position is as follows:

(A) Male homosexuality
Sodomy is a crime, for which both partners are punished. The punishment is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting; the method of execution is for the Shari'a judge to decide. A non-adult who engages in consensual sodomy is subject to a punishment of 74 lashes. (Articles 108 -- 113)
Sodomy is proved either if a person confesses four times to having committed sodomy or by the testimony of four righteous men. Testimony of women alone or together with a man does not prove sodomy. (Articles 114 -- 119).

(B) "Tafhiz" (the rubbing of the thighs or buttocks) and the like committed by two men is punished by 100 lashes. On the fourth occasion, the punishment is death. (Articles 121 and 122). If two men "stand naked under one cover without any necessity", both are punished with up to 99 lashes; if a man "kisses another with lust" the punishment is 60 lashes. (Articles 123 and 124). If sodomy, or the lesser crimes referred to above, are proved by confession, and the person concerned repents, the Shari'a judge may request that he be pardoned. If a person who has committed the lesser crimes referred to above repents before the giving of testimony by the witnesses, the punishment is quashed. (Articles 125 and 126).

© Lesbianism
The punishment for lesbianism involving persons who are mature, of sound mind, and consenting, is 100 lashes. If the act is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will apply on the fourth occasion. (Articles 127, 129, 130) The ways of proving lesbianism in court are the same as for male homosexuality. (Article 128)

(D) Non-Moslem and Moslem alike are subject to punishment (Article 130)
The rules for the quashing of sentences, or for pardoning, are the same as for the lesser male homosexual offences (Articles 132 and 133). Women who "stand naked under one cover without necessity" and are not relatives are punished by up to 100 lashes. (Article 134)

How does that make any impression that homosexuality is prevalent and accepted there?

Please get your facts straight.

[pandamonium]

I don't believe in a gay gene. If there was gay gene, it would be gone by now. Even if somehow it became passed along, there should be a much greater amount of homosexual men than homosexual women because of the lack of another X chromosome in men.

If you are not born a homosexual, then you must "adopt" it. But I don't think it's a matter of choice either. If it was a matter of choice, then it would be pretty easy for a person of one orientation to switch to another. I think it's better to compare it to taste for a certain kind of food. For exampel, I grew up eating bacon, and I love it. Many people I know who did not eat bacon said they have tried it and hated it. I cannot all of a sudden decide that I don't like bacon anymore. Another example: eskimo children eat blubber, those most other people find it disgusting.

I dont believe in a gay gene also. But i dont agree with what you say about adopting it. For example: how you like bacon. There is no specific scientific answer for why you like bacon but you just happen to like it because it tastes good. You could eat bacon for a while then you find out when you are 25 living by yourself you dont like bacon as much anymore, or that your cholesterol is too high, or you think about the pigs that make up bacon. people change.

The reason why gay people dont come out at a certain age is because of the environment. Its so hard for people to come out because being homosexual is not fully accepted, I hear little kids say "gay"= stupid all the time. If you were 12 i dont think i would come out especially when all your friends make you uncomfortable. And plus you start puberty when you are around 12 so 9 yr olds cant fully make the decision that they are gay until they start liking someone. then comes the phase about actually questioning yourself around 13. There are soo many things that heterosexuals have not experienced, i dont think its cool for homoesexuals to be judged and made into thread topics and studied like a disease.

I love how people tend to disregard the existence of lesbians completely when discussing homosexuality. Gay guys are not the only gay people in the world.

Its because hetersoexual men (some or most of them) think that its cool for girls to kiss girls. its like double standards, its only disgusting cause men (supposedly the higher sex) think it is.

[FoxBandCutie08]

I believe it's a genetic thing, and you don't have a choice over who you're attracted to. I mean, do you honestly choose who you are attracted to, even being straight? You don't get to pick that. It may be in hormones, but it is somewhere in your DNA that makes you gay.

[*Zatanna*]

My hypothesis is that homosexuality is caused by environment.

Prenatal hormones and sexuality-linked characteristics
There is evidence of a correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are determined in utero. Williams et al. (2000) found that finger length ratio, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in people of distinct sexual orientations.[1] Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations. Homosexual have more older brothers, an efect known as fraternal birth order effect. It has been suggested that the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen fetuses are exposed to . In a 1991 study, Simon LeVay demonstrated that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus—which is believed to control sexual behavior and linked to prenatal hormones—was on average more than twice the size in heterosexual men when contrasted to homosexual men. Initially he could not rule out that this may be due to AIDS since all of his homosexual male subjects had died from it before the autopsies were performed. However in 2003 scientists at Oregon State University announced that it replicated his findings in homosexual sheep.

Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (an autosomal recessive condition which results in high androgen levels during fetal development) have more masculinized sex role identities and are more likely to have a homosexual sexual orientation as adults than controls (Dittmann et al. 1990ab, 1992; Zucker et al., 1996; Hines et al., 2004). An alternative explanation for this effect is that the fact that girls with this condition are born with masculinized external genitalia leads their parents to raise them in a more masculine manner which then influences their sexual orientation as adults. However, the degree to which the girls' genitals are masculinized does not correlate with their sexual orientation, suggesting that prenatal hormones are the causal factor, not parental influence.

Other studies regarding pheromones, penis sizes, circulating androgen levels, number of sex partners over a lifetime and MRI brain scans also found differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals all related to prenatal hormones. In bovine freemartins, a clear causal relationship has been detected between prenatal hormones and adult sexuality.

The alleged evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality has led Amherst College biologist Paul Ewald to argue that it might be caused by an as-yet undetected virus working in utero that triggers hormonal responses.

In response to recent findings, the National Institute of Health in 2005 announced a 2.5 million dollar five-year study of sexual orientation.

Source:Wikipedia.org - Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation
I think that the idea that sexual preference is based soley on environmental causes is a little obstinate.

[*kryogenix*]

A fetish for men, eh?

I love how people tend to disregard the existence of lesbians completely when discussing homosexuality. Gay guys are not the only gay people in the world.

Irrelevant.

And your statistics are quite wrong. Every gay person that I've ever met has grown up in a highly religious family. It's quite prevalent, even though some children may not admit it to their highly religious parents in fear of their parents getting mad and overreactive.

Supporting your evidence with anecdotal evidence and assumptions. How do you know it's prevalent in religious families? And doesn't this prove that environment determines the expression of homosexual tendencies?

How does that make any impression that homosexuality is prevalent and accepted there?

Please get your facts straight.

Well, I assumed you would understand that I was talking about ancient Iran. Sorry for not being specific. But if you want evidence, look no further than Persian love poems written from one man to another.

Among many Middle-Eastern Muslim cultures, homosexual practices were widespread and public. Persian poets, such as Attar (d. 1220), Rumi (d. 1273), Sa’di (d. 1291), Hafez (d. 1389), and Jami (d. 1492), wrote poems replete with homoerotic allusions. Recent work in queer studies suggests that while the visibility of such relationships has been much reduced, their frequency has not. The two most commonly documented forms were commercial sex with transgender males or males enacting transgender roles exemplified by the koceks and the bacchas, and Sufi spiritual practices in which the practitioner crossed over from the idealised chaste form of the practice to one in which the desire is consummated.

In Persia homosexuality and homoerotic expressions were tolerated in numerous public places, from monasteries and seminaries to taverns, military camps, bathhouses, and coffee houses. In the early Safavid era (1501-1723), male houses of prostitution (amrad khaneh) were legally recognized and paid taxes.

I dont believe in a gay gene also. But i dont agree with what you say about adopting it. For example: how you like bacon. There is no specific scientific answer for why you like bacon but you just happen to like it because it tastes good. You could eat bacon for a while then you find out when you are 25 living by yourself you dont like bacon as much anymore, or that your cholesterol is too high, or you think about the pigs that make up bacon. people change.

I like bacon because I grew up eating bacon at least once every month. Eskimos grow up eating whale blubber. It's an acquired taste.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals can change? Let's start a rehabilitation program then, if that's true.

The reason why gay people dont come out at a certain age is because of the environment. Its so hard for people to come out because being homosexual is not fully accepted, I hear little kids say "gay"= stupid all the time. If you were 12 i dont think i would come out especially when all your friends make you uncomfortable. And plus you start puberty when you are around 12 so 9 yr olds cant fully make the decision that they are gay until they start liking someone. then comes the phase about actually questioning yourself around 13. There are soo many things that heterosexuals have not experienced, i dont think its cool for homoesexuals to be judged and made into thread topics and studied like a disease.

I think if the environment was less supportive of homosexuals, we'd see fewer of them. Have you ever heard of the term lipstick lesbian? They aren't homosexual, but they tend to crop up in college circles.

I think the topic of homosexuality warrants scrutiny since it is abnormal sexual behavior. As I have stated earlier, I have no problem with homosexuals. The thing I have a problem with is homosexual sex.

To Zatanna:

I suppose prenatal conditions can give a person predisposition to homosexuality. But I still belive that environment still plays a critical role in allowing homosexuality to surface, or stop it dead in its tracks. I don't really know much about this area, so I'm not really able to comment much.

The article also states that homosexuals tend to have more older brothers. Environment? Certainly supports it.

[*disco infiltrator*]

So wait, you think homosexuality occurs because people are told to be homosexual, or purely because it's accepted where they are?

My mom has told me countless times that if I turned out to be a lesbian, she would be fine with it. I've been raised to be tolerant of anyone, regardless of race, sexuality, gender, whatever. I've grown up in a very liberal home (which, yes, has shaped my views) - none of that has anything to do with my sexuality. I am still very much straight.

Smoking at the age of 18 (or younger, illegally) is widely accepted in our culture and where I live. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it. I'm not. I don't like it. I'm friends with a lot of people who smoke, both of my parent smoke, both of their significant others smoke, my ex boyfriend smokes - I'm not going to smoke.

[NoSex]

I think the biggest failure in the debates on homosexuality have been the total lack of information being presented on observed homosexuality in other species of the animal kingdom. Human beings are not the only animals that exhibit homosexual behavior.

How would those who believe homosexuality to be a choice, as well as a behavior largely influenced by nurture and enviroment, as opposed to nature, explain the scientific observation of homosexual behavior in over 450 species. How would you explain the exclusive same-sex partnerships observed and found in nature, the zoo, and controlled laboratories?

It reems rather clear to me that a penguin will not freely choose that a same-sex penguin is more attractive to him, on an aesthetic point. It seems clear to me that he will not rebel against his parent's religious convictions. All walks of life exhibit homosexual behavior.

It may very well be that this is not caused by a specific gene, nothing really is anyways (That isn't how genetics works). However, it seems clear that there is a biological factor at play here, not a largly sociological one. The answer may lay with a common hormonal imbalance. Either way, to me, it seems clear that it is not so much nurture as it is nature.

It may also be important to note that the stance of the American Psychological Association is that sexual orientation is not a choice.

[*kryogenix*]

So wait, you think homosexuality occurs because people are told to be homosexual, or purely because it's accepted where they are?

My mom has told me countless times that if I turned out to be a lesbian, she would be fine with it. I've been raised to be tolerant of anyone, regardless of race, sexuality, gender, whatever. I've grown up in a very liberal home (which, yes, has shaped my views) - none of that has anything to do with my sexuality. I am still very much straight.

Smoking at the age of 18 (or younger, illegally) is widely accepted in our culture and where I live. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it. I'm not. I don't like it. I'm friends with a lot of people who smoke, both of my parent smoke, both of their significant others smoke, my ex boyfriend smokes - I'm not going to smoke.

Flawed logic. That's just you. It's a safe bet that a community that allows smoking will have more smokers than a community that shuns smokers. It doesn't mean EVERYONE will smoke.

I think the biggest failure in the debates on homosexuality have been the total lack of information being presented on observed homosexuality in other species of the animal kingdom. Human beings are not the only animals that exhibit homosexual behavior.

How would those who believe homosexuality to be a choice, as well as a behavior largely influenced by nurture and enviroment, as opposed to nature, explain the scientific observation of homosexual behavior in over 450 species. How would you explain the exclusive same-sex partnerships observed and found in nature, the zoo, and controlled laboratories?

It reems rather clear to me that a penguin will not freely choose that a same-sex penguin is more attractive to him, on an aesthetic point. It seems clear to me that he will not rebel against his parent's religious convictions. All walks of life exhibit homosexual behavior.

It may very well be that this is not caused by a specific gene, nothing really is anyways (That isn't how genetics works). However, it seems clear that there is a biological factor at play here, not a largly sociological one. The answer may lay with a common hormonal imbalance. Either way, to me, it seems clear that it is not so much nurture as it is nature.

It may also be important to note that the stance of the American Psychological Association is that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Animal urges dicate them. They'll take whatever sex they can get. Also, I don't believe the animal kingdom has the culutural conventions that prevent the expression of homosexuality.

I also believe that you can't exactly choose to be homosexual. Instead, you grow up that way. When puberty sets in, you feel an attraction to the others around you. The sex drive is built in to promote mating and producing offspring. Homosexuals confuse associate same sex partnerships with the sex drive. Without anything to correct them, they become homosexual. I think homosexuals are almost conditioned to become so.

[NoSex]

Animal urges dicate them. They'll take whatever sex they can get.

It is very much true that animal urges dictate them. However, they do not take whatever sex they can get. Exclusive homosexual behavior is consistently observed within the animal kingdom. Meaning, these animals will only have sexual relations with same-sex partners, even when 'pressured' to mate with the opposite sex.

Also, I don't believe the animal kingdom has the culutural conventions that prevent the expression of homosexuality.

Of course not. But, aren't you trying to prove that homosexual orientation, in part, is due to cultural conventions in the first place? These conventions do not exist in the wild. The animals I am discussing do not deal with these issues, yet they still exhibit strong homosexual behavior.

I also believe that you can't exactly choose to be homosexual. Instead, you grow up that way.

You said before that animals are driven by their urges. If this is true, homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom must be a result of animalistic driven homosexual urges. Explain why these urges exist in the wild and in controlled enviroments.

When puberty sets in, you feel an attraction to the others around you.

I only felt an attraction to females. A homosexual male might tell you he only felt an attraction to males. What is your point?

The sex drive is built in to promote mating and producing offspring.

No. Sex drive is not something that was built. Now we are talking evolution. Sex drive is a result of natural selection. Its existenence is not the result of driven sentient purpose, but rather an ordered number game. Those with a sex drive more oftenly spread their seed. Sex drive still exists in homosexual animals. Their drive is just directed to the same sex.

Homosexuals confuse associate same sex partnerships with the sex drive.

How would they do that? Why would they do that?
Mayve there is no confusion. Maybe their drive is naturally directed towards the same sex. If it isn't truly a choice, this is what we would expect.

Without anything to correct them, they become homosexual. I think homosexuals are almost conditioned to become so.

You are acting as if it is a mistake. As if it is something that needs to be corrected. However, if they have within them the compacity to be exclusively attracted to the same sex, this is a natural occurance. It is of nature. We observe it in nature, and it independently occurs in nature.

By the way how do you condition a wild animal to be a homosexual? Force it to have anal sex with it's same gender?

Try it. I bet it won't work.

[*kryogenix*]

It is very much true that animal urges dictate them. However, they do not take whatever sex they can get. Exclusive homosexual behavior is consistently observed within the animal kingdom. Meaning, these animals will only have sexual relations with same-sex partners, even when 'pressured' to mate with the opposite sex.

I've heard about this, but I haven't seen papers or any reports on this. I'm not too familiar with the matter. Could you link me to them so that we're on the same page?

I've seen a show on how some male monkeys have sex with each other as "practice" for when they have intercourse with a female monkey. The monkey isn't att

Perhaps homosexual behavior is the inability to control sexual desire

I suppose the animal has been conditioned to only accept homosexual sex (I'll get to this later on in the post).

Of course not. But, aren't you trying to prove that homosexual orientation, in part, is due to cultural conventions in the first place? These conventions do not exist in the wild. The animals I am discussing do not deal with these issues, yet they still exhibit strong homosexual behavior.

If cultural conventions are tolerant of homosexual behavior, then it will occur. Without cultural conventions that discourage homosexual behavior, homosexual behavior can occur.

You said before that animals are driven by their urges. If this is true, homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom must be a result of animalistic driven homosexual urges. Explain why these urges exist in the wild and in controlled enviroments.

A laboratory born animal is no less an animal than one born in the wild.

I only felt an attraction to females. A homosexual male might tell you he only felt an attraction to males. What is your point?

Puberty is when homosexual behavior surfaces.

No. Sex drive is not something that was built. Now we are talking evolution. Sex drive is a result of natural selection. Its existenence is not the result of driven sentient purpose, but rather an ordered number game. Those with a sex drive more oftenly spread their seed. Sex drive still exists in homosexual animals. Their drive is just directed to the same sex.

I have doubts on this theory. This implies that there was a group of organisms that did not have a sex drive in the early formation of the species. If the first sexually reproducing organisms did not have a sex drive, we wouldn't be here today.

(I'm sure you know how I stand on how we humans came about, but that's for a different debate).

How would they do that? Why would they do that?
Mayve there is no confusion. Maybe their drive is naturally directed towards the same sex. If it isn't truly a choice, this is what we would expect.

Homosexuals confuse relationships with people of the same sex as them as

You are acting as if it is a mistake. As if it is something that needs to be corrected. However, if they have within them the compacity to be exclusively attracted to the same sex, this is a natural occurance. It is of nature. We observe it in nature, and it independently occurs in nature.

Just because we observe it in nature doesn't mean that it's normal or natural. In a recent example, we have observed one eyed cats in nature, that doesn't make having one eye normal. We have observed cats that "adopt" squirrels as their own children, that doesn't make it normal.

By the way how do you condition a wild animal to be a homosexual? Force it to have anal sex with it's same gender?

Try it. I bet it won't work.

Like any kind of behavior. Behavior that isn't corrected will be repeated. Behavior that is rewarded will be repeated. One who experiments with homosexual behavior will continue to exhibit homosexual behavior. The homosexual will assume ok after repeated displays of this behavior.

I'm being called to eat.

[*disco infiltrator*]

That's not true. Plenty of people experiment with homosexuality and bisexuality and turn out to be straight.

People aren't just now becoming homosexual because it's becoming more accepted. They've always been that way; just haven't ADMITTED it. You're confusing BEING homosexual to ADMITTING to being homosexual. Of course more people will admit to things that others consider wrong or bad the more widely accepted it is. That happens with any trait or characteristic.

Homosexuality is not something that's wrong and needs correction, nor is it "right". It is what it is. The person is homosexual. They cannot change that. They've been that way, all the time. They were not trained to be homosexual. They just are, just as you and I are straight. We just are. We didn't choose that way and weren't trained that way. We just ended up that way.

[AngryBaby]

By the way how do you condition a wild animal to be a homosexual? Force it to have anal sex with it's same gender?

Try it. I bet it won't work.

my two dogs hump eachother all the time, and they're dudes. Frank and Sebastian.
they love eachother. and i respect that.

[*kryogenix*]

That's not true. Plenty of people experiment with homosexuality and bisexuality and turn out to be straight.

That is if their behavior is caused to go extinct. People who experiment with gay sex that are not corrected will become gay. Or they could just be lipstick lesbians.

People aren't just now becoming homosexual because it's becoming more accepted. They've always been that way; just haven't ADMITTED it. You're confusing BEING homosexual to ADMITTING to being homosexual. Of course more people will admit to things that others consider wrong or bad the more widely accepted it is. That happens with any trait or characteristic.

Say a kid does something wrong, like sneaking snacks. If no one corrects this behavior by punishing him, the kid will continue to do it. If it goes further, and his peers praise him for being good at stealing, it will only support his belief that stealing is right and he might even be open and brag about it with his friends.

Homosexuality is not something that's wrong and needs correction, nor is it "right". It is what it is. The person is homosexual. They cannot change that. They've been that way, all the time. They were not trained to be homosexual. They just are, just as you and I are straight. We just are. We didn't choose that way and weren't trained that way. We just ended up that way.

People are straight because that's how they're supposed to be. Heterosexuality is natural, normal behavior, not how people 'end up.'

[*disco infiltrator*]

No. Homosexuality is not something that is wrong. Your little metaphor there really has nothing to do with homosexuality. Stealing snacks affects those who sell those snacks, causing them to lose money. What does homosexuality do to those who are not involved in the act? Nothing? NOTHING. No one else is affected if Bob and Joe are gay together. They can kiss in the privacy of their own home and nothing happens to anyone else. Nothing is made more negative in the world because Bob and Joe are together.

By your metaphor, someone who is gay decided, to themselves, chose to engage in homosexual activity; to experiment. I thought you said people didn't choose; that it was innate? Make up your mind.

And you're saying that the more gay they are, the more less straight they are. Well, uh, no. They either are gay or aren't. Simple as that.

And you think the more praise they get for it, the more they will do it? Since when have you seen any gay person being praised and well-liked and getting good recognition for being gay? I certainly haven't. I have never seen a parent happy about their child being gay. I have never seen someone who congratulates their friend on being gay. That's ridiculous.

[Comptine]

Interesting... it's been a long time I saw this topic active.

Say a kid does something wrong, like sneaking snacks. If no one corrects this behavior by punishing him, the kid will continue to do it. If it goes further, and his peers praise him for being good at stealing, it will only support his belief that stealing is right and he might even be open and brag about it with his friends.

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual aside from the fact that there's no reproduction (not a bad point considering our overpopulation). You say, 'correcting' homosexuality is a benefit. However, with the methods for sexual conversion today, there are great risks in 'correcting' something that is neither a disorder nor a real, life threatening thing.

wikipedia

Potential risks
Conversion therapies are frequently promoted as being helpful and safe. Reparative therapists claim they are helping those afflicted with unwanted and intrusive homosexual thoughts and point to the fact that many of their patients have expressed that they were not harmed by such procedures and, although not always having the desired effect, seemed to have some benefits.

However opponents argue that there is no evidence that reparative therapies are safe, and they may in fact be potentially dangerous. Some of the more extreme therapies that have been used (such as electro-shock therapy and aversion therapy) have long histories of being psychologically and physically harmful. However, such therapies are not commonly used by contemporary conversion therapists.

Opponents go further and claim that "softer" therapies such as the secular conversion counselling therapies may also be dangerous. They compare untested reparative therapies to other experimental therapies such as recovered memory therapy (used in unproven cases of satanic ritual abuse) and dissociative identity disorder, that have much in common with reparative therapies (i.e. they are all experimental therapies that have only been promoted by a minority of therapists and clergy) which have proven to cause emotional pain, devastate people's lives, and even result in suicide. They also claim that such therapies seek to exploit guilt and anxiety leading to further psychological problems.6

No study has been yet carried out into the long-term consequences of conversion therapies.

Another source - CLICK

These methods DON'T work. They are unreliable and rest heavily on scare tactics. Gory pictures, electroshock therapies all exploit the notion that homosexuality is 'evil'. This is something that cannot be corrected and most often, these therapies put a heavy burden on the people.

Homosexuality seems to be found in other species so it's not just a human "perversion". I believe that it is a natural variation to the human species. Others believe that there's an imbalance of hormones in the brain or a crossing of wires. Environment is not the solid reason for homosexuality. There are instances that prove that but how do you explain that the bulk of homosexuals are from strong heterosexual communities (especially within a strong religious community)? Are even the priests or men of cloth that seem to lean towards little BOYS instead of girls? While these priests or men of cloth (NOT ALL HOLY MEN ARE LIKE THIS) are pedophiles, they favor boys. I would consider that a form of homosexuality. How can you explain people, whose JOBS are to be religious, being affected by their environment to become gay? There is NO environment for them to be influenced to be gay.

[SideStraddleHop]

Why would you consider pedophilia (specifically the attraction of adult males to boys) a form of homosexuality? I agree with your assessment. However, therein lies the problem. How do you resolve one form of pedophilia, accepted as a mental disorder, as being a type of homosexuality, no longer accepted as a mental disorder?

Edit: To address the topic of the thread: Disorder. As per pre-1973 DSMs

[*disco infiltrator*]

Because the children are not able to consent with full understanding and it can damage them as it goes on. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is quite different.

[Paradox of Life]

^ At last! Someone who knows that the hell he's talking about.

Who the hell would be against a mental variation? This kind of reminds me of Hitler and the nazis. Anything that's not mainstream or typically accepted has to be destroyed or protested against as a sin. It's not a choice, so how is it a sin?

[Anielka]

I think it's just something you are. I think it's like...a preference. You prefer girls over guys or guys over girls. I think it's as much a choice as is as your favorite color. You don't really CHOOSE your favorite color. It's something you have.

[*kryogenix*]

^ At last! Someone who knows that the hell he's talking about.

Who the hell would be against a mental variation? This kind of reminds me of Hitler and the nazis. Anything that's not mainstream or typically accepted has to be destroyed or protested against as a sin. It's not a choice, so how is it a sin?

Godwin's law. I win!

[sheridan_whitesi...]

OK kids, once again we have to debunk your scientific misdeeds. If a gene isn't advantageous to an organism, it doesn't just go away. Although I am operating in the realms of pure theory, hypotheses, and speculation, I believe there is a genetic sequence out there favoring the development of homosexuality during adolesence. Therefore, homosexuality would depend on the presence of a gene and whether or not your body went through with the altering of preferences. Even if the "gay gene" was a simple recessive gene inherited in a Mendelian way, it wouldn't go away even if 100% of the people affected with the homozygous (pun city!) recessive allele would not reproduce ever. Heterozygosity preserves the gene, as well as carriers who go on to be straight. Using Hardy-Weinberg frequency figures, we know that some of the gene will go into people who aren't gay, regardless of its penetrance (kinda pun? anal sex kinda? no?) or frequency this "gay gene" would remain.

[*disco infiltrator*]

If this is true, would say like, Ss (S being sexuality gene, yea) people be bi? O_o

I'm still pushing for that hormone/puberty string of thought...I don't see how or why that wouldn't be the answer.