OR it could be that sexually active people, given chemical reminders of learnt sexual behavior, experience physical reaction to memory.

it's well established that members of the scientific community are socially convinced homosexuality is really based in physiology, and are trying to prove it.

As yet they have no physical identifier of homosexuality.

> Do you personally feel that genetic components should be ruled out completely?

I do.

I don't see how that has anything to do with this though...

The fact is that rape, pedophilia(?) and that sort of behavior does negatively effect someone
directly. Homosexuality doesn't. You don't have a free country, unless homosexuality is
allowed...

"learned behavior possibly has something to do with it too. I wouldn't rule it out. "

i would say theres a 100% chance it has something to do it, the question is how much of it is learned. different cultures have different ideas of beauty.  even same regions but different timelines, people find different scents/looks more or less sexually appealing. that proves that at least to some degree the appeal is a learned trait.

> I assume you're resolutely sure that genes have nothing to do with
> sexuality. Can you enlighten me on why you think so?

Well to do that we'd need to go into terminology. Gay vs. Queer in men:

Gay: Having 'relations' with another of the same sex.
Queer: The ones that overact (high-pitch voice, queer hand gestures, makeup, etc).

Gay = Natural, Genes.
Queer = Cultural.

Anyway:

The fact is that rape, pedophilia(?) and that sort of behavior does negatively effect someone
directly. Homosexuality doesn't. You don't have a free country, unless homosexuality is
allowed...

So is someone going to tell me why blacks can have rights, but gays cant?

I mean, statistically more gays have jobs then blacks. There are less gays committing the nastier
crimes, and blacks have transmitted HIV/AIDS just as much as gays (probably more, but irrelevant).

So please -- tell me why blacks get rights, gays dont...

> Already did.  Gay is a lifestyle.  Race isn't.

So we discriminate against non-destructive lifestyles now, do we?
What happened to freedom?

Race is just as much a lifestyle as gay is...i don't exactly know what
you mean.

> the UN recognizes five genders: male, female, homosexual, lesbian,
> and transgender.  Something they voted on in the Clinton era.

Links?

I can't find anything that matches what you are talking about...and i don't know
anything about it .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)

you all fit here^

"the UN recognizes five genders: male, female, homosexual, lesbian, and transgender."

So what, lesbians aren't homosexual anymore?

I see it's probably setting apart male and female homosexuals but that's not the right way to put it.

yes!

I will say this again, as I have said it in previous threads. I hate reforms in favor of positive freedom. In my view, it isn't even freedom at all. Positive freedom is a kind of government intervention that favors a group perceived to be of lower status than the majority with the intention of leveling the playing field. Positive freedom can manifest in policies such as affirmative action and special grants. My main reason for hating policies that create positive freedom is because they are opposed to meritocracy.

However, I am fully in favor of the kinds of freedoms that remove needless restraints. Such restraints could be employment questions that ask what sexual or religious preference you have, and solutions to these kinds of biased restraints could be outlawing such questions from being asked and requiring promotional procedures to be more "blind."

> they demand special treatment.  a gay person doesnt have different vocal cords that force
> the majority of them to talk differently. they talk differently to tell total strangers they are
> gay, treat me special.

You are talking about queers. Different again.

> I hate reforms in favor of positive freedom. In my view, it isn't even freedom at all. Positive
> freedom is a kind of government intervention that favors a group perceived to be of lower
> status than the majority with the intention of leveling the playing field.
> ...
> However, I am fully in favor of the kinds of freedoms that remove needless restraints.

Are you suggesting that allowing gays is going to give them more freedom? Well, duh. What do
you think the blacks got? Freedom. Same thing.

How are they lower status? They usually have good jobs, and are productive members of
society.

As for leveling the playing field you are more talking about lower-class citizens who cannot afford
their own housing and such. This has nothing to do with the situation, and ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGES
OR UNIONS PUTS NO FINANCIAL STRAIN ON THE GOVERNMENT.

sorry for caps.

> Yes it does, do you how many tax benefits married couples and families get?

Why do they get these benefits?

"Oh, but I must have sat down one day and thought, "You know what, I want to live the rest of my life in a state of continual sexuality flux"? The sad bastards that commit suicide rather than deal with their sexuality chose that?
That's bollocks, AND insulting, and you know it."

No I don't know it. The cure for angst is to think differently.  Psychologists dress it up with words, but that's the base of it.

Gin isn't that popular over here, but American gays think having unprotected sex with strangers in public is mainstream and demand it be decriminalized.

I'm not really that ironic.  The reason they don't picket black churches is that they will get the shit beat out of them.