Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

No zan, I did not see it, but I would't misunderstand you anyway. Since we are at it, there is a serious flaw in you argument. Let me make it clearer. If a couple have six male children there are increased chances that one of them would be homosexual, as you quite rightly say. However, what are the chances that the first born child is homosexual? Very small, research has shown. What are the chances that the second born would be homosexual? More than the first one, and so on. Why should there me less chances for the first born? As far as I know nobody knows the answer to this yet.

Michalis, you have given an affirmative answer in an absolute way. There is no sound scientific basis to support it yet. What is sure however is that something that is natural does not mean that automatically is correct, or morally correct.

I understand the question now Bananiot. Thank you. Will think it over and come up with more rubbish answers.

[michalis5354]

I know the topic is controversial Bananiot so I will leave this to Science. My opinion though is that they are born. Also If you search on line you can find conflicting sources.

[zan]

I did once read that there is a same statistic for creativity. As in your quote the creativeness of the children is greater as they go down the line. Could they be linked? Is this why gay people have a better dress sense than their heterosexual counter parts? Could this also be explained in evolution terms, as in nature needs different skills in order to maximise success. Heterosexual, testosterone filled males that are made to fight and those that are made to think creatively. Ants have a structure that occurs naturally in the nest. Each group has a job to do, so there are soldiers and workers and so on. Is it down to genetic programming within the family structure. Nice thread. I am enjoying the thought proccesses.

[JenLawler]

I think it's abit of both..Nature i think is the Biggest role, but i do think nurture has something to do with it aswell in some way or another..But what does it matter, we have homosexuals, we have bisexuals and hetrosexuals like we have white skin, black skin or olive skin,etc..but we are all still people at the end of the day...And nobody should be treated differently for any reason. You may not choose to do it yourself or have the ability to accept something different than what you are.But you should definatly not make somebody feel embaressed or ashamed of who they are, sexuality wise, skin colour wise or anything. and whoever said that if the world was all gay we'd die out..how thick are you? You don't even have to have sex to reproduce anymore..Get with the times!.
Jen x

[Bananiot]

Fair enough Jen, we are not disputing the obvious.

[reportfromcyprus]

Homosexuality is natural, in the same way that people are different in many other ways. For example some people are blond, some black, some short, some tall, some are disabled, some are retarded etc.

Some differences are non essential (e.g. color of hair or skin) while some other differences can created some problems that society should deal with them. (e.g. with disabled people)

Life itself requires that people of opposite sex are attracted to each other so life can continue. In the same way that we should show respect to people with disabilities, we should do the same to homosexuals, and in the same way that we would not try to create more people with disabilities, we should not try to create homosexuals either.

I believe that there is no straight answer to the question if people are born or made gays. I believe people can be born with some or more homosexual tendencies. If you have a lot of this tendency, then you will be gay regardless of the environment. If you have no tendency at all, then there is no way to become gay.

However some people have a slight tendency. Whether these people will grow to become heterosexuals or homosexuals will depend on their environment. For this reason I am against "advertising" homosexuality as an equal alternative, and I am also against gay couples adopting children (but I am not against gays being married, as this is something that will affect only their own lifes).

Life can continue with cloning, and artificial insemination, there doesn't have to be attraction between the opposite sex.

[Piratis]

life can continue with cloning, and artificial insemination, there doesn't have to be attraction between the opposite sex.

And artificial limbs will also be available in a decade. This doesn't mean we should encourage something which is problematic because an artificial solution can exist.

Being homosexual is, as I said before, natural. However things like cloning and homosexuals bringing up children is not.

[JenLawler]

Well to me, if homosexuals can bring a child up well, that they have adopted, wether it's natural or not and can give a child love and support, what is the problem? In some cases they could prob do a better or equal job to a single mother/father and even some hetrosexual couples these days. Being gay isn't problematic to anyone other than themselves when it comes to wanting a family..And it's a great thing if they adopt and can give some children a better life..They can also use a willing surrogate mother and a turkey baster thing, no cloning involved...And this process and others such as IVF are also unnatural...But females in hetrosexual relationships can need to use them sometimes too, should this not be encouraged to help women who want to be mothers either just because it's not natural??

[Eliko]

i am looking for gay in limassol says nik, so after much deliberation and interesting discussion this young person is still none the wiser, surely somebody must be able to answer his enquiry as I am sure he is already quite familiar with all the foregoing comments, despite his tender age.

[Bananiot]

It's called food for thought eliko, nothing wrong with this. While I am at it, I should like to stress one common misconception. What is natural does not have to be good. This is a legacy we seem to have inherited from the middle ages. The natural laws simply explain how nature functions and have no moral value whatsoever. Thus, these laws should not be used to guide relations among people. For example, natural selection and the presumed progress it affords to nature, was used by Marx to invent and justify the struggle of the classes. There are many other examples but in essence, such efforts to expand physical laws to human relations are based on the wrong assumption that everything natural is also "good" for us. Contrary, everything not natural is no good and should be condemned. Despite the fact that there is no philosophical backround to such an assumption there is widespread reaction against homosexuals and birth control for example.