I don't know, you brought it up, not me.

I am trying to understand it, that is all.

AH

__________________
“The subject no longer has to be mentioned by name. Someone is sick. Someone else is feeling better now. A friend has just gone back into the hospital. Another has died. The unspoken name, of course, is AIDS.”
“From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8, 000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone.”

I said, that if he has the desire to be in a "safe" relationship (lets toss the word "safe" in there, because we're assumeing that outside factors shouldn't influence it) with someone of the same sex, than yes he is gay. If he says he is gay, because he doesn't want a relationship with a girl, but he also doesn't want a relationship with a guy, he isn't gay. Many young people think they are gay just because they aren't interested in a heterosexual relationship (like you have to be one or the other), but they also aren't interseted in a homosexual relationship. How are they gay?

I believe that I said something along the lines of, These studies show the links between homosexuality and hormones or enviroment, not genes directly

Sorry, I missed the second, I thought it was just a link to the same video on Youtube.

But when you watch it (if you chose to take it as fact), they show a bunch of theories. The Older Brother Theory (which only applies to right handers) and, as it sumerizes, leaves a lot of questions. If it is the enviroment in the womb, than what about the twins, they are subjected to the same DNA, and the same womb enviroment. Ergo, it must be the outside enviroment. But I don't take studies unless I can see the actual study. I don't buy the media only without the actual study.

Have I not responded to this many times now?

"Homosexuality is not natural"... Neither is the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Yet homosexuality is victimless (do not start with comparisons of homosexuality with pedophilia, just don't go there)
Can you say that about religion?
Should we abolish/outlaw/criminalize it because of the countless victims of religion?

Wow, you remind me of Shanana from a month back. The Religion issue was discussed in another thread, so don't bring it up here. And don't start your first post in a thread with a strawman, it's just not a good idea.

She has a point though. Homosexuality is victimless.

__________________

Yes, but I don't see what homosexuality being victimless does for the argument of whether or not it is natural.

What does it matter beyond this point in an applicable sense? If you think it’s not natural, how would that affect your views of homosexuals than if you thought it was natural? (we’ve gone over this before, I was just trying to defend the new comer we have and I can’t think of anything else to say to your reply.)

__________________

I could be wrong, but I feel that discussions on whether or not homosexuality is natural often slips toward its moral angle. I believe that morality is tied to victimization. But for many others, morality is tied to the teachings of their religion. Also for the most part, those who question the naturalness of homosexuality are the ones who oppose it on the grounds of religious teachings.

So yes, we can discuss til the cows come home about homosexuality being natural or not, but nature has shown us species that engage in homosexual behavior in some cases. Based on this alone, then YES, homosexuality is natural. Even if it is unnatural, since it is victimless, the only other reason for some to oppose it has to be moral. But since again it is victimless and therefore, for some, not immoral, the last angle would be religious.

You may disagree, but it is all connected.
If it were possible to separate each issue attached to homosexuality, religious groups would not be nearly as influential as they are in their stance against it. I just think that to say "lets ONLY discuss if it is natural" is as effective as saying "Is (insert any human behavior of your choice) natural?"

... well, why? Makes it natural or not? Who gets to decide? Who coined the term first?
In the case of homosexuality, I am pretty sure (I cannot bring proof though) that conservative, religious, anti gay groups came up with that phrase first.