actually he said that it was all fine, that anything was wrong with gays BUT that it was a mental disorder (thrown to the bin theory, several decades ago).
but well, im part i opened this thread to discuss as i'm in a part of my life when i need to know from when/where everything comes, my parents also, so i needed to see some points of view. weren't you in the need of an explanation when younger? did you find it? how?
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
There are a lot of theories and i dont agree with most of them; they are just assumptions that point the finger to someone or something. There is nothing or nobody to blame, it might seems as something that needs explanation but in reality it doesn't .As not everyone has the same color we dont all have the same sexuality or preferences. However if you want to read here are some i found in this site http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0858658.html :
Theories of Homosexuality
Psychiatric theories of homosexuality have included the following: that homosexuality is a regression to the earliest (oral) stage of development; that most families of homosexuals are characterized by an overprotective mother and an absent father; or that homosexuals fear engulfment by a dominant mother in the pre-Oedipal phase. Some authorities have suggested that homosexuality may be an expression of nonsexual problems, such as fear of adult responsibility, or may be triggered by various experiences, such as having sexual relationships with members of one's own sex at an early age that prove to be very satisfying. Arguments regarding the roots of lesbianism include disappointing heterosexual love experience, a father who displays distaste for men who express interest in his daughter, and memories of abusive relationships with men.
Many of these theories have been discredited in recent years, particularly by those who cite biological causation. Some researchers have contended that a disruption in the hormonal processes of the mother while she is pregnant may be one explanation. Simon Levay, a neurobiologist at the Salk Institute, has suggested that homosexuality may be related to brain functioning, as part of the hypothalamus in homosexual men is about a quarter to half the size it is in heterosexual men. Subsequent studies have shown that homosexual men react to certain substances believed to be human pheromones differently from heterosexual men. Several studies have pointed to a genetic predisposition governed by one or more genes on the X chromosome.
Other recent studies, while not directly supporting biological explanations for homosexuality, suggest that it may be a predisposition that can be detected at an early age among children who do not appear to have traditional gender identification. Whether it can be easily detected or not, most theorists agree that homosexual orientation tends to arise at an early age. Substantially fewer studies of homosexuality have been performed among lesbians, perhaps because of the greater stigma which is often attached to male homosexuality in many Western cultures.
The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a disorder, unless sexual orientation becomes an object of distress for the individual. In such cases, the individual—referred to by psychologists as ego-dystonic—may choose to seek psychiatric treatment. Also, beginning in the late 20th cent., biologists more openly examined and discussed the occurrence of homosexual behaviors among animals, which has been documented in several hundred species. Such behaviors, which may include courtship, sexual contact, bond formation, and the rearing of young, are found both in wild and captive animals. Many gay-rights activists have criticized the various theories which try to “explain†homosexuality, particularly those that treat it as an illness in need of treatment.
•
I'm not anti gay! In fact my dream partner would be a transvestite with big boobs and a dick. You could call me a pervert or something since there is no word for that.
And I know that there is evidence for evolution. But there is also evidence for the bible creation. But there is no "proof" for either of them. So they are both still theories and not facts.
Both have professors in physics, chemistry and biology defending their belief.
If you have time you should all see this video clip, 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. Its pure fact, but there is a problem. Its biased to the bible creation.
http://tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/5566
•
Big difference between evolution and creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory that is generally accepted by the scientific community. Creationism is faith.
Science can never be proven, there is only strong evidence to support an idea... or there hasn't been anything significant to disprove it. There is strong evidence to support evolution through fossils discovered. Could evolution be false? Well, it's a science and so it COULD be determined to be false, but it has yet to be done.
Creationism is faith because it can neither be proven nor disproven. It is based on belief. You cannot test if G-d is there, you just have to have faith and believe. It's more a philosophy.
Also the whole thing about man evolving from monkeys... close but not quite there. Man and ape evolved from a similar ancestor, we are part of the same branch, but just different limbs. . . more like cousins.
Some people will argue if man is more successful, then why do apes still exist? Well, just because one is MORE successful does not mean the other is going to die off. Man and ape have adapted for different environments. Ape has retained strength and size, man has developed intelligence. Both were successful and both have survived.
Man did not evlove from monkeys, monkeys/ape and man evolved from similar ancestors which resulted in us being cousins.
•
futureRD Wrote:Big difference between evolution and creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory that is generally accepted by the scientific community. Creationism is faith.
Science can never be proven, there is only strong evidence to support an idea... or there hasn't been anything significant to disprove it. There is strong evidence to support evolution through fossils discovered. Could evolution be false? Well, it's a science and so it COULD be determined to be false, but it has yet to be done.
Creationism is faith because it can neither be proven nor disproven. It is based on belief. You cannot test if G-d is there, you just have to have faith and believe. It's more a philosophy.
Also the whole thing about man evolving from monkeys... close but not quite there. Man and ape evolved from a similar ancestor, we are part of the same branch, but just different limbs. . . more like cousins.
Some people will argue if man is more successful, then why do apes still exist? Well, just because one is MORE successful does not mean the other is going to die off. Man and ape have adapted for different environments. Ape has retained strength and size, man has developed intelligence. Both were successful and both have survived.
Man did not evlove from monkeys, monkeys/ape and man evolved from similar ancestors which resulted in us being cousins.
There are better evidences for evolution than fossils. One is remains, evolutionists believed that Tyrannosaurs Rex was a predator. Recent remains showed that evolutionists where wrong again, that it did in fact eat plants.
Another anti evolution evidence is that most scientist today agree that the simplest of bacteria has a too much advanced mechanism for being evolved from the smaller one cell organisms.
These are just two vague evidences. Evolution was a good substitute to the bible creation theory. But it was also a theory in itself. It will never be proved right cause it is false.
Creationism is false, just as false as evolution. This is typical of people, choosing between two sides and both being more or less wrong. Reminds you of politics doesn't it?
•
Evolution has not been proven to be false, it's the most accepted theory produced by the scientific community. If there were a better reason as to why animals mutate throughout history, I would think there would begin to have changes within the textbooks. Could be wrong though... how many centuries was it thought the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe.... as of right now though, it is the best reason to the diversity of animals.
When was it said that the t-rex ate plants? All that I've read and kept up with said that it may have not been a predator, but a scavenger. With the shape of the teeth, it really couldn't have eaten much plant matter. Sharp teeth just don't grind.
I also don't believe in creationism, but it cannot be proven or disproven. It can only be questioned. Creationism is not science and therefore can't be proven. It is philosophy, a belief, a faith, but not science.
also, bacteria are one celled organisms. . . the simplest form of life. That could change if it is ever determined if the virus is ever categorized as a true living organisims... anyways, the bacterial evolution is still occuring today. Look at antibiotic resistent bacteria.
•
Wow Tin Tin, there are no words for the logic that you are pulling out. The Theory of Evolution doesn't care whether or not creation exists so you can't call it a substitute. There is actual data that has been compiled and observed that generally supports the theory of evolution. The entire point of science is to TRY something, evaluate it, observe it, and report on it. You say that scientists believed that T-Rex was only a carnivore and that they are 'wrong' because recent evidence showed that it may have eaten plants. Well guess what? That's the whole POINT of science, there is a process of re-evaluation, where new information can come out, and this HELPS knowledge along. You say it's 'wrong', but actually re-evaluating and discovering inaccuracies is what makes the scientific process flexible.
You show me some form of scientific evaluation that has been done for Creation, please I'd like to know.
As for the 'origins' of homosexuality; I think it's a chemical and biological disposition. I mean, when I see an attractive guy, my body responds chemically, there is no conscious acting on my part. All those things that happen in my body when I see an attractive guy are tied to chemical reactions in the brain which trigger reactions in the body. I can only take from this that there must be some chemical predisposition that is encoded somewhere in our brain which makes us attracted to members of the same sex.
•
I believe that all sexual preferences are innate. If any of the three were to be a learned behavior then it would be heterosexuality. Just my opinion. 
•
or maybe some people born gay and others born straight but more predisposed to become gay or bi influenced by environment during childhood or adolescent hood for instance.
•
Just to loop back to drocko17's original post (as this thread seems to have taken quite a sidestep as it's progressed), if I may ...
To be honest this is not something I have ever even considered stopping to question as, to my mind certainly, it really doesn't matter what causes people to be homosexual ...
I personally whack it into the same category of questions as "why was I born a boy instead of a girl", "why do I have blue eyes instead of blue", "why do I never, EVER seem to win the office lottery" and so on - these are questions I do not have the answers to, because I am not meant to have the answers to them ...
... that's my view anyway.
I think that sometimes it's actually nice to revel in ignorance - it makes a change from our usually very inquisitive and questioning minds  mile:.
If I were forced to give an answer, I would say that it's more a spiritual than an environmental, upbringing or education-based issue ... but that's just my personal take on it.
Hope that helps babe x
!?!?! Shadow !?!?!
•
|
