Homosexuality

[Nightscape]

What do you think about this controversial subject?
Do you think it is morally wrong, or do you believe that everyone is entitled to love whom they choose?

[Daevren]

I don't think its controversial or immoral.

But I can't imagine how it is to be homosexual. I already hate being hetrosexual sometimes. I am glad I am not homosexual.

[m1469]

How's this for you...

I do not view sexuality and sexual orientation as a final and determining aspect of any sort in what it means to be a man or a woman.

m1469

[JK]

It is contreversial but shouldn't be. Each to their own, it doesn't bother me whether someone is gay or not. What really matters is whether someone is a decent person or not, people shouldn't be persecuted because they feel differently from others. This is one part of religion, Christianity in my case, that I don't understand.

[chopiabin]

As a gay male and an atheist, I believe that sexuality is completely divorced from morality. What is morality? I believe that morality began when primitive man began to form societies. Those who stole meat from others had to be punished because they were infringing upon another's survival instinct. As societies grew, morality became more vague, but if one looks at what we generally call "wrong," one will find that it always has to do with deprving someone of something - murder (life), theft (property - originally food), rape (generally of women by men - instinct to protect women who were originally seen as property). Therefore, although I do not believe in an absolute morality, I realize that a societal morality exists and that sexuality has nothing to do with it. The concept that homosexuality or just sexuality in general is wrong is another blessing for which we can thank the Christian religion.

[Nightscape]

I believe that sexuality is completely divorced from morality.

It seems like only the European civilization was really the only one that put a strong link between sexuality and morality.  Asain civilizations did not view sexuality as such a controversial issue, thus homosexuality was not so controversial there.

Some would argue that homosexuality is abnormal, some sort of wierd disease or mental condition.  However, I disagree.  I think homosexuality has a rightful place in the species as a whole.  Humans, after all, aren't the only species that can have homosexual members.  In scientific experiments, researchers have noticed that when a colony of mice became very large, the number or homosexual mice within the colony increased - so homosexuality must be nature's way of "slowing" down massive procreation.  But in human civilizations, it is more than it.  Becuase the purpose of a human life is not just to have or not have babies, we as humans have made life so much more than that.  So I think this is where love ties in.  In humans, homosexuality has too evolved beyond our primitive animal friends to mean but not a barrier to procreation, but another opportunity to express the emotions of love and lust.

So I don't think it should be such a big deal either.

[Daevren]

I don't think sexuallity is completely divorced from morality, unless you meant 'sexual preference'.

BTW, theologically, the reason some christians think homosexuality is a sin is wrong. Well, for the most part it is the conservatism of the writers of the bible. I heard a historian describe the views of the Israelites is the bible as 'even worse than the taliban'. So this is no argument for claiming that homosexuality is a sin. Its not like those people were morally superieur and thus we should accept their views...

The other reason is much more abigu. It is believed god thinks homosexuality is a sin. But everytime god speaks out 'against homosexuality' he actually speaks out against something else. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for this reason. But what is the reason? It is going after strange flesh, but it doesn't mean homosexuality.

We have to look at the battle between god and lucifer. Look at the reason god killed every living thin on the earth except for Moses. Look at Lucifer plan for destroying  humankind and tease god. He tried it twice. He almost succeded. It does have to do with sexuality. So I let you people figure it out yourself.

BTW, I am an atheist and I don't believe it ever happened, this is just from a theologian perspective. Obviously isn't some epic battle about god not liking homosexuality(which he must have created himself, because homosexuality is there with a reason, to make sure males have fresh sperm when they finally get a chance to reproduce(so the same reason as masturbation). The batte is much darker and relevant. The stakes are alot higher.

BTW, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by a vulcanic eroption(you are free to believe god triggered it). At least, that is what research data suggests.

And like Alan Watts said, Christianity is the most sexual obsessed religion out there. In no religion sexuality is such a big issue. Of course this has got nothing to do with god if he would really exist. In christianity being a sinful person doesn't mean you lie, kill, steal, torture, are being cruel, etc. It means that you enjoy sex.

BTW, I live in celibate, personal moral non-religious vow(even non-buddhistic, but it is very similar to a buddhist view, and buddism is considered to be a religion sometimes). So I am not the most liberal person when it comes to sexuality.

[Daevren]

While I was typing, nightscape128 covered some subjects I covered too. I agree with you.

Never heard of the mice experiment, btw.

But I do know homosexuality is partly genetic. Research with identical twins has shown this. But its complex, just like all other factors that make up sexual preference, one big puzzle.

[chopiabin]

When do morality and sexuality have anything to do with each other? If you are talking about rapists or pedophiles, you can look back at my post and see my proposed reasons why those are "wrong." Societal morality dictates that violating another's survival instinct whether through forced sexual acts etc. is wrong, but as long as it is consensual, what is the problem?

[Daevren]

"Societal morality dictates that violating another's survival instinct whether through forced sexual acts etc. is wrong, but as long as it is consensual, what is the problem? "

It has to do with lust and the way you handle lust.

It is about needs and being happy.

It is like buddhism.

Ok you want to be happy. If you want something you don't have you have a reason not to be happy.
If you have lust you want something.
If you don't have lust you don't want everything.
So you have everything.
So you cannot be unhappy.
So you are happy.

Another social factor is that I don't think one should have sex for reasons of lust only. Sex should be something spiritual, between two persons. Something exclusive. If you disagree with this then what is sex? I agree it is something romantic, a pink dream, detatched from reality, something superficial created by the human intellect and irrationality.

Another factor is that sex enslaves people. Sex creates a polarization, the battle of the sexes. It almost destroys the possibility of friendship between members of the opposite sex. There is always tension, the instinctive urge to impress the other sex, create a fake version of yourself. There are all kinds of strange rituals involved. The whole dating thing. Its one big mating dance.
So the purest friendship possible, ignoring blood/genetic related people(family) is a friendship between a homoseksual male and a homosexual female.

Sexuality plays a game with us. And I don't like it.

[Nightscape]

People who disapprove of homosexuality often claim it is "immoral".  Their definition of morality, then, is based on one of two things.  Either something is immoral because they cannot understand it or are unfamiliar with it, or it is immoral becuase they think it conflicts with religion (the the bible for example).  So it really isn't morality that shapes their belief then.  If it is the first option, it is fear (where homophobia originates).  If it is the second option, then it is bigotry and hypocrisy.
So homosexuality cannot be 'immoral' because it does not infringe on another's rights, as Chopiabin stated before.

[chopiabin]

Daevren, I guess what my point was is that although sexuality may be frustrating, or silly, or painful, it in itself is not "wrong."

[Daevren]

True, but it is a moral issue.

[chopiabin]

How so?

[superstar]

Oh , this subject again .. i feel like replying to this topic , as i know something about it.
At first , when i entered the Academy of Music in Danzig , Poland .. i never thought about homosexuality .. as this subject was never interesting for me and my family .. we just weren't disscussing it anyhow .. but then , when i began to live here in the dorm ... the manager of dorm dropped me into a 3-person room ... i was living there for a week , from the beginning they looked odd for me , and then i discovered they were gays and one of them told me he's gay , and that he'd love to hear the same from me ... THAT WAS AWFUL ....       for 3 weeks , i was living there as there was no other empty slot in the dorm ... i had a depression , i couldnt get dressed the way i do , i always had to enter the bathroom ... i could feel them looking at me the whole time ... woa .... and the both of them , are really nerds , they just cant stop looking at u with that kind of starring ... oh ... and once we talked about that (they always bring that subject into discussion) , they said , that everyman is gay , but he just did not discover it yet ... how stupid ... now i live in another room , with hetero guys , and it's good enough ...
till now , i get loadz of messages from all kind of men from the academy with dating stuff .. just ONE girl texted me .. (weird) ...    but last week , i met a boy from the vocal section and he is gay .. but he is really a nice person and i can talk to him normally .. now i just know , it doesnt depend that much on the sexuality .. but about the person .. !!! that's all i can say for now .. 

[Daniel_piano]

I believe that we all born "neutral"
That is: as social and intelligent human beings we have the faculty of fall in love for anyone, his gender not being an important factor
Now, I think we should understand the difference between procreation and love
They're completely different, we are able to procreate without love or to love without procreate
Since the features that make us love someone are: interestes, intelligence, ideas, theories, immagination, loyalty, honesty, sensitivity; we're talking about features that can be found withou distinction both on male and female

So, I believe that we are born with the faculty of find those characteristics we love despite the genere, we are designed to be able to love in love with anyone according to his/her interior quality and not his/her anatomical one

I believe also that it's "culture" and especially "religion culture" that create the difference between strict eteresexuality and strict homosexuality
imho opinion both these arbitrary and absolutistic choices are unnatural to human nature
That's is both denying the change of falling in love with a woman/girl or denying the chance to follow in love with a man/boy are extreme cultural conditionings that doesn't belong to our social nature

The theory that both strict homosexuality and both strict heteresexuality are not the way we are born can be found on the observation of other animals of our same species (like primates, and bonobos more precisely) and also in population with a liberal non religious culture such as the Tromboidesis or the Munt Haghianien

The good thing is that when people are ready to abandon this exclusive idea of a strict sexuality (like these population) the incidence of rape, depression, manias and violent perversions is 0%

Daniel

[ChristmasCarol]

Hmmmmmmmmmm even asking a question like whether or not you believe it is morally wrong makes me wonder what your agenda is.  Discussing whether or not something that already exists is right or wrong is absurd to me.  Homosexuals just ... are. 

[Tash]

frankly i don't really care if someone's homosexual or not. like if someone mentions to me that someone's gay, i'm like well good for them why did you bother telling me that? it's really only relevant if you think they're hot but should probably be told that they'll never be available!

[Bob]

tsk tsk tsk... Tash!  It means that guy's not available AND he's competing with you. lol..    Potentially removing two guys from the avaible "pool of men"  (that guy and his significant other).  I'm sure those people are just trying to be nice and tell you this.

[m1469]

So the purest friendship possible, ignoring blood/genetic related people(family) is a friendship between a homoseksual male and a homosexual female.

Is purity the goal then ?

[chopiabin]

I got a 72.3 on the Purity Test. I think purity is boring (no offense Daevren) and should be abolished. I intend to destroy a little more purity this coming Friday with my boytoy, Brock

[Tash]

tsk tsk tsk... Tash! It means that guy's not available AND he's competing with you. lol.. Potentially removing two guys from the avaible "pool of men" (that guy and his significant other). I'm sure those people are just trying to be nice and tell you this.

ah but the other guy's gay anyway so i couldn't go after him anyway!

[jlh]

In scientific experiments, researchers have noticed that when a colony of mice became very large, the number or homosexual mice within the colony increased - so homosexuality must be nature's way of "slowing" down massive procreation.  

Let us also not forget the mice that just got plain confused by the experiment...

https://www.ebaumsworld.com/images/confusedmouse.jpg

[brewtality]

ROFLMAO! That's hilarious 

[superstar]

A stupid addition , but related with the topic .. : I just found out that Krystian Zimerman is a gay .. i dont know y ive been informed , as ur self too .

[brewtality]

what? he has children

[meisel]

A homosexual is a human being, and should also be treated like one.

I dont see how being a homosexual can make you a worse person than being a heterosexual. And hey, we need people who adopt kids in this crowded world.

[tosca1]

Sadly, because of social and family pressures many homosexual men and women marry a non gay partner and have children. Indeed, some gay people think that marriage will "cure" them which is of course false.  Usually, they discover that they are unable to sustain a heterosexual relationship and they must be true to their real sexual orientation. It is a painful process for all concerned.

 As attitudes gradually become more enlightened and compassionate, people should be able to lead, with dignity and honesty, the life for which they are genetically predisposed.

Kind regards,

Robert.

[Jack Appleseed]

I don't even think it is controversial.

ja

What do you think about this controversial subject?
Do you think it is morally wrong, or do you believe that everyone is entitled to love whom they choose?

[wynnbear]

I think it's refreshing to see it discussed openly without it turning into a flame war.  This is a very polite group.   

[athykay]

Amen!  Could it be?  A place where civil discussion can be had?  Even of controversial subjects?

[wynnbear]

Amen!  Could it be?  A place where civil discussion can be had?  Even of controversial subjects?

Active moderators, I'd guess.  What a difference it makes! 

[Floristan]

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are two normal variants of sexual behavior, with a great many people not exclusively one or the other but having rare to less rare to occasional sexual encounters with the sexually with same sex partners.  For some it never gets beyond the fantasy stage, but it's there.  Heaven knows, I fantasize about women sexually but have no desire to make that fantasy reality.  Kinsey was right.

I was born gay and have never known any other feelings.  How can that make me immoral?  It's just who I am, by nature.  I understand people want to believe it's a choice and not nature, but they're wrong.  It's not a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice, and you never hear them saying they considered their options and decided to go for the heterosexual life style because they tried the same sex thing and it just wasn't for them.  No, all of them who argue that homosexuality is a choice say heterosexuality is not a choice, it's natural.

But I've come to expect that kind of double-think from these antediluvian minds.  Worst, most of them are self-confessed Christians who don't seem to recall any of Jesus' teachings or His life.  Jesus surrounded himself with a bunch of societal misfits, those scorned by society, beggars, lepers, common men, a harlot.  Is it such a leap of faith to believe he may well have had a few gay disciples, or at the very least he would have ministered to us today if he were to return.  No, Jesus was silent about sexual matters, so what does that silence mean?  He was uncomfortable talking about it?  It just never occurred to him, being such a spiritual guy?  That he had no desires, being an incarnate diety.  Hard to believe since he made rather a lot of the fact that God incarnated him so that he could experience all it meant to be human and witness and experience first hand man's inhumanity to man and finally be the ultimate sacrifice to that evil impulse, so that we might say, "You know what, he's right, society casts us out but Jesus didn't.  He said we were the worthy.  No longer will we be put aside because Jesus' church will  welcome us and defend us."

Ooops, something happened on the way to delivering the message.  Paul decided to make a few crucial changes to Jesus' teachings, adding a few of his own, and inventing sin where Jesus said sin was no more.  And so the church became quickly unwelcoming and controlling and distinctly un-Jesus-like.

No, I'm convinced in my heart as surely as the fundamentalists are in theirs, but my heart says Jesus welcomes gays with open arms and judges us not.  He knows our souls and hearts, he knows how well we love God.   To me the people who choose to exclude from their ministries the very people Jesus sought out are fulfilling not Jesus' mission but the mission of the Antichrist.  They are the false prophets predicted.  Not that I believe all that Apocalypse stuff, but as a metaphor, it's a pretty good one for them.  We're not bringing the end of time -- they are by rejecting the teachings of their very own Messiah and choosing to live not by love but by hate.

So far this has been a decent, no name calling discussion.  I'd be surprised if it stays that way.

[chopiabin]

Hey, I'm gay too. It's nice to know someone else on this forum who is open about it. I agree with everything you said - are you a Nietzsche fan? Some of the stuff you said about Paul's meddling with Jesus' teachings sounds like some of his work. I'm an atheist myself, but respect Christians who have a healthy view of religion (that it's not absolute).

[Floristan]

Yes, Chopiabin, you pegged me right -- a long-time Nietzsche fan.  He said, "You have to read the Gospels with kid gloves."  I do.  Also a big Kiergegaard fan.

Actually I got a little confused last night when I posted this...I thought I was at the Piano World site where 89th Key is going on and on about...well, if you've been there, you know what he goes on about.  I was wondering what happened to my post, thought Frank had pulled it for some reason, but here it is, in a much more hospitable environment.  I'm better off not mixing it up with 89th Key anyway, it's just not worth it.

[chopin_girl]

I think it's a choice someone should make and I don't think I have the right to judge people who choose to have relationships with the same sex.
As simple as that- it's their choice to make.

[athykay]

Floristan, great post.  I find the reference to Paul most interesting.  He's so venerated  in many theological study circles, but I've always found him to be a bit of the preachy stuff shirt - a little too holier-than-thou.

So, who are you on PW? 

[tosca1]

While I applaud the stance of chopin_girl on this topic,I strongly disagree with the  use of the word "choice". I am a gay man and all my life, indeed from my earliest recollections I have been aware of my sexual orientation. It is definitely not a
"choice".  It is a genetic predisposition which is part of my psyche.
While chopin_girl has not used the word "choice" to denigrate gay people, many have, in their ignorance, viciously attacked homosexual people claiming that it is a chosen "life-style".
While I dislike labelling minority groups as it can create stereotypes, gay people lead lives which are just as loving, just as creative and just as decent as anyone else.

I have been very heartened by the enlightened and compassionate tone of the discussion on this topic. It is an excellent reflection on the calibre of  the members of this forum.

Kind regards,
Robert.

[Floristan]

Floristan, great post.  I find the reference to Paul most interesting.  He's so venerated  in many theological study circles, but I've always found him to be a bit of the preachy stuff shirt - a little too holier-than-thou.

So, who are you on PW? 

Email or PM me and I'll tell you...I kind of like my public anonymity at this forum! 

[pianowelsh]

We are all 'humanbeings'. As such we all have the possibility to make choices indeed we make choices about everything. Some choices we make are better than others FACT, some are good and some are bad and we regret them . A choice has a consequence of some kind and the choice we make is shaped by our moral and spiritual values. Sometimes we learn quickly whether we made a good decision or not, sometimes the jury is out. We don't all hold the same values - frankly it would be unnatural if we all did but my choice is to trust God at his word . As Joshua said: 'as for me and my House, we will serve the Lord' I respect the right of all human life to make their choice but I trust in God for my Salvation.     Bless you all!

[willcowskitz]

I agree: Stop using the word "choice" in this reference.

Sexual orientation has got nothing to do with the kind of choices that we make everyday and have to take responsibility from.

[tosca1]

Yes, Willcowskitz I agree with you. Do people have "choice" if they happen to have red hair or even if they are endowed with muscal genius? No, absolutely not. That is part of the genetic "package" with which we are born.
I agree with pianowelsh that as adults we all make choices which determine the outcomes in our life, but to suggest  that sexual orientation is part of our conscious choice is completely erroneous.
Kind regards,
Robert.

[tony]

Just checking in after a really long time and could not resist responding to this thread.  As both a gay man, and an established psychotherapist, I can tell you that never in 25 years have I worked with a gay man who believed he had any choice at all about his sexual orientation.  In fact, almost anyone who works with a large number of gay men in analytic/dynamic therapy will tell you that most gay men knew by the time they were four years old they were "different".  A smaller percentage of lesbians seem to have that early awareness.

You may be interested to know that all respected mental health organizations in the US have stated it unethical to attempt to change the sexual orientation of a client.  Anyone who is practicing "repairative therapy" is either violating their professional code of ethics, OR is not a licensed mental health professional.  Some quasi-religious types (pastoral counselors, etc) may claim to offer this treatment;  however, every piece of decent research indicates the Ex-gay movement is fraudulent.

Just for the record, the clients I see are generally very well educated and high functioning business and professional people.  Lots of lawyers, physicians, mental health professionals, and clergy.

I'm really curious about the intense interest in this subject.

Best regards,
Tony

[ehpianist]

 But in human civilizations, it is more than it.  Becuase the purpose of a human life is not just to have or not have babies, we as humans have made life so much more than that.  So I think this is where love ties in.

Nightscape, this to me was the perfect statement that encapsulates everything I believe about the issue.  Thank you for putting words to it.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[Edgar]

I too, for the record, am homosexual.

Floristan, great post.  I find the reference to Paul most interesting.  He's so venerated  in many theological study circles, but I've always found him to be a bit of the preachy stuff shirt - a little too holier-than-thou.

Yeah. Thomas Jefferson thought so too: "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

and Wil Durant: "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ."

[Floristan]

Thanks Edgar, EHPianist, Nightscape, Tony, Tosca1, Willcowskitz, athykay, Chopiabin, and others for your excellent posts.  I feel in such good company here at PF.

Edgar, thanks especially for the quotes from Jefferson and Durant that parallel my Nietzsche quote -- three very independent thinkers coming to the same conclusion about old St. Paul and his invidious interpretations of the meaning of the Christ's life and death.  It's like he never ever really understood the message.

Here I go off on another thread, but the past few posts have made me think about the place of religion in my life.

As much as I hated being raised a Methodist, I was given one valuable moral precept.  Methodists are required to develop a personal realtionship with God and Jesus and the Bible and to become their own ministers, deciding through study, prayer and meditation, what God's truth is for each of us individually.  In Methodism there is no intermediary, no preacher or priest to intercede or who has more answers than you (they can guide only, not dictate the path).  So at least I grew up believing that free thinking was sanctioned by the church.  The Methodist hierarchy has become as fossilized as any ecclesiastical body, so that the church as it is today is a far cry from what John Wesley created riding around the English countryside on horseback, holding meetings out of doors to be closer to God, telling people they could speak directly with God. 

But I got the core message nonetheless, and it has allowed me to fashion my own understanding of God's love, sin, the meaning of Jesus' life -- that He made it possible for all humans to accept their humanness and quit dwelling on sin but instead work to love God and love one another and to honor ourselves as spiritual beings who are capable of selfless love from time to time, and who the rest of the time are not as bad as the Pharisees would like us to believe but most of us quite mundane in our "sins."  It's quite a shock, when one longs for drama a la Verdi, to discover one's life is just not that shocking after all.  The beginning of humility, which is the beginning of spirituality.

[Minute Waltz]

Just checking in after a really long time and could not resist responding to this thread.  As both a gay man, and an established psychotherapist, I can tell you that never in 25 years have I worked with a gay man who believed he had any choice at all about his sexual orientation.  In fact, almost anyone who works with a large number of gay men in analytic/dynamic therapy will tell you that most gay men knew by the time they were four years old they were "different".  A smaller percentage of lesbians seem to have that early awareness.

How can anyone call this research accurate? This is tantamount to asking Christians whether they know that God exists! All Christians will, by definition, answer "Yes, I know God exists"; does this mean that every person should conform to that stance? Please reduce your double standards to a minimum, Tony.

Do people have "choice" if they happen to have red hair or even if they are endowed with muscal genius? No, absolutely not. That is part of the genetic "package" with which we are born.
I agree with pianowelsh that as adults we all make choices which determine the outcomes in our life, but to suggest that sexual orientation is part of our conscious choice is completely erroneous.

Genetic material codes for a specific sequence of amino acids to form a polypeptide, which will in turn, form a protein in a process known as translation. Red hair is a pigment, musical genius is an abnormally high level of brain development in the area of the brain governing music related activities (the mathematics portions, creativity). Mannerisms and tendencies are NOT genetic. They are the result of the nurturing of a child by his or her parents. So in that sense, yes, a child assumes many of the proclivities of his/her parents.
The only possible way homosexuality is a genetic trait is that it would be a mutation. If you are an atheist, then you most likely believe that sexual intercourse is merely the means by which genetic material is passed on; a series of biochemical reactions determining the time at which one's genes ought be propagated, just as in any other organism. If homosexuality is genetic, than it MUST be a mutation, since, in order to form offspring, one requires a zygote, for which one requires one egg (female) and one sperm (male) for proper fertilization. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce, unless they somehow "overcome" their genetic precursors and engage in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite gender. And since, according to Darwin, natural selection governs all organisms' behavoirs, homosexuality would be absolutely unneccessary to an organism and would thus be extirpated over the course of human evolution.
If homosexuality is genetic, than would someone please explain why during the progressive liberal movement of the 1990's was marked by a 400% increase in homosexuals? Does my personal belief that homosexuality is a choice make me see them as any less than people? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

[athykay]

Genetic material codes for a specific sequence of amino acids to form a polypeptide, which will in turn, form a protein in a process known as translation. Red hair is a pigment, musical genius is an abnormally high level of brain development in the area of the brain governing music related activities (the mathematics portions, creativity). Mannerisms and tendencies are NOT genetic. They are the result of the nurturing of a child by his or her parents. So in that sense, yes, a child assumes many of the proclivities of his/her parents.
The only possible way homosexuality is a genetic trait is that it would be a mutation. If you are an atheist, then you most likely believe that sexual intercourse is merely the means by which genetic material is passed on; a series of biochemical reactions determining the time at which one's genes ought be propagated, just as in any other organism. If homosexuality is genetic, than it MUST be a mutation, since, in order to form offspring, one requires a zygote, for which one requires one egg (female) and one sperm (male) for proper fertilization. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce, unless they somehow "overcome" their genetic precursors and engage in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite gender. And since, according to Darwin, natural selection governs all organisms' behavoirs, homosexuality would be absolutely unneccessary to an organism and would thus be extirpated over the course of human evolution.
If homosexuality is genetic, than would someone please explain why during the progressive liberal movement of the 1990's was marked by a 400% increase in homosexuals? Does my personal belief that homosexuality is a choice make me see them as any less than people? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

I can explain - because it has been taboo for time immemorial, and people are just finally openly admitting  to the existence of homsexuality and the fact that it is normal and not some sort of shameful anomoly.

As to genetic research, I say au contraire.  There have been recent studies supporting the theory that the sexuality as well as sexual preferences are determined in the womb/and or in the zygote stage.  I will try to dig them up later.

Have you ever read the book, "Middlesex" a novel by Jeffrey Eugenides about a hermaphrodite?  (Great book!)  It *is* just a novel but loosely based on the author's true life experience as an hermaphrodite.  It contains a long explanation of how his zygote became sexually confused - ergo his ultimate sexuality being half and half.   Yes, you can say this is just a novel,  but I expect  the account was based on scientific studies, and would further venture that they apply to the question at issue.

[calidris]

Genetic material codes for a specific sequence of amino acids to form a polypeptide, which will in turn, form a protein in a process known as translation. Red hair is a pigment, musical genius is an abnormally high level of brain development in the area of the brain governing music related activities (the mathematics portions, creativity). Mannerisms and tendencies are NOT genetic. They are the result of the nurturing of a child by his or her parents. So in that sense, yes, a child assumes many of the proclivities of his/her parents.
The only possible way homosexuality is a genetic trait is that it would be a mutation. If you are an atheist, then you most likely believe that sexual intercourse is merely the means by which genetic material is passed on; a series of biochemical reactions determining the time at which one's genes ought be propagated, just as in any other organism. If homosexuality is genetic, than it MUST be a mutation, since, in order to form offspring, one requires a zygote, for which one requires one egg (female) and one sperm (male) for proper fertilization. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce, unless they somehow "overcome" their genetic precursors and engage in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite gender. And since, according to Darwin, natural selection governs all organisms' behavoirs, homosexuality would be absolutely unneccessary to an organism and would thus be extirpated over the course of human evolution.
If homosexuality is genetic, than would someone please explain why during the progressive liberal movement of the 1990's was marked by a 400% increase in homosexuals? Does my personal belief that homosexuality is a choice make me see them as any less than people? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

OK, I'm gonna try to keep this short.

it MUST be a mutation, since, in order to form offspring, one requires a zygote, for which one requires one egg (female) and one sperm (male) for proper fertilization. Homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce

True, homosexuals do not naturally reproduce, but there is a way for such genes to be passed on anyway.  There are other genes besides the one (or many) coding for homosexuality (if it would be genetic) that make the individual not reproductive, and yet these genes do survive.  The most important part about these genes, is that their phenotype only shows in combination with other genes or that they are simply recessive. 

Altruism is one of my favourite phenomena, it was one of the biggest mysteries to Darwinists but scientists have found the explanation.  An altruisitic individual doesn't reproduce but helps out close kin so that they can reproduce more.  It happens a lot in the world of animals, that offspring help out their parents instead of looking for a partner themselves.  Their parents can then have more children, and so the genes of the altruistic offspring gets passed on too.  Mind, this altruistic gene must be recessive or controlled in a more complex manner, in order for it to survive.  (This is all proven)

Now, there used to be a Nature article online (for which you now have to pay in order to see it ), that had found statistical evidence that women who have given birth to homosexual children, have a higher fertility.  The connection with altruism is pretty clear.

I'm not saying it IS genetic, all I'm saying is that it is perfectly possible.   

[athykay]

Just a couple of  studies I was able to quickly Google, supporting notion that homosexuality is genetic.

https://news.biocompare.com/newsstory.asp?id=29969

https://www.toddlertime.com/ts/sex-or-gender.htm

Thought this was interesting, from the above article.

"According to this interpretation, as the environment changes, so will the range and texture of gender differences. At a time in Western countries when female reproduction is extremely low, nursing is totally optional, childcare alternatives are many, and mechanization lessens the importance of male size and strength, women are no longer restricted as much by their smaller size and by child-bearing. That means, argue Eagly and Wood, that role structures for men and women will change and, not surprisingly, the way we socialize people in these new roles will change too. (Indeed, says Wood, 'sex differences seem to be reduced in societies where men and women have similar status,' she says. If you're looking to live in more gender-neutral environment, try Scandinavia.)""

I've heard this theory extended to suggest that one day, males will no longer be necessary in society.   And recently heard a snippet on NPR about sperm and how it could be developed from stem cells - again potentially rendering males - erm - obsolete. 

Sorry to digress.  I just find the whole topic of the development of sexuality and sexual tendencies very fascinating.