first off dont tell me about my views! I have a few gay friends and they accept and respect how I feel about that subject, so your opinion doesntmean %*$# to me. Secondly, Are you $$#!#$+ kidding me gay kids need their own school? at my high school gay kids were last people anybody made fun of! Everyonegot along with the openly gay kids. The "nerdy" kids got clowned on more, the "fat" kids got clowned on more! Should nerdy and fat kidsget their own schools too?
I can respect all of that!
I understand what I say may not change your views. I'm not out to do that. I'm not so delusional as to think that a few strokes of mykeyboard can change the world. What I can only hope for is that as time goes on, people become less and less intolerant of others.
http://www.chicagotribune...-18-nov18,0,7010373.story
But what really challenged and completely changed my views on homosexuality was the thought that it was something people were born with. In other words it's biological.
Science now has pretty good evidence that homosexuality is actually biological. Studies have found that the prenatal androgenic exposure like testosterone can explain homosexuality (Maucieri, Stone 200. More specifically the exposure given during 5th months of gestation (Lippa 2003). Or how things like the order of birth can influence homosexuality. The more children a mother has the more likely Y-linked antibodies are to be exposed to the fetus (Maucieri, Stone 200
Science keeps finding more and more biological differences between gays and heterosexuals like the difference in size hypothalamic nucleus (Greenberg, Bailey 1993). Greenberg and Bailey also cited that boys who are a bit feminine at an early age usually turn out to be homosexuals in adulthood.
There's literally thousands of pieces of evidence that link homosexuality with being innate, something not caused by individual behavior choices or environment. I don't' have the time nor patience to cite all of them.
1. I'm in the sciences so believe me when i say this--"homosexuality is not biological orinnate". Such a "hypothesis" (and yes, that's what it is) is very wrong or at the very least, quite misleading. I espouse this point of viewsimply because if homosexuality were indeed a consequence of genetically innate processes, everything we know about natural selection--with emphasis on sexualselection--and evolution would have to be re-evaluated.
Think about it this way. We have males and we have females. Our species can only procreate, naturally, when males copulatewith females. The male penis and the female vagina were evolutionary crafted for each other to maximize our ability to procreate and consequently pass on ourgenes. This is just mother nature doing her thing--it's just how things are.
What it all comes down to, with every species/organism on this planet, is passing your genes on to the nextgeneration--that's "survival". This is the innate goal of every species. This "survival" can only be accomplished through (male xfemale) interaction/copulation. This is the biologically natural way of things. Two or more mutually exclusive males, without female sexual interaction, cannotpass on their genes to the next generation. It's biological impossible. This is why nature has majorly selected for heterosexual interactions, relative tohomosexual interaction.
Furthermore, if homosexuality were in fact biologically innate, then there would be a natural tendency for all ofus--every single last one of us--to "act" homosexual or rather, there would be a greater disposition for us to act homosexual.
2. Here is the problem with most scientific experiment/studies. If you're out looking to find proof for X, Y,Z--chances are you'll find it because you're scientifically blind. These studies were geared toward finding PROOF that homosexuality is indeed innate.Think about it. These researchers were hoping to find PROOF and EVIDENCE to VALIDATE their hypothesis' so from the get-go, they were scientificallybiased.
During slavery, scientist scrutinized the anatomy of Blacks for differences that would suggest their inferiority towhites. (Same kind of thing happened in Nazi Germany with respect to Jews). The funny thing is that, because they were actively looking for it, they indeedfound "PROOF" and "EVIDENCE" to "VALIDATE" their clearly biased and insidious claims. The point is, these scientific studies thatfind evidence in the form of "prenatal adrogenic testasterone exposure" and "sizedifferences in the hypothalamic nucleus" need to be taken with a grain of salt. Like honestly, am i really to believe that the variability in hypothalamicNUCLEUS size is really evidence for a predisposition to homosexuality, COMON...
3. Once again, I will take all these proofs with a grain of salt.lanlnanl
Okay? How many people who aren't gay don't want kids, don't have kids, and can't have kids?
Seriously.. that's the dumbest crap I've heard. I hope my children are straight so they don't have to go through what I go through, not because somewhere deep down in my subconscious I believe it's wrong.. and I'm pretty much speaking for everyone else in your little generalization.
