Curing Homosexuality?

[bedi nik bzez emak]

;D

 

[CERU]

Phoenix, Phoenix, Phoenix ...

First of all, you're admitting that Creationism is religion by stating its been there before it started parading as science.

Too bad science is not religion.

Second, evolution isn't a critique of creationism because it doesn't address creationism. In fact, its not about creation as much as its about change over time. Its perfectly plausible to believe that a creator set evolution in motion.

I know what intelligent design is. And you're right, they're basically the same thing. But Intelligent Design is not science either, its just creationism in a shiny new package that wasn't accepted by the scientific community either.

"I don't want my kids to come home from school, scowl at me, and inform me that I'm a "homophobe", like I'm a bad person because I don't believe living a gay lifestyle is correct. "

Uh, do you really think that they're going to tell kids "If you don't accept homosexuality as a viable lifestyle option, you're a homophobe!" No, they're just going to tell kids that gays are people too and everyone's equal and should hold hands and shit. If your kids come home and call you a homophobe, well, thats just justice. I don't think you're a bad person, actually, I just think you're stupid.

Well good thing this isn't nazi germany. No one is going to raise your kids for you unless you turn crazy.

 

[Dissonance]

And where exactly did you go to school, the school of Hitler?  The only countries in that I know of that don't allow the parents to educate the children about how "the world works" and about morality haven't been the greatest examples for the rest of us.  Talk about civil rights?  Yeah, I have a right to teach my children to believe in basically whatever I want to, as long as they're not hurting anyone and I'm not teaching my kids that it's okay to beat people up because they're different, so I'm not hurting anyone.

You're teaching your children to reproduce the cultural, social, and political systems that bring about discriminmation against a LOT of subgroups (not just the homosexual community).  That is damaging enough that you should have your children taken from you.

And yes, our parts do fit together for the purposes of procreation, but I never said that sex should be limited to the purposes of procreation ONLY.

Then what the hell do you mean?  Human genitals fit together for procreation purposes only.  If you were to look at human sexuality purely from a functional perspective, then obviously all sex that does not have an end result of its function (kids) should be banned.  However, you don't see it that way, as your own quite says "I never said that sex should be limited to the purposes of procreation ONLY."  Alright, then if that's the case, then why use the "men and women's parts fit together" arguement at all?  You can't say "gays shouldn't have sex because they don't fit with each other" and then turn around and say that the actual PURPOSE FOR THAT FITTING between straight people itself is of no consequence.

And what you said was that most people aren't "people of faith".  I pointed out that you are wrong.  People may be misguided in their faith, but they have faith all the same.

Semantics.  People still suffer because of your faith whether it's misguided or not.

It applies to everyone who has a religion and is teaching that religion to others old enough to make an informed decision on their own without anyone else's input.  Uh, no, a Buddhist or an atheist or anyone else doesn't have the right to teach anyone else's child that I'm wrong for believing what I believe.  You don't teach children that "ways of the state = good and ways of the parents = bad" for a number of reasons, but that gets into the argument over whether your children are owned by the state or not and is a completely different discussion. 

Christians have the right to say "Buddhists and Athiests are wrong" to anybody they like, and Buddists and Athiests have the right to say "Christians are wrong" right back to the same people.  Everybody has the right to spread their faith to anybody they like, including your children, whether you like it or not.

My kids aren't owned by the state and they're not owned by you. 

And they're not owned by you either - you may take responsibility for their actions, but ultimately they are human beings and own themselves.  The law agrees with me on this as well.  If you truly owned your children, you would be allowed to beat them, rape them, or sell them if you so desired.  You aren't.

You don't have a right to teach my children jack squat and what makes you or anyone else think that you're any more qualified to educate my children about the world than I am? 

Because you would tell them about old half-true tales from an ancient book that is no longer appropriate for our culture.  Christianity is an archaic relic that is holding our society back and if people like you are allowed to breed your ignorance into your children we will never advance forward.

Going to school and getting a teaching degree doesn't make you more qualified to teach about morals than me, because morals are relative to culture, for the most part.  You may be more qualified to teach math class, but you have no right to say that you're better qualified to teach morals than I am. 

And what about a teacher of English, who has studied thousandas upon thousands of works from all different cultures and absorbed morals from each? 

What about a teacher of Philosophy, well versed in the schools of thought from every major civilization?

What about a teacher of World Religion, who not only knows leagues beyond yourself about your own religion but almost every other religion in the world (except maybe Guardianism :3 )

They are all obviously more qualified to teach your children about morality than you do because they've absorbed moral thought from countless sources instead of just one.

It's the state's job to educate children about math, economics, history (to an extent, since history is skewed and written by those in power), and a number of other non-religious, non-moral aspects of life, but when it comes to morality and religion, I'll take care of that at home.  Some things the state should keep their nose out of, like morality.

Not when your morality is inferior to the morality that the state can potentially provide.

And public school is for "all worldviews"?  No, it's not.  I can't go into a school and preach Christianity (a "worldview"), so why should a gay person have the right to go into a school and talk about their lifestyle and play it up like it's okay and wonderful? 

Because the vast majority of the population is either Christian or claims to be, as you yourself has said before.  Most people will have some kind of exposure to Christianity before reaching the public school system, so there is no need for it to be re-taught at school.  However, most of them are not aware of alternatives, so it's the school's job to educate them.  Once parents smarten up and teach their children about things beyond Christianity, then the schools might loosen up a little.

The more you teach christian-based viewpoints at home, the more the schools need to teach alternative ways to counterbalance your efforts.

It protects your lack of religion, sure, but the way it's worded doesn't allow you to attempt to steer me or my children away from our religion via the avenue of state-sponsored education.  I said that it doesn't protect non-faith-based systems of belief, like homosexuality.  The idea of homosexuality isn't protected, BDSM isn't protected, none of that falls under the protection of the first amendment where religion is concerned. 

And what about when those things are specifically mentioned by religion as being beneficial - See multiple native North and South American religions, as well as several Dharmic-based faiths.

I'm not the one changing the education system based upon whatever "nonsense" I believe in; it's people like you and others who are introducing things like "homosexuality" into the school curriculum that are changing things.  Things are the way they are now because of the changes that people like you proposed because the current system contradicted the nonsense that they believed in.  I didn't take prayer out of schools, people like you did.  Not that state-sponsored prayer belongs in school, but nobody has the right to tell my kid that he can't pray in the classroom before class begins or tell him/her that he/she can't read the Bible at recess or make art projects with Christian imagery for art class.

Yes, they can.  The same way the school can tell kids of other faiths to not do the same with their religion symbols.  Public schools are faith-sterile environments - If you want your kids to have an education with christian elements, homeschool them or send them to christian schools.

You want a police state where the government tells you what you're supposed to think and how you're supposed to think it?  Go to China.  That's eventually what you'll get here if you don't stop the government from trying to teach your kids "the way of the world".

Ohohohohoho.  You don't actually know much about 'China' do you?  Please don't believe everything you hear when those smart-lookin' motherfuckers talk on the teevee.

Sorry to be very off topic but isn't homosexuals having sex the same as a brother or sister having sex? Now don't go buck wild crazy saying are you out of your mind. Think of it logically. Two people who shouldn't have sex, brother and sister do. Now has is that any different from two men having sex?

Yes, let's think of it logically for a minute.

The taboo that came about between brother/sister relations in european-based cultures came about LONG BEFORE we knew about the genetic damage that can occur to the offspring of that union.  So where did it come from?  The answer is it was simply yet another ancient enforcer created to try and force christian values on the populace.  I mean think of it this way - a rule is created specifically because the action is happening and somebody wanted it to stop for some reason.  If no brothers and sisters were having sex, then the rule wouldn't have had to been made.  So obviously, there was a point in our history where incest was widespread enough that a law had to be made - and though the authority that created the law is largely gone, the law has merged into our culture over hundreds and thousands of years to become a taboo.

That's what cultural Taboos really are - really, really old laws that have become entrenched and then lost to the flow of time.

I personally have no problem with a brother and a sister having sex, as long as that doesn't result in a child.  If they are both inclined to do it, and they have no intention of creating a child, then by all means.  It's something I'd not do myself, but I'm not pompous and arrogant enough to tell others that they shouldn't.  If the brother and sister are both willing and inclined, and if no kids are made, there's no logical problem with them doing it.

Why is it so important to you to cling to the belief that being gay is okay? 

Because I've yet to see proof that being gay is actually harmful - I'm a female, and lesbians actually have lower rates of STDs than straight couples.  And assuming that I was actually a gay man, I'm educated enough to know about safe sex, so even if I did end up doing it with an infected person (unlikely as I don't go around fucking everything that moves) the chances of me contracting anything are low.

Your only non-spiritual argument concerns STDs, and STDs do not concern me at all.

Why do you refuse to give a moment's thought that maybe your world-inspired like of homosexuality could be misguided?  Would that shatter your worldview?  Does it make you feel better about yourself because you're different?  Would you keel over and die if you admitted that we real Christians are moral, wholesome people living good lives (which we are)?  Because I don't get the point of clinging to a lifestyle that's wrought with physical risk when there's no good reason to.

Oh, I'm willing to consider it.  Nobody's put forth a good argument as to why it's bad yet, though.  When I see one I'll give it some thought.

Reading your argument and refuting it doesn't mean that I'm ignoring it.  I can still read what you have to say and not believe it, you know.

 

[Diaforetikos]

Does anyone have faith period? Does anyone believe in something that they haven't seen? Thats why people as a whole are falling apart. We have no sight. We only trust what is there. Hope is gone.

Our moral standards have diminished. Our lives are run by our jobs and by the government. We love doing what we love doing. And if someone disagrees, we freak out. "Don't do that." "Thats not right." Then people freak out and say, "Who are you?" Because they don't want to be told that what they are doing is wrong. They don't want to hear, thats bad. So, they make laws saying, "You can't tell me thats bad because its against the law." It's not the change that scares people. Its being told your wrong that makes them flip. America use to have standards. Strong morals. Now we don't care. We wasteful, sloppy, and if things don't go our way, we whine. Sounds like a lot of cities that the bible talked about. Our morals are gone, so when someone talks about how homosexual is bad, we flip because people like doing it. They like their lifestyle. They don't want to stop so they make the people who try to uphold a law, look bad.

You don't have to agree. I'm just pointing out the truth. Whoever reads this will probably get mad.

 

[Dissonance]

Does anyone have faith period? Does anyone believe in something that they haven't seen? Thats why people as a whole are falling apart. We have no sight. We only trust what is there. Hope is gone.

What you see as a lack of faith, I see as a surplus of science.  What you call "only trusting what is there" I call "not trusting random assumption and superstition".

Our moral standards have diminished. Our lives are run by our jobs and by the government. We love doing what we love doing.

How do these things lead to our 'morals being diminished'?

And if someone disagrees, we freak out. "Don't do that." "Thats not right." Then people freak out and say, "Who are you?" Because they don't want to be told that what they are doing is wrong.

Or, they don't want to be told that what they are doing is wrong when there is no evidence to say it is wrong.  I have no problem with saying that theft and murder, except for rare cases, are wrong.  I can logically prove that.  Can you say the same for homosexuality?  Well, you and your pals have been trying for eight pages so far and haven't succeeded.

They don't want to hear, thats bad. So, they make laws saying, "You can't tell me thats bad because its against the law." It's not the change that scares people. Its being told your wrong that makes them flip.

You mean like when people used to say "Hey don't mix your superior white blood with those filthy niggers, gotta keep God's race pure!"  Laws were made to stop that kind of discrimination, with massive uproars initially.  People thought it was a sin against God and nature to mix races.  They cited bible passages.  Some even thought the USA would be smited off the face of the earth.

But Jesus dropped the ball and the universe marched on.

It's not being told that we're wrong - it's hearing you discriminate against us and then you expecting us to put up with it due to some kind of retarded divine authority that you believe you have.

America use to have standards. Strong morals.

Oh, like lynching blacks, abusing women, enslaving and exterminating native americans, executing gays and lesbians, impounding japanese, italians, and irish, and demonizing athiests?

Yeah, the historic USA sure is the moral center by which we should all look to for guidance.

You don't have to agree. I'm just pointing out the truth. Whoever reads this will probably get mad.

I don't know what you're pointing out, but it's not the truth.

Overall the morality of the culture of the USA has increased over time.  It's people like you that act as regressive elements in society.

 

[Diaforetikos]

Stop pointing fingers man. "People like you!!" Come on. Those weren't morals. Those laws were hatred in action. Has there ever been an extreme, super extreme, TV Live broadcasting extreme, that showed hatred towards homosexuals. Continual live footage of a riot or march because of hatred towards homosexuals. Never. I don't remember anything horrible like that. No one has ever told me, "Did you hear that story about the homosexuals that were beaten, raped, hung, and burned. I haven't.

If you read the bible, in Acts, it talks about how Paul did nothing wrong and a mob tried to stone him, they tried beating him. A mob vowed to never eat until Paul was killed. When has an act like this ever happened? Now don't you find it kinda strange that when racial, religious, or sexual beliefs come into play, something plays an extreme role in the extermination or abuse of one of these things? But not for homosexuals. Hitler, the genocide in Africa, in Egypt with Moses, discrimination against blacks. When has a homosexual issue ever come up? The thing about those topics was that there was a wrong to be right. Isn't it surprising that nothing has happened to the homosexuals? Now, I don't have any hatred against homosexuals. I don't believe its good a thing, but I'm not gonna go kill or abuse anyone over it.

But every time there has been something as extreme as homosexuality, don't you find it odd that they haven't been hated against. Usually evil attacks what is good. This isn't a debate about good and evil, so leave your arguments out about that. Evil attacked the Jews, Hootu's, African Americans, Christians(who believed in Jesus). The homosexuals haven't been attacked. Now don't go saying, "You do hate them." I wish nothing bad on them. But I'm just saying, don't you find it odd?

 

[Despain]

"Did you hear that story about the homosexuals that were beaten, raped, hung, and burned. I haven't.

That's unfortunate. I hear about that all the time. People who hang out with other homophobes generally don't talk about that kind of stuff though. Unless maybe they're laughing about it. It's sick.

Bottom line: there's nothing wrong with being homosexual (I actually have a decent argument about why it might be even better to be homosexual, but this isn't the place for it). I just can't compehend why so many people are against it when it has nothing to do with them. If you don't like gay people, fine. Ignore them and mind your own fucking business.

 

[mawk]

This isn't a debate about good and evil, so leave your arguments out about that.

Sure thing!

Evil attacked the Jews, Hootu's, African Americans, Christians(who believed in Jesus). The homosexuals haven't been attacked. Now don't go saying, "You do hate them." I wish nothing bad on them. But I'm just saying, don't you find it odd?

Er, didn't you just say...?

Look, I don't know what the crap you're trying to say (gheys r evil becuz they hasnt been prosecuteds?) and I dun wanna know, but...

Listen I really, really wish you guys would leave religion out of this. I'm religious myself, and even I think that this sort of thing is hardly an appropriate topic to bring God into. It's like a member of the KKK walked into a discussion about black schools and started saying that, according to whatever crazy stuff the Klan believes, blacks are inferior and therefore they shouldn't be going to school at all. You'd tell him that you don't share his beliefs, and ask him to keep them out of the discussion. Probably call the police, too.

Now, you guys are nowhere near as awful as the KKK (and for the record I do acknowledge that the majority of Christians take the word of God and do good with it,) but consider my plight the same as that unfortunate fellow who happened to speak with the Klansman in the black schools thread. I don't share your beliefs, I think a good deal of them have been greatly distorted by time (see what hundreds of years of strict reinterpretation of a holy book by a heavily patriarchal society has done in places like Saudi Arabia,) and I think that they have no place in a discussion such as this -- nor do the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Talmud, the Book of Mormon, that Eugenics novel, or anything else. So please, please, if you're going to continue discussing why them gheys is horrible and depraved, please stop taking quotes from the Bible as solid points -- they are not facts, plain and simple. They won't be facts until the Last Day, at which point this sort of thing will be moot anyway.

Also, for the record, I disagree with teaching creationism in schools because school is supposed to teach the arts and sciences. If we start teaching students (many of whom are not religious) that God made everything instantaneously and all that, we might as well start teaching that the universe is six thousand years old, that the dinosaurs never existed, that giants roamed the earth, and (for good measure) that Bahamut the great fish floats in a fathomless sea, carrying upon his back the great bull Kujata, who bears a mountain of ruby, atop which stands an angel who holds up the Hells, Earth, and the Seven Heavens!

And then we might as well teach the alternate version of that universal model, in which the Earth's foundation sits in water, which fills a crag resting on the forehead of a bull who lies on a bed of sand on Bahamut's back, while Bahamut himself rides on a stifling wind above endless mists.

I just want to make sure what I teach my children is supported by the educational system on the offchance that I raise them to believe a strict literal interpretation of the Islamic multiverse.

If you want your children raised among nothing but Christian beliefs and ideals, send them to a Christian school. Don't stifle the kids who don't want or need to learn anything but scientific fact -- evolution is a theory, but it has a stronger basis in fact than creationism.  And, as said before, evolution and religion aren't mutually exclusive -- God could have set evolution into motion. He doesn't need to break the laws of physics just so that He can keep control of a situation -- if He's there, He made those laws, for God's sake!

('sides, what makes Christian beliefs so special? If you're gonna work that angle, you gotta include Muslims, Hindus, Ba'hai, Zoroastrians, Bacchans, et cetera ad infititum! It'll be a ball!)

 

[Diaforetikos]

We should at least start teaching intelligent design then. There isn't enough proof for evolution to be taught in schools, but we do it anyway. Same with intelligent design. It doesn't state that God made everything, but it does teach that something higher than us created this world. Two sides to every story. If there isn't enough evidence, then we should stop teaching it all together. Let people come up with their own theories.

 

[Despain]

Even though it's horribly off-topic, these debates are decent enough to allow (ie. I don't see any insane flaming, so things can keep going as they're going.) Just be aware of the topic at hand.

We should at least start teaching intelligent design then. There isn't enough proof for evolution to be taught in schools, but we do it anyway. Same with intelligent design.

It depends on the class. In a science class, something like Intelligent design or creationism has no place. Not because it isn't valid as a theory, but because it isn't valid as a scientific theory. The theory of evolution isn't proven nor is it disproven, but it's still taught because it's based in scientific principles.

Intelligent design and creationism can be taught in other classes where relevant -- religion studies, philosophy or even classes in logic. So long as people don't claim that those ideas are scientific in nature, I have no problem with people learning about them.

 

[GrooveMan.exe]

There isn't enough proof for evolution to be taught in schools...

I'm sorry, what? Tens of years of research, experimentation and analysis producing tomes of material favorable to the theory of evolution is 'not enough proof'?

(I actually have a decent argument about why it might be even better to be homosexual, but this isn't the place for it)

We've switched topic enough times now to have that somewhat relevant. Tell us anyway, I'm interested.

 

[Diaforetikos]

(I actually have a decent argument about why it might be even better to be homosexual, but this isn't the place for it)

We've switched topic enough times now to have that somewhat relevant. Tell us anyway, I'm interested.

So am I.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Simple.  Everyone goes homosexual, and ... well...

No more people like us bickering over who does what between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

A true utopia.


As for comments that no attacks on gays earlier, even though they've already been mentioned - seriously join the real world.  Sure there's been no MASS GENOCIDE, but how can you trace homosexuality?  You can't.  You can trace sexings - male or female, easy.  You can trace heritage.  Super easier every day.  But what you do in the privacy of your own life?

Homosexualities is one of the things that you as a state were ALLOWED to be bigoted against as far up as 2003, when you could suffer a life sentence (LIFE) in prison (LIFE IN PRISON) in the states of Idaho and Michigan for practicing sodomy (LIFE IN PRISON FOR GAY SEX) - laws purposely put out to illegalize homosexual acts.

There was NEVER any law in the modern world that carried a life sentence for two adults of any other minority, ethnic group, or religious sect, having sex with each other.  A law purposely stating two people can not exchange physical love else they be sent to prison.  In Idaho that was the maximum sentence, in Michigan that was for the 2nd conviction - the first being 15 years.

That alone is sick.  Imagine now if a group of people of one faith said black people or Jews couldn't have sex because it was wrong and immoral - and yes there are people who say that and try to use a religion as their means.  Now imagine if those people had passed that as a law purposely aimed to discriminate and make it legally impossible for physical expressions.  I'm sure that would count as an attack against a people then.

*EDIT*
BTW,
Sodomy includes oral sex.  Most states and places around the world left the wording broad enough to include almost everyone.  This way threesomes and other "buggery" wouldn't spread the dreaded Gay.  In fact sodomy laws in some places include almost anything and everything two people can do to each other other than procreate, yet are only enforced on those of alternative life styles.

 

[Despain]

We've switched topic enough times now to have that somewhat relevant. Tell us anyway, I'm interested.

It's not something I necessarily believe in personally, but it's a conclusion I came to while studying Rossetti's Goblin Market. The idea is that heterosexual sex exists only for procreation, while homosexual sex has no practical purpose other than the sex in and of itself. Having sex purely for the pleasure of it, though, can occur just fine between two people of opposite genders regardless of sexual preference.

Therefore, homosexual sex is far more deeply rooted in love moreso than heterosexual sex, which gives power to the idea that homosexuals are able to love each other more deeply and sincerely than heterosexual couples.  The very fact that homosexual sex is "unnatural" is what makes it an expression of love more powerful than heterosexual sex.

It's a very interesting theory if you think about it.

 

[GrooveMan.exe]

That's a fair point, and fairly logical actually. Although that does imply that to a certain extent, stright couples only love eachother for the ability to have a child. That doesn't hold up in practice though.

 

[Me(tm)]

I'm a true christian

Do you like schrimps? (serious question!)

There isn't enough proof for evolution to be taught in schools...

I'm sorry, what? Tens of years of research, experimentation and analysis producing tomes of material favorable to the theory of evolution is 'not enough proof'?

Since when does something have to be scientificly proven to be teached. For instance: Gravity, it fits with all those equatations, but did you know that the graviton is yet to be found (an type of particle that is needed to prove some of those gravity laws => just google it if you want to know the specifics) and yet we need to know everything about it, and it's taken as common knowledge. If you're studying astronomy, you'll get so much about worm wholes and black holes, which are based on theories. Hell, we rely on things like kwantumphysics and the Theory of relativity.

But back to the point. Theory means 'idea', 'wild guess' or 'assumption' in our daily lives. However, in science a theory is so much more then that. You can only call something a theory when it has a clear and correct explanation for a wide span of fenomas. A theory may only be confirmed by observations/evidence and not be contradicted (if that happens => you have to change the theory or drop it all together). We then say: this theory is supported by emperical evidence.

That evidence, of course, can exist of indirect observations. Take our atom. Did you see one with your bare eye? No, however we can tell they exists because we can tell how mater behaves. The Atomtheory is thereby with that evidence not absolutly proved, but mater behaves always they way the theory predicts, which confirms the correctness of that theory.

So what about our theory of evolution. I'd say there are two main components, namly:
- Natural Selection
- Genetic inheritance

Natural Selection is the easiest one to prove - or actually to confirm by observation (we don't directly 'see' the selection taking place, but by researching how an group of organisms... etc.. etc...) as you can percept it yourself in the open and we can also follow a smallscaled evolutionairy change.

Genetic inheritance however tells us that the evolution very smoothly over the past thousands, milj., bilj. of years brought us all living species from simpler, less complex acients/genetic parents. The main part has therefore taken place before we humans actually existed, and can not directly be percepted, and we can't do labinquirys. Still, there's a meaningfull lot of emperical evidence to support genetic inheritance.

We have this prove as processes and events from the past left use lot's of traces. The easiest example is that when someone commits a murder, there isn't just the direct event: a dead body, but also all the attributes like: the crime scene, the murderweapon, witnesses, etc etc. A bigscaled process, like the evolution, has most liked also left it's traces. We can try to order those organisms on the kinship of those organisms like analogy and homology and genes and so on. Linaeus left us a scheme for plants. Now this scheme perfectly matches the researched kinship by looking at the genes that exists in those plants, however: Linaeus believed in god, he didn't took the theory of evolution into account when making this tree of inheritance. This is weird, as you would say that creatonisme, cleary a pseudo-science, does not allows such a system and certainly wouldn't match up with actual science...

Our real evidence comes perhaps from the fossils. The bilj. years old bones indicate some sort of gradual transition between the structures and layouts when we go back in time. We also find parts called rudimental bones, which are those bones that do not have a function but just are there. How would you prove that one with god? He just wanted to have animals with useless bones? Oh please...

Therefore :P we should all learn about the theory of evolution.

Just one p.s. on the: I just think gay people shouldn't be allowed to confront us with their livestyle. So heterosexuals can confront gay people with theirs? Stop assumming being straight is 'normal'.

 

[Nachos]

Ok I found something that could be interesting:

Spoiler

I copied this from the spanish BBC website and I translated it with google:

Original Page = http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/scienc ... 458817.stm

Other english links = http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsline/reports/o ... ndex.shtml



Born gay?
BBC Science


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... gay416.jpg[/img]
The heterosexual men and lesbians have more neural connections in the right amygdala.

The brains of gay men are similar to those of heterosexual women.

And the brains of heterosexual men resemble those of lesbians, says a study conducted in Sweden.

The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, compared the size of the brains of adults.

The scanner showed that the hemispheres of the brain of gay and heterosexual had a similar size.



Think: Does the gay matter whether born or made?

And the right hemisphere of lesbians and heterosexuals was larger.

To some scientists, this is evidence that sexual orientation is established from which man is in the womb.

ORIENT


One of the most controversial areas of science is that concerning the biological mechanisms of sexual orientation.

And in the past several studies have shown that homosexuals, both male and female, are certain differences in cognitive abilities, suggesting that there are certain differences in brain structure.


This, however, is the first research using brain scanners to analyze the source of these differences.

Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, studied a group of 90 homosexual and heterosexual adults, men and women, to measure the volume of their brain hemispheres.

Also analysed the brain connections of certain parts of the brain that control emotional reactions.

These, say the authors, are the two aspects that previous studies had shown differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects.

The test was to prosecute smells of hormonal secretions and measure the brain volume with magnetic resonance imaging.

The results showed that lesbian women and heterosexual men shared the same asymmetry in the volume of the right hemisphere.

And heterosexual women and gay men showed no difference in the size of their hemispheres.

In other words, at least as far as structure is concerned, homosexual men are similar to heterosexual women.

And lesbians are like heterosexual men.

Fight or flee

 
The brains of gay men is similar to that of heterosexual women.

As for measurements of the amygdala-the part of the brain that processes emotions also were some other important differences.

Men heterosexual and lesbian women showed more neural connections in the right side of the amygdala in the left.

And homosexual men and heterosexual women showed more neural connections in the amygdala left.


"The amygdala plays a key role in the emotional reactions to certain external stimuli," says Dr. Ivanka Savic, who led the study.

And these results, say the authors suggest that the amygdala of heterosexual men and lesbians could be "connected to launch a response to" fight or flee, "has been said is more common in men than in women."

Researchers say that although still unknown mechanisms behind these findings, these brain differences can not be explained solely by factors "learned".

And now it is necessary to conduct further studies to find out if those mechanisms are established before or after birth.

For other experts, like Dr. Qazi Rahman, a professor of cognitive biology of the Queen Mary University of London, these brain differences are set out in the early stages of fetal development.

"In my opinion, ended the discussion. If you are gay, it's because you were born gay," he says.

The tonsils she says is important because its role is to "guide" or directing the rest of the brain to respond to an emotional stimulus, which can be either the response of "fight or flee" or the presence of a potential partner.

"In other words, adds the expert-network brain that determines the individual's sexual orientation is similar among gay men and heterosexual women and between lesbians and heterosexual men."