<p>I’m-not-a-girl, I believe you, I know that you can;t choose to who you;re sexually attracted to. ANd being gay is NOT a bad thing. Be true to who you are, it;s better than pretending to be heterosexual to please people like flipchick who think that homosexuality is a negative thing. When you criticize homosexuality, you are denouncing a big part of who these people are. Just as you would take offense if someone ridiculed your religion, it is the same when you claim that homosexuality is negative. I just fell, flipchick, that unless you are gay, you cannot claim that it is a choice.</p>
<p>thats been said several times in this thread but never been supported. can anyone provide evidence(non-anecdotal) that homosexuality is indeed inate?</p>
<p>Thanks, GreenDayFan.</p>
<p>Flipchick, here’s an article about the intensive religious brainwashing that I talked about:
<a href=“http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id529/pg1/[/url]”>http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id529/pg1/</a></p>
<p>excerpts: </p>
<p>"The validity of these ‘Ex-Gay’ ministries has been repeatedly shot down by authoritative and credible scientific groups. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association have all issued strongly worded admonitions combating the idea that homosexuality is ‘treatable.’ Even before 1973, when the American Psychological Association deprecated homosexuality as a mental disorder (in DSM-III), repeated studies confirmed it was veritably impossible to change someones sexual orientation, even through Behaviorist measures such as electric shock treatments and pain therapy.</p>
<p>The American Psychological Association passed a 1997 resolution stating that "that there is no sound evidence on the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’, which seeks to ‘cure’ homosexuals.</p>
<p>In response to the ‘Ex-Gay’ advertising campaign, the APA also released a December 1998 statement. ‘The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.’</p>
<p>Furthermore, none of these ex-gay groups follow up with any of the participants in the therapy, eliminating any statistics on their success ratio. Exodus admitted, ‘People ask for that all the time, but we don’t keep records. We probably should.’</p>
<p>The best evidence that the “Ex-Gay” movement is not motivated by human concern but instead by political power comes from ex-“Ex-Gays.” These are people who have gone through one of the “Ex-Gay” ministries, were “healed” by the Shining Magical Power of Jesus Christ, and subsequently “returned” to being gay. </p>
<p>Several founders of “Ex-Gay” ministries have since renounced their behavior, and denounced the ministries and their “methods.”</p>
<p>Jeffry G. Ford, M.A., a licensed psychotherapist, was formerly the director of Outpost, a Minnesota-based ex-gay ministry. After years of traumatically forcing others, already unfairly stigmatized by society, through his program, Ford quit his job, came out of the closet, and debunked Outpost.</p>
<p>“In a society that denies basic human rights and allows the heterosexual majority power to determine our validity,” Ford stated, "it is understandable that people would want to escape that kind of persecution. It saddens me deeply to watch as people deny their true nature and strive to find love and acceptance by conforming to the conditions and demands of those who hate and fear that very part of them that is the core of their being.</p>
<p>“In the five years I was directly involved with the change movement, I do not believe that I saw one genuine change or shift in sexual orientation.”</p>
<p>A more comical - and telling - example is what happened to the Exodus International founders. Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, who began the prominent “Ex-Gay” ministry in the mid-1970s, left their jobs as co-Chairmen, divorced their respective wives, and celebrated a Queer marriage ceremony. Until Cooper’s untimely death in 1991, they were amongst the “Ex-Gay” movements most vocal opponents. Their ex-wives now run Exodus.</p>
<p>Scientific and anecdotal evidence is overwhelmingly against these ministries. Furthermore, the “graduates” have universally dispelled any shred of evidence that these programs really work. The credibility of “Ex-Gay” ministries dwindles as a result."</p>
<p>another question i would like answered: which major human rights organization considers marriage a basic human right, and could you provide a marked section of their charter documenting this?</p>
<p>we need to alert them of this major human rights violation</p>
<p>“If my life depended on it, though, could I make the choice to be gay? I bet I could.”</p>
<p>You would not “turn gay”. You would be no more gay than Will Smith was Ali when he ACTED as Ali.</p>
<p>Que, the United Nations is a major human rights organization.</p>
<p>My purpose for posting this article is simply to prove that a marriage is a basic human right, because that’s the only thing you asked for-- meaning the formal definition of marriage has yet to be modified, but that’s a different story. However, if homosexuals did not choose their sexual orientation, society is depriving them of their basic human right to marry (i’m talking about a civil marriage).</p>
<p>source: <a href=“http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html[/url]”>http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html</a>
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…</p>
<p>Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction… </p>
<p>Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."</p>
<p>Bump Bump Bump</p>
<p>is there any scientific reasoning as to why people are ‘born’ gay?</p>
<p>is there any scientific reasoning as to why people are not “born” gay? </p>
<p>and no buddy, sorry the bible doesn’t count. it’s honestly ridiculous when one thinks the whole adam/eve/steve thing is a great time to bring it up. please, most of have heard it before, and you’re just ripping off someone’s little limrick. don’t you feel fabulous.</p>
<p>forget my stupid adam/eve/steve thing…it was not meant to be taken seriously…</p>
<p>well since there arent any facts to prove that people are born gay or become gay…i think we should avoid claiming such things as true…</p>
<p>I read a study somewhere (sorry, for the life of me I can’t remember the link to it…) that said that it might have something to do with the development of a certain region in the brain. People who were gay had a slightly different development in that region than people who were straight. I’ll try to find that study again…</p>
<p>well shouldn’t we trust homosexuals when they tell us that they were born gay and did not choose to be so. I’d say they would know more than anyone else would. And we cannot change them, nor should we.They should embrace who they are.</p>
<p>then it’s forgetten, and i won’t bring it up again.</p>
<p>while their arn’t any facts that certainly show that, (where would one even find the funding and how could one even do the research) there is a lot of research based on that being gay is genetics. (quite a bit of gay twins, some gay triplets) now you may already be thinking, wouldn’t the genetical line already pass out? it’s probably a recessive gene that’s masked behind other traits. shooting some theories around, i’m not sure. that would be by far the ultimate nail in the case if there was (and i do indeed believe there is) a certain combination of alleles that describe a higher certainity of homsexuality. </p>
<p>but as seen before, many documented animals are homosexual, and even in ancient times(ancient greek/roman and believe me, i’m not even referring to the great one with the movie) there was cases of homosexuliaty. attention back then brought death. and no one ever wanted uniquness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>now with certain parts emphasized:
</p>
<p>we’re discussing men and men or women and women, not men and women. furthermore, the discussion isnt about race, nationality or religion; it’s about the sex of each of people in the couple looking to marry. by this exerpt, if they are unable to found a family then the purpose of the marriage is defeated.</p>
<p>i would like to know what the problem is with civil unions(gov. bows out of marriage leaving it up to the churches while offering a secular civil union avalible to all avoiding that whole seperate but equal issue) as it is specifically stated couples are entitled to equal rights as marriage implying what its called is not important</p>
<p>Que, I’ll repost what I said earlier.</p>
<p>“My purpose for posting this article is simply to prove that a marriage is a basic human right, because that’s the only thing you asked for-- meaning the formal definition of marriage has yet to be modified, but that’s a different story.”</p>
<p>I clearly acknowledged that the same-sex marriage issue would be a different story from just proving that marriage is a basic human right. As we all know, the provision has not been included in the UN Declaration of Rights as of yet. AND that’s the human right that civil rights organizations are fighting for. In other words, my purpose was simply to prove that marriage is a fundamental human right to which all persons are entitled. </p>
<p>I then said:
“However, if homosexuals did not choose their sexual orientation, society is depriving them of their basic human right to marry (i’m talking about a civil marriage).”</p>
<p>You thought my purpose for posting the article was to prove that humans are allowed to marry members of the same-sex. But we all know that same-sex marriage is still a taboo practice in the US and in most other countries, so of course there won’t be any document that would acknowledge this right.</p>
<p>has anyone said they arent allowed to marry? </p>
<p>no. they’re free to marry, they just have the same restrictions that everyone else has.</p>
<p>Let’s just picture this hypothetical brave new world I just made up to shed some light on ours. Suspend disbelief for a minute and try it, it’ll be fun…</p>
<p>Imagine: in this new island society, scientists have genetically engineered humans so they are born to be attracted ONLY to members of the same sex. Sexual intercourse is used only for recreation. All procreation is accomplished through artificial insemination, and in this way, the population of the society can be very well regulated, and thereby circumvent crime, violence, theft, poverty, pollution, and all the other problems that arrise in our present day society due to over-population. Plus, this eliminates unwanted pregnancies, and the need for abortion. This society lasts for several centuries, with the tradition being set that only members of the same sex are allowed to marry, for the purpose of raising children, though technically only one of them being directly related. People are brought up with the values of homosexual relationships being the only moral ones.</p>
<p>Now, consider that you are born into this society, fully heterosexual. But you are shunned by society, alienated and deemed an outcast. People argue that attraction to members of the opposite sex results in unwanted pregnancies, the need for abortion, and a gender imbalance due to differences in fundamental human instincts that results in a patriarchal society.</p>
<p>But you fruitlessly protest your cause, to no avail. If only there was some way to convince the common citizens that heterosexuals are okay too, and should be able to marry…</p>
<p>Except that isn’t how the world or humans were created, and that such a society could only be sustained through modern science and technology. Nice try, but it’s a very unrealistic and illogical way to compare to the current situation of homosexuality.
I hate blanket arguments (eg, “If you think it’s okay to eat meat, then you think it’s ok to murder people,” or “If you support equal rights for women and blacks, you should support equal rights for homosexuals.” The world isn’t black and white, having a certain opinion on one issue does not mean you must apply that to every issue.)
The “If homosexuality was the norm, then YOU would feel oppressed” doesn’t work because homosexuality isn’t the norm and never will be.</p>
<p>Yet GoldShadow, that appeared to work for black rights.</p>
<p>If you were black you would feel oppressed and hate it. I mean, hell it worked for them. If it worked back then to those bigots, it might work today.</p>
<p>I support gay marriage as when you are considering the state it is about a legal contract. The religious issue should be a church/sacrament NOT involved with the laws of the state.</p>