This is something I've been pondering myself recently, the leading scientific opinion is that jomosexuality is based on biology rather than being a choice, but I still wonder. I think Nature vs Nuture comes into play. Just wondering what others thoughts are.
Yeah, it counts as gullibility / idiocy.
Yeah to add to what everyone else already said, the APA has declared twice that conversion therapy not only shows no evidence of working, but also that it is potentially very harmful.
This is one of those topics where I hate to openly talk about because we always seem to downplay the homosexuals, but for who understand the true nature of homosexuality, knows Gays and Lesbians are mistakes, just like any other animal anomalies. It is simply another unfinished job or job done wrong, nothing else. It is not a choice, not a brain damage or god's hatred. Nothing is wrong with gays and lesbians other than liking the same sex because their brains have more of the opposite sex feature.
Not a single true gay person told me they felt attracted to the same sex for beauty reasons or choice or for fun, all told me it comes naturally. This is because a man born with to much female feature may or will like only men. A woman born with to much male feature may or will like only women's, naturally without thinking. People are born the way they are and cannot change, for us, lovers of the opposite sex, we will never truly understand how they feel, our brain is wired well enough, at least concerning that area of the brain. And thank goodness for science and common sense for letting us support them morally, at least I do. :)
But go say these things to a fundamentalist.... LOL (stone in hand)
Gianni, you probably should delete or edit this. Using the word "mistake" is going get a lot of people upset. Nature is not precise enough to call any living thing a mistake. See my post on this topic below. More important, given the history of persecution of homosexuals you must be careful what you say and how you say it. It is not enough to support them morally at the moment. We must support them politically and psychologically as well.
Please give me a few more hours or maybe a day to answer your post, i have so much things to do and I will respond trough my blog as my answer is absolutely too big for this place, I would need to cut it into many bits... LOL
But I will come back soon and enlighten you!!! Richrad Dawkins is not the ultimate word and will show you why.
I like the "Sneaky Fucker" theory
Came to post this!
Dawkins has ruined me. I can't see anything on this subject without thinking about the Sneaky Fucker theory.
Love it! "The Sneaky Fucker Theory"!
Have a search for INAH3, amygdala and BSTc and you will get quite a lot of research papers trending towards biological differences. It makes sense because I have never heard of a straight person choosing to be straight. As a trans person, I think some of the same mechanisms apply to that too. One interesting theory I read in Simon Levay's book is that the X chromosome carries genes that contribute towards male homosexuality but in women produce more "promiscuous" behaviour, which helps explain why the genese persist.
Well it doesn't "make evolutionary sense" because it doesn't serve a purpose. Evolutionary mutations are supposed to have a purpose. It would make more sense to people if it had a clear evolutionary purpose. If anything it only serves to cull population growth, so... not exactly useful to the survival of our species.
Ha, I have secretly held that theory as my own for some time now. I know there's a lot of "overpopulation is a myth" nonsense out there, but the fact of the matter is while the planet may not become overpopulated, the cities (where most people live these days) undoubtedly, irrefutably, inevitably will, and that's going to affect our quality of life. And we're going to have to adapt to that. Whether or not we'd do so on a genetic level though... it's a hurdle.