Do you think same sex relationship os ok?

---

Not everything on the Net is reliable. NARTH (from whose website your quotes come) describes itself as "a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality" - in other words, it is not an organisation dedicated to uncovering the truth, whatever that may be, but one that has a specific barrow to push, a specific dogma to teach.

Im bi also , so yes its ok

That Web site is run by partisans who already know what they think, and they are working backwards, selecting favorable evidence, to justify their conclusion. They also seem to think that science ended in 1999. Given all the information available on the Web, your referring to that site alone raises real questions about what axe you are grinding.In reply to:Sniffing Out the Gay GeneMay 17, 2005New York TimesBy STEVEN PINKERCambridge, Mass.IT sounds like something out of the satirical journal Annals of Improbable Research: a team of Swedish neuroscientists scanned people's brains as they smelled a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat and an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine. In heterosexual men, a part of the hypothalamus (the seat of physical drives) responded to the female compound but not the male one; in heterosexual women and homosexual men, it was the other way around. But the discovery is more than just a shoo-in for that journal's annual Ig Nobel Prize - it raises provocative questions about the science and ethics of human sexuality.Scientists and perfume marketers who believe that humans, like other mammals, respond sexually to chemical signals called pheromones were cheered by the news. But we are a long way from dogs in heat. The role of pheromones in our sexuality must be small at best. When people want to be titillated or to check out a prospective partner, most seek words or pictures, not dirty laundry.The difference in the brain responses of gay and straight men does not, by itself, prove that homosexuality is innate; after all, learned inclinations, like innate ones, must reside somewhere in the brain. But in this case nature probably does trump nurture. Gay men generally report that their homosexual attractions began as soon as they felt sexual stirrings before adolescence. And homosexuality is more concordant in identical than in fraternal twins, suggesting that their shared genes play a role. Homosexuality is a puzzle for biology, not because homosexuality itself is evolutionarily maladaptive (though no more so than any other sexual act that does not result in conception), but because any genetic tendency to avoid heterosexual opportunities should have been selected out long ago. Perhaps "gay genes" have some other compensating advantage, like enhancing fertility, when they are carried by women. Perhaps the environments that set off homosexuality today didn't exist while our genes were being selected. Or perhaps the main cause is biological yet not directly genetic, like differences in hormones or antibodies that affect the fetus while it is developing.Just as puzzling is the existence of homophobia. Why didn't evolution shape straight men to react to their gay fellows by thinking: "Great! More women for me!" Probably the answer lies in a cross-wiring between our senses of morality and disgust. People often confuse their own revulsion with objective sinfulness, as when they dehumanize people living in squalor or, in the other direction, engage in religious rituals of cleanliness and purification. An impulse to avoid homosexual contact may blur into an impulse to condemn homosexuality.Cultural conservatives like the talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger ostensibly condemn homosexuality for another reason - that it is a "biological error." Actually, it is she who has made the biological error. What is evolutionarily adaptive and what is morally justifiable have little to do with each other. Many laudable activities - being faithful to one's spouse, turning the other cheek, treating every child as precious, loving thy neighbor as thyself - are "biological errors" and are rare or unknown in the natural world.It's not just anti-gay commentators who see a moral coloring in the biology of homosexuality. Some gay groups condemn such research because it could stigmatize gay people as defective and lead to a day in which parents could selectively abort children with "gay genes." Others welcome the research because it shows that people don't "choose" to be gay and hence can't be criticized for it, nor could homosexuals convert the children in their classrooms or Scout troops even if they wanted to.It may not be a coincidence that the new discovery came from researchers in Europe. In America, the biology of homosexuality is a politicized minefield that scares away scientists (and the universities and agencies that pay for their research). Which is a pity. Regardless of where homosexuality resides in the brain, the ethics of homosexuality is a no-brainer: what consenting adults do in private is nobody's business but their own. And the deterrents to research on homosexuality leave us in ignorance of one of the most fascinating sources of human diversity.Steven Pinker, a professor of cognitive science at Harvard, is the author of "How the Mind Works" and "The Blank Slate."

opps , lol i just picked a random website

I don't see why some people can't just accept that not everyone is the same, and get over it. To think that any God would banish someone to a place of eternal suffering and pain over being born a certain way is just silly, in my opinion

Flooding and destroying the entire earth was a silly idea, too. Besides, genocide is always "hip" if you're a "leader."

um if you're talking about something written in the bible, i wouldn't know. i've never read it. well, i remember a boat with a bunch of animals, but not much else...

lol what hes talking about was why they had the boat with the animals

ahhh ok that makes sense now. haha

don't worry guys I'm reloading my shotgun for ya lol jk

as in you're giving it to me or planning on shooting me? i dont think the results will be good either way. :sunglasses:

Being Gay/B iis FINE! It is not something to be ashamed of (anime freak, i just replied to you because you were the last one. sorry for the confusion)

what? thats what I was trying to say i never said being gay is something to be ashamed of...

I agree, aslong as though they would turn straigh just to atleast increase population... I'm very economical!

ok , purple stain , ive read your posts so far and most have been very un-informed BUT FFS do you really not know that the world is OVER POPULATED throws the towel in and weeps in the corner

I know it is, but half the people barely work! plus we dont live forever! yet! the more able-bodid men we get the higher the economy, the better life for our children!

are you saying you think homosexuals don't work? please tell me i'm reading that wrong

the more able-bodid men we get the higher the economy, the better life for our children! Then welcome as many immigrants as possible. They're usually less lazy than the native born.The problem is not that there aren't enough people; the problem is their uneven distribution (like water...Canada has a lot of fresh water).

Yes, i was thinking of the that too, there is alot of fresh water here, the nothern area has plenty, also plenty of oil and lumber! There is a labour shortage in the Trade skills, like craftsmen, stonemasons, electrictians, engineers and such! If somehow could get rid of the lazy and stupid people, or atleast try to motivate them to work harder! We shall reach a Golden Age! So far only Europe has managed it but we can too!

Europe and Japan's poplulations are crashing. But I doubt that it has much to do with homosexuality or homosexual marriage.