Requestion,

God love ya man,, that is NOT at all what I said,, lol

I said there are SOME people who are confused about who they are and for those people it is good that we have resources for them to turn to.

So you didn't bother to take Winx's link and see what these programs are about? Maybe if you'd read and conprehend a post's point and references then you would not be so vague with your answers.

That is not true.

Humans find sexual pleasure at young ages. Masterbation starts when they discover their sexual parts and if something they see stimulates them to feel desire they will remember and try to experience this more.

Gay men and women are stimulated by the sight and interaction with their own sex. I had crushes on boys in kintergarten, they thrilled me. It was a sexual reaction but I did not know what to do with it.

Therapy is not needed nor is it a good idea because THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY!!!

Dam, ignorancy is such a pain in the aas.

Being gay is just as natural as being hetero. There is nothing wrong with it.

Gay people are born everyday. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I understood the thread and I DID comment on the point of it, several times. I also added a bit which is not uncommon or against any rules on these threads. If my answers seem vague to anyone, I welcome questions to clarify them.

Again, I will clarify. Not EVERYONE is 'born gay'. Many people are unsure of themselves in every way , including sexuality, so they experiment to try and 'find themself'.

For THESE people, therapy is indeed an excellent idea.

So if you are enjoying life by experimenting with different things to eventually find your niche, you are in need of therapy?????

Oh man, the frustration with some people.

Since there is nothing wrong with being gay nor not knowing one way or the other. You do not need counseling to help discover this.

If men spark your interest and you are man, you are either gay or bi

Same goes for women.

Just go out and get it on with a few different people and you will soon know if you are gay or straight or bi. If you are bi you get the best of both worlds and that is great.

The only people who are not born gay are the ones who are born gay or bi and deny they are until later in life when they realize they cannot be happy living a lie.

Untrue!
That's a myth!

ok,, so let me give an example to clarify my point of why therapy is good for some people. Lets say a male adolescent or even a child has grown up with no father and finds at some point a need to be loved by a man( completely normal). Lets say that due to an oversexed culture this boy enjoys ANY type of attention from a man and engages at this mans urging in sexual activities. Lets say that this boy grows up to be a man who continues in sexual activities with men but does not feel fulfilled and is not sure why he feels the way he does. Therapy , for this CONFUSED person, would be a good idea for him to deal with what lead him to this attraction and may help him discover that he doesnt actually have a NATURAL attraction to men but an attraction that was MOLDED from other needs.

Again, people who engage in homosexual or heterosexual activity dont ALL do so because of how they were born,, some are actually doing it because of other unmet needs and it is good those people have someplace to go and deal with the issues at hand that sex has been covering up.

No it is not a myth.

Only the prejudice, homophobic and religious want it to be a myth so they can continue their hatred of the gay folks.

It is the truth, all you have to do is ask them.

If you could have told the story without the pediphilia association which is what most religious do when it comes to homosexuality, it would be a more relatable analogy to deal with.

Any child that is a victim of pediphilia needs counseling, so you still are not making your point here.

No it's a myth, and I'd prove it, but this has nothing to do with the topic.
It's a side show distracting from the issue at hand.

You can't prove it.

I have gay friends who have told me that they were born that way.

And there is nothing wrong with them being born gay. Nothing at all.

So regardless to the sideshow or not.

I am here to tell you that the gay folks I know were born gay.

It is from the horses mouth.

I didnt say this subject was a victim of pedophilia. I said, due to a need to have a man love him in his childhood, he was more susceptible to the advances of a man in his older years, even though this activity wasnt necessarily fulfilling any sexual desire for him,,causing confusion.

I felt my original point was relevant in terms of the history of law and punishment of sexual preferences. It could have been less offensive for me to use incest as the example, but I wasnt trying to be PC so much as make the point that governments around the world, including ours, have often tried to pass and execute legislation regarding peoples sexual preferences.

Whenever you follow the law and punishment of sexual orientation of any kind it always falls into the lap of the pesky religious nosing in where they don't belong.

If the religious would stay the hell out of the government, we would have a better world to live in.

You think most women are bi?! I don't have a "bi" bone in my body.

Okay, I've gone and done my research. this article is the most readable, and covers a lot of what researchers have found. Studies have been limited by funding, however, as genome studies cost millions of dollars a piece! This is from Rain and Roses by the author Rosenko. Have a happy summation!!

As someone who finds human sexuality (and the causes behind it) fascinating, I was very interested to read this article on a recent genetic theory of male homosexuality. (Don’t worry, it’s much more readable than my description makes it sound.) The question it tries to answer is this: Assuming a genetic basis for homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality, one would think that it would be self-limiting – two men are incapable of creating a child to pass on their genes, after all. But male homosexuality is seen at a low-but-constant rate in all kinds of societies. So, what gives?

For those who are too lazy to even read Slate’s rundown, here’s the Campbell’s Condensed Soup version: The technical term is “sexually antagonistic selection”, which basically means that while the trait is harmful for one sex, it’s advantageous for the other – enough to make up for the deficiency introduced in the first sex. We’ve already seen examples of this odd occurrence in other creatures, so it’s more than plausible for it to happen in humans, too.

But Rose, I hear you thinking. In order for this theory to work, the male homosexuality gene needs to give females an evolutionary boost. What possible procreative advantage could women gain from having gay male relatives?

Glad you asked!

Here’s a fascinatingly odd bit of data: Numerous studies have found that the female relatives of gay men produce children at a significantly higher rate than other women. Not only that, but among the female relatives of a gay man, those who are related to his mother have even higher birth rates than those related to his father. So it’s quite possible that whatever gene is responsible for male homosexuality also causes increased fertility in female carriers – more than enough to offset the lack of offspring from their gay male relatives.

Assuming this theory is correct, that brings up a couple of interesting potential conclusions:

First, and perhaps most obviously, all the family-values folks who are so concerned about gay people spreading their gayness like a disease can bugger off (so to speak) – the lack of evidence for the gay-disease model is now supported by a strong argument that only men who are genetically wired to be attracted to other men will be. (The flip side of that, of course, is that male homosexuality will always be around at that low-but-constant level, so y’all just need to get used to the idea that some guys are just going to prefer other guys to women and that’s that. Leave ‘em alone, already.)

Secondly, this and several other studies attribute female homosexuality/bisexuality to societal rather than genetic factors, which could explain the increasing amount of evidence finding female sexuality to be far more fluid than male sexuality – we’re not genetically hard-wired the way most guys are, so most of us aren’t limited to being attracted to one sex or the other except by societal factors. (I don’t buy the oft-pronounced theory that bisexual males don’t exist; I’ve known several. They do seem, however, far less common than bisexual females. This would also account for the fact that when I ask friends about their thoughts on the all-humans-are-inherently-bisexual theory, female friends often seem more receptive than male friends.)

Thirdly, one could make a pretty strong argument that it’s not a male-homosexuality gene per se that’s getting passed along; it’s an androphilia gene, one that increases attraction to men. The above-mentioned accounts aside, I have met women who just couldn’t imagine sleeping with someone of the same sex. Usually they didn’t react to the idea with disgust, the way men did; they just (if you’ll pardon the vulgarity) really, really loved the ****. I’d be very interested in seeing the rates of homosexual males among their relatives as opposed to in the general population…

The one thing I’ll admit I’m worried about is that, as with all homosexuality-is-genetic theories, folk will start going on about how it just proves that them queers are inferior and have got faulty wirin’ and should be fixed (or worse, exterminated). I need to find a convenient link to the DSM-IV’s definition of a disorder – specifically, the part that says that in order for something to be a disorder, it has to cause mental or physical suffering to either the person exhibiting it or others interacting with them.

I think those who judge others life choices should be forced into therapy...golly, that sure sounds silly as hell doesn't it??