No morons, please. If something exists, in nature, then it's natural. Get over it. All primate societies, including ours, indulge in non-reproductive sexual behaviour. Why? Surely such a practise should, by it's very nature, fail to survive evolutionary development? If it hasn't, why not? Homosexual men must exist for a scientific reason, other than, of course, to show us how a good haircut is meant to look.
128669
What is the evolutionary purpose of self pleasure?  What is the evolutionary purpose of music?\n\nIt is possible for behaviors to be side effects and serve no direct evolutionary purpose.\n\nHowever, if homosexuality caused a person to significantly increase the survival rates of their siblings, nieces, and nephews, it might very well have an evolutionary purpose - particularly in a species where nondominant males have few reproductive opportunities.
538613
Not surprising that the "gay problem" is almost negligible in asian countries, since homosexuality is punishable by death in most of these.  You rarely get true statistics from the closet. As for the African community, you need to go back to anthropology class.  There are a lot of African tribes where homosexuality is acutally encouraged, or openly accepted as part of the social climate.  In college we studied several of these communities - in one in particular, the right of passage for a boy to become a hunter or warrior is for him to drink the semen of the strongest male member of the tribe.  You think he drinks it from a champagne glass?   It is obviously a little bit of both - genetics and circumstance. Sexuality is as individual as fingerprints - no two people are truly identical in their proclivities.  Whose to say one is right and one is wrong? We're just different, as nature intends us to be.
167559
While your question is a good one and I praise you for asking it, I would like to address the ramifications if it is openly approved.\n\nThey say they are "born that way".  That simply is not true.  Human sexuality starts mentally.  It is a choice.  God gave man free will.  Now, they want to redefine marriage that has meant between a man and woman for thousands of years.\n\nWhat if their rhetoric is used by child molesters, polygamists, and criminals who say they are born that way.  I will say one thing for them, the people who fornicate are no better.  The over indulgence in sexual perversion of every sort is an abomination.  It is this very thing that heterosexuals do that emboldened the homosexuals to come out.
419206
i think a male animal's nature is geared towards Reproducing his offspring...  and so, he is Physically and Visually stimulated.  a female animal's nature is geared towards Bearing and Nurturing offspring, and so must be emotionally stimulated to continue taking care of a child after birth.  \n\nas humans, we have extra steps:  we have a brain, to interpret, understand, appreciate, and decide what we "should" or "shouldn't" do... .it's not like animals who just mate when they are in heat and have children, and move on to the next mate.  we actually have social responsibilities, family duties, Respect, Committment, Trust, Marriage, etc etc.....  there are rules and regulations, punishments for wrong, etc.  \n\nthat is why i believe it is partly a woman's job to help "nudge" the man into learning how to become more Emotionally mature... if it was up to the man himself, most likely than not he won't choose to nurture that ability. but a woman can help him to see what is and is not "sensitive", and perhaps things he can refine so that a relationship can work.  that is why men, who are physically and visually stimulated by a Beautiful woman, will buy chocolates, open the door for her, etc.... and a woman will marry him, have his children, raise them, support him, and they will work Together as a team to continue doing what is Good and Healthy for the family.  so it seems that Men and Women have different roles and ways of interpreting what a relationship is about, but in the end they become ONE to forge the ultimate union, a family. :)
24350
It's so interesting to hear such silly statements.\n\nFirst off, I'm gay, so I think I know more about being gay than anyone here.  No, it's not a choice, and yes it is natural.  If by natural, you mean occurring in nature then chimps, most all primates, and even some birds (Emperor Penguins)have shown homosexuality. \n\nSecondly, yes children are cruel.  So wouldn't it make more sense to stop teaching children racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of cruelty, rather than try to change gay people?  I'm quite sure I didn't choose to be persecuted.  There are already tens of thousands of children in schools right now who belong to gay parents.\n\nThirdly, I'm so sick of people talking about one verse in the Bible as justification for taking away my rights.  Yes Leviticus says homosexuality is wrong.  It also says specifically that it is an abomination, (in Hebrew it's the same word) to eat pork, shrimp, and wear clothes of mixed fabrics.  Do you worship the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday?  Leviticus stipulates Saturday, and that anyone who works on Saturday should be sentenced to death.  Why are we quick to follow the law (singular) about homosexuality, when we never seem to pay attention to any of these other laws?\n\nWe need gay marriage because every day gay people are denied their civil rights.  When my partner got into a motorcycle accident the hospital attendant wouldn't let me in because "Only family relations are allowed to enter."  I have to pay extra taxes every pay period because I cover is health care; straight married couples don't have to pay these taxes because the health care coverage is not considered income.\n\nI also don't want to hear any nonsense about civil unions.  Marriage is a civil right; it should be granted to all Americans.  Setting up civil unions and domestic partnerships only creates a group of second class citizens.  We tried separate but equal for 60 years in the south.  It doesn't work.  One group is always treated as second class citizens, while the other group is "normal."
344562
Maybe having to do with simple nature.  Like sex is a natural thing.  Just guessing.
569368
You are mistaking a preference for spending time with a person of the same sex, with an inability to procreate.  Historically, many "gay" people had children.  They seemed to find enough motivation to mate with someone even if that is not their preference.  Given that, there is no reason why being gay would stop one from procreating.\n\nIn fact, historically, it could be advantage in some cases.  The whole point of pro-creation is to survive long enough to mate and then to ensure that your offspring also survive long enough to mate.   Women can better rely on other women to help raise children, and the importance of male bonding in combat or dangerous situations is quite clear.\n\nThe real question is does a single "gay" gene exist.  I have my doubts that it is that simple.  Human interaction is a complex affair.  I suspect that there are multiple genes involved as well as environmental conditions (both pre and post natal).  That doesn't mean, that being gay is a choice.  A given gene may make it more or less likely, but almost all the contributing influences likely occurred long before self awareness was firmly in place.
168969
I personally believe that it is a combination of genetics and environment.  It is never a "choice"...  Some people are predisposed to being attracted to the same sex by genetics, and other people are predisposed only under certain conditions.  There are also people that no matter what happens to them in their life they will never ever be gay.  Being gay is what arouses a person.  For me personally, a man does nothing for me... but a woman I find very arousing.  Its just the way I am, and no matter how I try to imagine myself with a man, it just does not work.  It feels very wrong and uncomfortable.  It does not feel natural.  A woman feels very natural, as Im sure it feels to a straight man.  I am a follower of God, and I believe that as long as we love, we are good.  Hate is what opposes the Lord, not love, no matter what form... whether I love my dog, my child, or my girlfriend, its still love, and only good can come from love.  Hate, ignorance, deception and misunderstanding are not good, therefore they are not following the Lord's path.  \n\nThere are gay animals by the way.. have you ever heard of the Bonobo Chimpanzees?  Look them up and their sexual behavior... you will find they are the most sexually free of any species on the planet, it doesnt matter if you are male or female.
44612
Nice effort and beneficial.\nThey want to trace back the details of human generations which are vague.\nWell, they "search" for Adam, right?\nThey must believe in creationism rather than evolution.\n\nHopefully people will realise that we humans are all the same. We came from the same root. No more racist solicitation.\nThe theory of evolution is focused mostly on physiques. They do not care to think that men have minds and spirit.\nIt is clearly wrong to define us physically just like the animals. We are better than animals. \nMoreover, we are the best creations. \n\nI do not really get the picture with the female ancestor to date earlier than the common male ancestor. Could you explain to me about that?\n\nIt is weird for woman and man to live not in the same time. How could they reproduce?\n\nMaybe I will come back later. By the way, I think "boffin" means buffoons.\n\n\n\nThank you Kurdiatcha for explaining to me.\nI was not expecting you but the questioner herself but thank you.\n\nI would like to edit some more but have no time.\nHere's a little correction:\n\nWhat I meant by define us physically just like the animals is to take ONLY physique into acount.\n\nThe brain differs from the mind. Animals have brains but not minds. They have life but not soul.\n\nBrain is physique. Mind is defined as the ability to learn and understand things by self, not gifted.\nOf course, we need the help of God to understand about something.\nMind is also the sign of rationality of humans.\n\nI will continue later.\n\n\n\nSorry for keeping you waiting so long, Nelly. I had to take time to make a structure of my next explainations which are:\nThis is going to be quite a LONG lecture.\n\n\nHuman = (Physique) (Mind) (Life) (Soul)\nAnimal = (Physique) (Life)\n\nPhysique = Physique?\nIt is most probably. If to follow the law of balance; equation and relation, Human seems to have more advantages such as Mind and Soul, therefore their Physique must be less advantageous than that of Animal.\n\nLife = Life\n\nSoul = Mind (Feelings) (Life)\nMind = Soul (Life) (Physique)\nFeelings = (Physique) (Soul)\nMind ≠ Brain\nBrain = Mind (Physique) (Life) = Brain\nIn this context, Mind means the controller. Brain of Human and Brain of Animal are similar but not the same.\n\nMind = Soul\nMind + Soul (Animal) = Human\nMind and Soul are similar yet they are not one. Plus, they are parallel. Physique capsulizes Brain where in the Brain lies Mind. Life capsulizes Soul. The parallelism of both must be broken and should be met in order to achieve the same goal; finding God. \nOnce they have combined, the journey of finding God will be clearer.\n\nPhysique (Mind) + Life (Soul) = Human\nSoul + Mind ≠ Human\nPhysique + Life ≠ Human\n\nTherefore, Physique and Life make up Animal’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life and Life enlivens Physique. It is mutual symbiosis.\n\nPhysique, Mind, Life and Soul make up Human’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life, Soul and Mind, Life and Soul enlivens Physique, Mind controls Physique and Life, so does Soul. Soul controls Mind but Mind decides initially.\n\nConsider Human like a box (Physique) powered by Life externally. Inside the box, there is a ball of Soul and Mind; Mind takes up only the core while Soul is the ball inside out. With the ball, the box is generated internally.\n\nThe three parts: Physique, Life and Soul must be available in order for a Human to love but irrationally minded. Therefore, Mind is the only part of rationality. It is the only part of intelligence.\n\n\nThe above equations show the difference between Human and Animal. I know it is quizzical to you, so it is to me.\nThe sign with the small "l" is actually a small number 1, indicates Human.\n\nWell, if we to trace the generations of human, we must primarily try to understand human. If you do not understand anything, tell me. I will try to make you understand the equation. Even I do n
618078
i think it's the media's mistake, now atl east everyay u watch a movie or series on gays and lesb. i don't think is what's natural. God created male and female one completes the other. women know how to touch a women is simply bc they touch the places where they want to be touched. however i think if u do it with someone u have  real feelings to it will be much enjoyable, and it wouldn't hurt if u give him tips about what u like and what u don't like
543812
You've got a few misconceptions there.  I'm going to assume you are really asking a question and not just fishing for agreement, so I'll try and straighten them out.\n\nFirst of all, IF man evolved from other primates, it would be more proper to say that mankind arose from -A- primate.  To draw an analogy, if you build a house out of lumber from trees, it doesn't mean there are no trees left in the world... only the trees you used to make your house are gone.  So it is perfectly plausible for monkeys to still be around even though something else might have evolved from them.  Populations become isolated and develop different traits all the time - try comparing someone from China, Iceland, and Africa some time.\n\nSecondly, I don't suspect any evolutionist would say that man evolved from monkeys.  Instead they would suggest that they had a common ancestor, and both man AND monkeys are different from that ancestor, just in different ways.\n\nAnd last is the question of transition.  And transition implies you're going somewhere.  Since none of us know what life will be like a hundred million years from now, it may very well be appropriate to say that EVERYTHING now is in a state of transition from what it used to be from what it will be.  Looking for 'half-fins' and the like is a straw-man argument, though there is certainly no dearth of vestigal organs and DNA around in most species, if you only look for it.\n\nI respect your desire to dispute the validity of evolution.  Most true scientists WELCOME having their theories challenged - it can only make them stronger and get rid of bad ones.  But if you're going to tilt at a windmill, make sure your lance is pointed in the right direction!
664730
Sounds like you have already made up your mind on this one.  How about educating yourself on the subject first.  JPII was a brilliant man and many times there are very good reasons behind things we do not understand.  Try reading Christopher West's "Theology of the Body" which is a work that discussed JPII's Wednesday audiences where he spoke of the beauty of human sexuality.  (BTW, why would WOMEN need access to condoms, they do not have a penis!)
485441
An overwhelming sexual desire for other women, oddly enough, a sexual identity that bares uncannily similar characteristics of heterosexual males.  It's truly a sexual preference question that is rooted in biology, not psychology.  The only reason why people are asked to define their sexual predilections is because someone who isn't what they are doesn't understand.  It's the same as being heterosexual, homosexual (gay), asexual, pansexual.  It just is.  It's what's hotwired into that particular woman's biological urges.  Women turn her on.  Men do not.  And so on.  She can still cook and clean and give birth.  She just chooses to keep house for a woman, rather than a man, based on where her heart and loins are directed biologically.  Granted, the mental thing becomes what defines behavior of a lesbian outwardly, but truly, it has nothing to do with them being any different than anyone else.  Who one has sex with shouldn't be a cause for public debate solely on the basis that it's "different" from the norm.  I don't see heterosexuals having to justify their characteristics, purposes or essential personalities to governmental bodies or public forums, why should homosexuals?  They're not lab monkeys, they're people.
168644
According to most scientists and psychologist, being gay is physiological verses psychological. There is a part of the brain called the hypothamalus. In heterosexual men this gland is larger than a heterosexual woman’s which is much smaller in size. Recent studies of autopsies performed on gays reveal the size of hypothamalus’ of homosexuals (both male and female) aren’t as large as a heterosexual male or as small as a heterosexual female.\n\nHomosexuality occurs naturally in most species of animals.\n\nForgoing the physical causes of homosexuality, socialization, environment and personal beliefs often have an influence on whether a person live a gay or straight life. For instance, a person who believes they may be gay might suppress those feelings if they are raised in an environment where homosexuality is considered taboo and self expression is censored. On the other hand, a person with homosexual tendencies may be more willing to explore those feelings if raised in an environment which encourages expression and self individualism.\n\nSince our sexuality doesn’t develop until long after birth, I don’t see how anyone can be born heterosexual or homosexual. \n\nSome uninformed individuals claim homosexuality is a choice. The question to those people would be, “Did you have to choose to be straight.” The answer will almost always be, “Hell no!” Just as a heterosexual could no more “choose” to be gay, a homosexual would have a difficult time choosing to be straight.\n\nAs for religious arguments, the passages in Genesis merely explain heterosexual relationships and does not condemn or even speak to homosexual acts. The only direct mention of homosexuality in the Bible can be found in the Old Testament under Leviticus along with the sins of wearing woven clothing (cotton), eating shell fish, shaving, and not allowing women to preach the word of God, amongst other forgotten sins. These sins were made non-sins by the words of Jesus. That is why good “Christians” can shave, while wearing their cotton briefs and eat oyster without having to worry about going to Hell.\n\nIn the New Testament, many newer interpretations claim that the rapists who came to Lot’s house were gay, but they were rapists, which rape is a sin. In another passage the words used to describe male prostitutes has been translated into “homosexuals” by watered down modern day Bibles. Prostitution is a sin, but at the time, there was no homosexual culture to condemn.\n\nThe most prolific argument against Biblical condemnation of homosexuals came from Jesus who was to be God’s final word on the subject. When given the opportunity to condemn homosexual behavior, He did not.\n\nWhen you see the word “homosexual’ in a Bible understand there was no word to describe homosexuality at the time of the writing of the Bible. Go to the King James Version and read the same passages. Those translations of those same words pertain only to male prostitution and rapists, which are both sins.\n\nLastly, many lost Christians say the Bible says intercourse is for the purpose of reproduction only and the only reason man was put on this earth was to reproduce. Well I can’t find one Christian who says they only have intercourse for the purpose of reproduction. As for the misnomer man was put on this earth for the sole purpose of reproduction, what about people who for one reason or another cannot reproduce? Are they all going to hell? If all of the world’s trees produced fruit, the fruit would lay rotting on the ground.
158982
I would love to know why anyone thinks it is a mutation. They will probably find it is a gene or series of genes that determines sexual orientation. Anyone that thinks it is a choice is obviously mentally challenged. No one would choose to be ridiculed, beaten, or even killed just so they can have sex with the same gender. Do you think gay men sit around thinking, "Gee, I'll go pack some fudge just to piss off my preacher?" The medical and psychiatric communities have already figured out that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It is not a condition, disease, or ailment and therefore cannot be cured, treated, vilified. These so called ex-gay religious groups fooling themselves. A person can choose who or what gender they engage in sex with, but they cannot choose who they are attracted to. These ex-gay converts are simply kissing the churches butt and being led like lemmings to the desired brainwashing outcome. It is no different than when gays have sex with the opposite gender to make mommie or daddie or the preacher man happy, although they are miserable.
300929
People are giving you answers to two questions.\n\nSome people are telling you no one has to have sex.  That is true.  Celibacy has always been around -- some religions are very keen on it.  So, a person can choose not to have sex.  I could choose not to have sex with my partner, I could even choose to force myself to have sex with a female.  It makes my physically ill, but I could force the issue, at least I think I could.  Likewise, a heterosexual could force himself to have sex with another man. He could choose not to have sex with women.  In NEITHER CASE would the person change.  the homosexual would still be homosexual, the heterosexual would still be heterosexual.  What they would be doing would in both cases be unnatural for them.  But they could choose.\n\nThen there is the question of choosing how you feel.  No, there is no choice there except for bisexuals.  I have never found a single woman even vaguely attractive sexually.  I get along with women well enough, though the vast majority of my friennds are straight males.  I've had the same male lover for nearly 15 years, but I still notice other males, I just choose not to have sex with them (back to that choice thing again, in this case the same choice a straight man in a committed relationship makes).  \n\nNo one knows the reasons for this, it may be a cocktail of reasons, or  it may be genetic, or chemo-genetic -- both the eyeblink logitudnal study and the pheremonal response study imply that it is one or the other. What it is not is environmental.\n\nAs for our friend who thinks he turned gay because he wanted to see a penis at 6.  I think you feel guilty inside for being gay, and you concocted that as an excuse.  I saw penises and vaginas all my life -- my family was not big on modesty inside our home, and it was no big deal.  However, I began to realize what I liked by 8 and fully understood it was sexual by 11.  So you were interested in penises earlier, as I was - and then you realized what it meant at 10 -- not that much different from me, but without the self-acceptance and family support -- therefore, instead of realizing that it was self-recongition, you make it into a cause.  It isn't, you were not born straight.\n\nIf people have questions do not hesitate to email me.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nSchenectady, NY\nhttp://www.rebuff.org\nbelieveinyou24@yahoo.com
633224
I think it's all bulls**t. There is scientific evidence that indicates that sexual preference isn't chosen. If it were chosen, do you think that so many gay teens would make suicide attempts, or that gays would willingly go through the bulls**t they're forced to endure?\n\nA lot of these so-called Christians who are trying to "save" the gays and lesbians from their lives of sin aren't doing so for altruistic reasons. Christianity has been used to excuse all sorts of social ills, such as slavery, the oppression of women, homophobia, and anti-Semitism. There are actually parts of the Bible that recommend putting homosexuals to death. However, if I remember correctly, there is also a part of the Bible that forbids wearing gold jewelry. If you tune in to TBN or any other religious nutcase channel, you will definitely see so-called Christians wearing gold! A lot of so-called Christians latch onto the parts of the Bible that appeal to them and ignore the ones that don't. That's why they so conveniently forget the passage in which Jesus says, "He who has not sinned shall cast the first stone."\n\nBy the way, I like your choice of fred phelps as your Yahoo!Answers name. That man is a major nutcase!