EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
It occurs in the nature (some people say) But it doesnt disprove that it can be a emotionel disorder. Does it have a purpose? I doubt so. Straight sex has a purpose ( breeding), sex with the same gender doesnt really have a purpose. But perhaps you're right, babies can be made in labs now, not anybody are really having sex in order to breed anymore, however, Natural selection cant be ruled out that quickly, it's a part of life, which we cant escape.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--QuoteBegin--Epidemic+Oct 15 2003, 01:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Oct 15 2003, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In the end, is it really rationel to think that Homosexuality is natural, does it have a purpose? Or could it be emotionel disorder? Also Talesin, I'd like some sort of info on how you obtained that knowledge <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT, Not to mention the obvious that homosexuality foes against Natural selection <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I obtained 'that knowledge' through research and previous discussions. National Geographic has run a few specials on bats, which made minor points about homosexual behaviour between males to improve familial bonds, especially between those who did not breed, even given the chance. The fact is, the optimal breeding rate for a given group will far exceed the food sources in an area. Nature seems to understand this, and most species will develop '****' individuals who, while not adding to the overall population, will contribute to the feeding of young, and defense of the group as a whole if threatened. As well, homosexual lions have pretty much become a standing joke since definitive proof was first put on file. Dolphins... well, do I need to go into dolphins at all? Quite a bit of what they do is sexual in nature, even mock-sexual. Males will mate each other to demonstrate familiarity, dominance, or simply to relax. Bonobos have already been discussed. Dogs are a bit more rare, but still exist outside of dominance-displays. I'd have to look up a number of news stories, along with their counterpoints... normally the original stories report it as a 'vicious dog fight', but eyewitnesses tell a very different story. Zoos have kept records of lesbian activity in seagulls, on the avian side of things. And though I'd have to do quite a bit more searching, I'd read through a first-hand account of camel.. er.. 'activity' a few months back.
The evidence is there. You just have to find the news sources which aren't embarassed to report it, is all. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well - I read it - from the start. All seven pages. /Hands self orange chocolate cookie. And everything has pretty much played out the way I expected. I dont have too much to add here, but one thing in this thread that has cropped up a few times - homosexual population percentages.
Have you people never heard of Dr Kinsey? And I use the term Dr very loosely. Way back, in the 40's I think, a homosexual Doctor by the name of Kinsey did "experiments, tests and ran studies" that pretty much "discovered" that over 10% of the population were completely ****, and almost everyone else had at least dabbled in it. He kick started the sexual revolution. He also did studies on human sexual behaviour and found the we pretty much were all sexually active and over half of us had had at least 2 different sexual partners in our lives. He backed this up with a mass of scientific data, and the Western world stood in awe. It was now patently obvious that it was perfectly natural and "everyone was doing it" - and this was all scientifically proven.
It is now know today that his "scientific method" was shot to hell. He followed no random sample, often plagurising other peoples studies of homosexuality, and specifically interviewed jail inmates and his own homosexual partners. His credibility was in shreds, and few scientist today will support what he said. He deceived us, plain and simple. The laughable thing is that people today are STILL quoting 10% as a population stat for homosexuals. Do you guys realise what this would mean in terms of population growth, averages etc. Ten percent is a huge amount when you are talking 6 billion people world wide. That 10% is no mere minorty. Australia has a population of around 22 million. That means that 2.2 million of these people are ****. Thats no small number.
So lets have an end to this 10% rubbish. Its been debunked so thoroughly I cant believe anyone here is still using it.
EDIT here is a <a href='http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/Indiv_Articles/kinsey_sex_fraud.htm' target='_blank'>link</a> that explains it a bit better than me - sure its the catholic doctors so they are biased, but just type Kinsey fraud into google if you want more
What the hell is the point in this discussion? isn't this what we did with the Homosexuality Part II thread, and others? Why do we keep repeating the same arguments over and over since nobody is going to change their mind anyway? No, you don't have deja-vu I said this in the EvC thread too (it was ignored BTW, as I expect this to be).
The argument always goes as follows:
<span style='color:red'>Why is homosexuality wrong?</span> <span style='color:blue'>Because the Bible sa...</span> <span style='color:red'>And don't give me that "The Bible says so" BS, give me real reasons backed up by logic.</span> <span style='color:blue'>Um.... Its unnatural?</span> <span style='color:red'><i>1,000,000 examples as to why it is not unnatural</i></span> <span style='color:blue'>Well... um.... its still unnatural.</span> <span style='color:red'><i>More discussion on why its not unnatural</i></span>
Repeat ad infinitum.
Heres the deal people, there are only 2 reasons you think homosexuality is wrong:
1) Religious Reasons 2) Your a homophobe
If you fall into catagory 1, nothing anybody says is going to change your mind since your already a zealot anyway. If you fall into catagory 2, get your head examined, you've got some unresolved issues with your sexuality.
In short, I'm begging you, let these tired old arguments die so perhaps we can bring something new and interesiting into this forum.
If you read the first 10 posts, you will see both myself and Ryo claim this has been done before and to death - but its fun to argue <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
[sarcasm]Skulkbait, I'll give you 10 reasons why you're wrong..
A)cause uh..
B)um.. maybe.. uh....
C)...
I can't think of any reason that you might be wrong. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> [/sarcasm]
Seriously, if you're going to counter homosexuality, you have to do better than that. Think up new arguments. We won't take "Just cause that's what I believe" as an answer either. If you can't think of a reason why you believe something, time to see the other side of things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Everything in life serves a purpose, weather you agree on it is another matter." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does the weather have anything to do with this? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Oct 16 2003, 12:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 16 2003, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Everything in life serves a purpose, weather you agree on it is another matter." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does the weather have anything to do with this? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Pwned
you're wrong Talesin.. there is only one other creature is known for active homosexuality .. meaning its not just a random action .. i have seen male dogs hump other male dogs.. but then they go hump the leg of a chair.. only one other creature on this planet is known to be homosexual is a frog..
I can't remember which, but either clams or oysters can actually change their sex in the course of a few days and during the course of their lives they usually do it several times ~blink~
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Actually, there is evidence that transsexuality does occur in nature, but it is nowhere near as firmly supported as the facts gathered about how homosexuality occurs naturally in virtually every species of mammal (and some non-mammalian). Meanie is running on bad information.
Please. If you are going to discuss a topic, take more than thirty seconds and do ACTUAL research before commenting upon how someone else is 'wrong'.
<b>Study: Sexual identity hard-wired by genetics</b> <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/20/sexuality.brain.reut/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/20/sexua...reut/index.html</a>
Talesin is also correct, homosexuality and bisexuality has been observed and does exist in the animal world. It's a well known fact actually.
Meh, I'll wait until this is tried and tested. I remember the first "**** Gene" fiasco. AH HA, we have found it, the **** gene, suck eggs all you christians... blah blah blah.
And then when it was found out that no one else could reproduce the experiment succesfully, it kinda just faded away quietly.
Please don't take this post as g4y-bashing or anything except a thought experiment.
Granted, homosexuality is evident in nature. However, leaving religion out of the debate and thinking on purely evolutionary terms; Homosexuality is an evolutionary failure.
The name of these forums is very appropriate here. Natural-Selection.
If evolution occurs due to the fact that only the most viable members of a species successfully produce offspring then homosexuals, unable(or unwilling) to produce viable offspring, are evolutionary rejects.
I'll be a bit more detailed later but first, Any comments?
Homo- and bisexuality could also just be a product of recreational sex. If you have sex with other purposes than procreation, why stick to the opposite gender?
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Oct 21 2003, 05:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Oct 21 2003, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Homo- and bisexuality could also just be a product of recreational sex. If you have sex with other purposes than procreation, why stick to the opposite gender? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> si.
<!--QuoteBegin--wizard@psu+Oct 21 2003, 10:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 21 2003, 10:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Please don't take this post as g4y-bashing or anything except a thought experiment.
Granted, homosexuality is evident in nature. However, leaving religion out of the debate and thinking on purely evolutionary terms; Homosexuality is an evolutionary failure.
The name of these forums is very appropriate here. Natural-Selection.
If evolution occurs due to the fact that only the most viable members of a species successfully produce offspring then homosexuals, unable(or unwilling) to produce viable offspring, are evolutionary rejects.
I'll be a bit more detailed later but first, Any comments? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. Humans have been left out of the Natural Selection cycle for a long time, and I'd wager half the population could drop dead this second and there wouldn't be much of a dent in our species future.
But if you want to follow that train of that, homosexuals are probably least counter-productive towards the concept of Natural Selection in our societies, car accidents kill millions of people a year a lot of whom probably never had children. So following your rationale anyone who drives a car is going against Natural Selection because they could possibly never have children if they crash and die.
Same goes for drug users, alcohol abusers, depressent suicides, poor/broke people since they have a harder time starting and supporting a family. Sex is just not the end all be all of our social construct anymore.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
D.dr, I dont catch your point. You cant run and hide from natural selection. Beauty is a sign of healthy genes, people are attracted to beauty (granted there are other attractive traits) So beautiful people are more likely to get a male and reproduce. Natural selection at it's finest. Your examples which you mentioned have the opposite effect on me when you're trying to reason we are not a part of the natural selection anymore. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Same goes for drug users, alcohol abusers, depressent suicides, poor/broke people since they have a harder time starting and supporting a family<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hell yeah, they have a harder time. Natural selection has adapted to modern day requirement and pwn once more humans. People with mental problems/diseases are less likely to spread their genes.
My point was our species is no longer in danger, the statistics right now show that 4-6% of people are homosexual, even by that token I would say 4-6% of people not reproducing doesn't change anything in our species, like I said 40% of our populaton could die right this second and it wouldn't matter in the long run.
Regarding a gene for homosexuality, I firmly beleive that there is one, but when we do single it out, no research groups will be brave enough to come forwards and annoucne it because of the ethical implications.
Heres something to consider: The tendancy to exclusively have sex with children (peadosexuality?) is just as common in nature as homosexuality - so why do we treat peadofiles differently to homosexuals?
Because they tend to act upon their feelings and most children can't give consent, there is the idea that pedaphilia will become more accepted and some stuides have been shown to give evidence that children can enjoy sex.
I doubt research on this subject will get any kind of support in this country since sex with children is as taboo as you can get in the US I think. They even banned artistic aspects to it, theres a really big gray area in child pornography if you ask me, but I think we need a new thread for that.
<!--QuoteBegin--Mercior+Oct 21 2003, 08:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mercior @ Oct 21 2003, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Regarding a gene for homosexuality, I firmly beleive that there is one, but when we do single it out, no research groups will be brave enough to come forwards and annoucne it because of the ethical implications. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> think again. Some scientists are just that, scientists. Not bashful prudes. IF they find the gene for homosexuality, they will publish it. For better or for worse.
Comments
Does it have a purpose? I doubt so. Straight sex has a purpose ( breeding), sex with the same gender doesnt really have a purpose. But perhaps you're right, babies can be made in labs now, not anybody are really having sex in order to breed anymore, however, Natural selection cant be ruled out that quickly, it's a part of life, which we cant escape.
At the end of the day, I dont care.
Or could it be emotionel disorder? Also Talesin, I'd like some sort of info on how you obtained that knowledge <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT, Not to mention the obvious that homosexuality foes against Natural selection <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I obtained 'that knowledge' through research and previous discussions. National Geographic has run a few specials on bats, which made minor points about homosexual behaviour between males to improve familial bonds, especially between those who did not breed, even given the chance. The fact is, the optimal breeding rate for a given group will far exceed the food sources in an area. Nature seems to understand this, and most species will develop '****' individuals who, while not adding to the overall population, will contribute to the feeding of young, and defense of the group as a whole if threatened.
As well, homosexual lions have pretty much become a standing joke since definitive proof was first put on file.
Dolphins... well, do I need to go into dolphins at all? Quite a bit of what they do is sexual in nature, even mock-sexual. Males will mate each other to demonstrate familiarity, dominance, or simply to relax.
Bonobos have already been discussed.
Dogs are a bit more rare, but still exist outside of dominance-displays. I'd have to look up a number of news stories, along with their counterpoints... normally the original stories report it as a 'vicious dog fight', but eyewitnesses tell a very different story.
Zoos have kept records of lesbian activity in seagulls, on the avian side of things.
And though I'd have to do quite a bit more searching, I'd read through a first-hand account of camel.. er.. 'activity' a few months back.
The evidence is there. You just have to find the news sources which aren't embarassed to report it, is all. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Have you people never heard of Dr Kinsey? And I use the term Dr very loosely. Way back, in the 40's I think, a homosexual Doctor by the name of Kinsey did "experiments, tests and ran studies" that pretty much "discovered" that over 10% of the population were completely ****, and almost everyone else had at least dabbled in it. He kick started the sexual revolution. He also did studies on human sexual behaviour and found the we pretty much were all sexually active and over half of us had had at least 2 different sexual partners in our lives. He backed this up with a mass of scientific data, and the Western world stood in awe. It was now patently obvious that it was perfectly natural and "everyone was doing it" - and this was all scientifically proven.
It is now know today that his "scientific method" was shot to hell. He followed no random sample, often plagurising other peoples studies of homosexuality, and specifically interviewed jail inmates and his own homosexual partners. His credibility was in shreds, and few scientist today will support what he said. He deceived us, plain and simple. The laughable thing is that people today are STILL quoting 10% as a population stat for homosexuals. Do you guys realise what this would mean in terms of population growth, averages etc. Ten percent is a huge amount when you are talking 6 billion people world wide. That 10% is no mere minorty. Australia has a population of around 22 million. That means that 2.2 million of these people are ****. Thats no small number.
So lets have an end to this 10% rubbish. Its been debunked so thoroughly I cant believe anyone here is still using it.
EDIT here is a <a href='http://www.catholicdoctors.org.uk/CMQ/Indiv_Articles/kinsey_sex_fraud.htm' target='_blank'>link</a> that explains it a bit better than me - sure its the catholic doctors so they are biased, but just type Kinsey fraud into google if you want more
But Talesin said everything I want to say, again. It's like he reads my mind.
The argument always goes as follows:
<span style='color:red'>Why is homosexuality wrong?</span>
<span style='color:blue'>Because the Bible sa...</span>
<span style='color:red'>And don't give me that "The Bible says so" BS, give me real reasons backed up by logic.</span>
<span style='color:blue'>Um.... Its unnatural?</span>
<span style='color:red'><i>1,000,000 examples as to why it is not unnatural</i></span>
<span style='color:blue'>Well... um.... its still unnatural.</span>
<span style='color:red'><i>More discussion on why its not unnatural</i></span>
Repeat ad infinitum.
Heres the deal people, there are only 2 reasons you think homosexuality is wrong:
1) Religious Reasons
2) Your a homophobe
If you fall into catagory 1, nothing anybody says is going to change your mind since your already a zealot anyway.
If you fall into catagory 2, get your head examined, you've got some unresolved issues with your sexuality.
In short, I'm begging you, let these tired old arguments die so perhaps we can bring something new and interesiting into this forum.
If you read the first 10 posts, you will see both myself and Ryo claim this has been done before and to death - but its fun to argue <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
A)cause uh..
B)um.. maybe.. uh....
C)...
I can't think of any reason that you might be wrong. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
[/sarcasm]
Seriously, if you're going to counter homosexuality, you have to do better than that. Think up new arguments. We won't take "Just cause that's what I believe" as an answer either. If you can't think of a reason why you believe something, time to see the other side of things.
"Everything in life serves a purpose, weather you agree on it is another matter."
What does the weather have anything to do with this? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
What does the weather have anything to do with this? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Pwned
No! Lets not merge threads! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
takes about ten seconds, on the first page of results theres links to sites with evidence of homosexual primates.
Please. If you are going to discuss a topic, take more than thirty seconds and do ACTUAL research before commenting upon how someone else is 'wrong'.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/20/sexuality.brain.reut/index.html' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/20/sexua...reut/index.html</a>
Talesin is also correct, homosexuality and bisexuality has been observed and does exist in the animal world. It's a well known fact actually.
And then when it was found out that no one else could reproduce the experiment succesfully, it kinda just faded away quietly.
Granted, homosexuality is evident in nature. However, leaving religion out of the debate and thinking on purely evolutionary terms; Homosexuality is an evolutionary failure.
The name of these forums is very appropriate here. Natural-Selection.
If evolution occurs due to the fact that only the most viable members of a species successfully produce offspring then homosexuals, unable(or unwilling) to produce viable offspring, are evolutionary rejects.
I'll be a bit more detailed later but first, Any comments?
si.
Granted, homosexuality is evident in nature. However, leaving religion out of the debate and thinking on purely evolutionary terms; Homosexuality is an evolutionary failure.
The name of these forums is very appropriate here. Natural-Selection.
If evolution occurs due to the fact that only the most viable members of a species successfully produce offspring then homosexuals, unable(or unwilling) to produce viable offspring, are evolutionary rejects.
I'll be a bit more detailed later but first, Any comments? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Humans have been left out of the Natural Selection cycle for a long time, and I'd wager half the population could drop dead this second and there wouldn't be much of a dent in our species future.
But if you want to follow that train of that, homosexuals are probably least counter-productive towards the concept of Natural Selection in our societies, car accidents kill millions of people a year a lot of whom probably never had children. So following your rationale anyone who drives a car is going against Natural Selection because they could possibly never have children if they crash and die.
Same goes for drug users, alcohol abusers, depressent suicides, poor/broke people since they have a harder time starting and supporting a family. Sex is just not the end all be all of our social construct anymore.
So beautiful people are more likely to get a male and reproduce. Natural selection at it's finest.
Your examples which you mentioned have the opposite effect on me when you're trying to reason we are not a part of the natural selection anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Same goes for drug users, alcohol abusers, depressent suicides, poor/broke people since they have a harder time starting and supporting a family<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hell yeah, they have a harder time. Natural selection has adapted to modern day requirement and pwn once more humans. People with mental problems/diseases are less likely to spread their genes.
Heres something to consider: The tendancy to exclusively have sex with children (peadosexuality?) is just as common in nature as homosexuality - so why do we treat peadofiles differently to homosexuals?
I doubt research on this subject will get any kind of support in this country since sex with children is as taboo as you can get in the US I think. They even banned artistic aspects to it, theres a really big gray area in child pornography if you ask me, but I think we need a new thread for that.
think again. Some scientists are just that, scientists. Not bashful prudes. IF they find the gene for homosexuality, they will publish it. For better or for worse.