[...] An interesting discussion in the Sri Lankan blogosphere on homosexuality. True Sri Lankan appears to believe that homosexuality is not natural, however homosexuals should not be hated and instead need compassion. Indi.ca responds by point out that homosexuality is not a pathological condition to be treated. Neha Viswanathan [...]

kudos indi. what this guy doesn’t understand is that what he’s doing (shining light on the gray areas or whatnot) is possibly worse than being what he calls hateful towards homosexuals. not accepting who they are and not accpeting the fact that we cant change them, and we shouldnt even try to or want to, is more harmful and ignorantly superior to any sentiments of direct hatred, i think.

-rather they need all our compassion and help to bring them out of this situation so that they can lead normal lives.- compassion, meaning ‘they’ need ‘our’ sympathy, in order to lead ‘normal’ lives. this kind of bigotry stems from blissful ignorance and narrow minded-ness and leads to things worse than hate and violence. it leads to the stagnation of progress, and that sucks.

as he himself says, homosexuals aren’t born gay, they make that choice. i dont believe this is uncondtionally true, some say they knew all their lives, some make that choice much later on in life than others. either way, SO WHAT? the fact that it’s a choice someone makes, someone’s personal decision and preference, should be more reason to respect that choice and the person that made it. when did a person lose the right to choose?

While the article written by True Sri Lankan may not have been written all that well, it does not make the point less valid.
Granted, if its a choice someone makes, then the choice is to be respected. But going around saying that people are born homosexual also has the adverse effect of creating an absolute. Thus some one who is a homosexual feels that he/she cannot be heterosexual because they were born that way.

There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of
current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction
with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of
experimental data.

William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General
Psychiatry, Vol. 50, March 1993: 228-239.

The press release by the Doctors for Life also state that studies are inconclusive.

If it is a choice, so be it. But dont lets try and make it genetic.

despite being from a Doctor, that is not a study. There is a substantial body of twin studies and new research as the hypothalmus results above which strongly indicate a genetic component to homosexuality.

Almost no trait is entirely determined genetically or environmentally, so very few scientists would say that there is no genetic component to homosexuality. That is to say, almost every trait has a genetic component, even complex traits like extroversion and spatial reasoning (twin studies on other traits). There’s nothing new there and it’s a very conservative biological statement to make. It just so happens that the genetic component of homosexuality seems to be high, given twin studies among others.

This isn’t like choosing a pair of socks in the morning, it affects how you smell, feel and react emotionally to the other sex. That involves proteins coding for complex structures like the hypothalamus, and the complex chemical reactions of love and attraction, both of which operate on a level well below frontal-lobe reasoning. It involves a wide variety of biological changes. It’s not big leap to say that homosexuality has a genetic component. In fact, it most certainly does. The only debate is over how much of a genetic component it has.

Regarding Twin Studies, according to Bailey and Pillard of Northwestern University, when one twin was homosexual, the chances that the other was homosexual also was 52%. Considering the identical genetic makeup of the two individuals and allowing for error even, the correlation should be closer to 100%. Maybe somewhere in the 80s or 90s.
Genetics plays a part in tendencies, but does not determine orientation completely.

Nobody has said that homosexuality is 100% genetic. Very few traits are, check the twin studies linked above.

The only argument I’ve made here is that homosexuality has a ‘significant biological/genetic component’. For that simple assertion a 50% correlation is more than enough. That point has been highlighted multiple times above and I hope that it’s clear. Homosexuality, like extroversion or intelligence, has a significant genetic component. Even physical traits like height have a significant environmental input, so no one with even an intro course in biology would say that any trait is 100% genetic. Here is an example of other traits and their correlation. Note the word itself, this is correlation not causation (which would imply 100%).

That said, a choice implies that there is no genetic component. As in, I chose to have a drink or I chose who I vote for. Homosexuality is very different. Like many high-level traits, there is a significant genetic component and it is not in any real sense a ‘choice’.

Reading your reference to the pheromone study; it does also say that the role of pheromones in our sexuality is small. The other hypothalamus study was by a LeVay, also a homosexual, who cautioned that his findings should not be misinterpreted. I still dont agree with the twin study. Too many similar environmental factors involved when MZ twins live together. Those cannot be discounted. A proper study would have to be done with MZ twins raised separately.
Any choice made will always have some compulsion. It doesnt always have to be genetic.

Granted, there could be a genetic component. So the argument would be on how ‘significant’ is a significant genetic component.

So the argument would be on how ’significant’ is a significant genetic component.

There are almost no traits which are 100% genetic, correlation studies simply measure degree.

The fact that homosexuality has some genetic component is important in that it lets us know that this isn’t sin or some deviant choice, but a part of our humanity. In my opinion, a rare and valuable part of our humanity that we should make room for.

However, homosexuality having a genetic component doesn’t really change anything. Parkinson’s and Schizophrenia do as well. The question is whether something that brings fulfillment to two adults should really be restricted and stamped out.

The studies seem to show some genetic component in homosexuality. Just as there is a genetic component in every trait. Maybe a tendency to be violent, a tendency to be muscular. But it is still a tendency. Not an unavoidable compulsion.
Your effort to be accepting to homosexuals is highly commendable, but dont push it to the other extreme. A person is not, from birth, genetically destined to be homosexual. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual. There is also nothing wrong with switching back to heterosexuality from homosexuality.

The question of sin or deviant choice has to do with society and religion. Not on the same plane as this science related post.

There is also nothing wrong with switching back to heterosexuality from homosexuality

For most traits, once developed, switching back is rarely possible. You can’t ‘switch’ your memory, extroversion or spatial reasoning at will. Nor is it desirable to, unless it is causing you suffering. Currently the Psychological DSM doesn’t class homosexuality as pathological, so ‘switching’ is neither feasible nor desirable.

That’s because you are placing the impact of genetics on memory and spatial reasoning in the same class as the impact of genetics on sexuality. Again we come to the argument of how significant is the genetic component in homosexuality.
There are very many homosexuals who have become/reverted back to heterosexuality.

Personally I don’t think people ‘choose’ a sexual orientation and nor do I believe that one’s sexual orientation is an absolute or exclusive in any way. Our current societal views (although evolving) dictates that heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality abhorrent and therefore any abuse (whether physical, psychological or otherwise) is something to be expected or in some extreme views completely justifiable… therefore why anyone would willingly choose to put themselves through such an ordeal is beyond me. Further, to simply say it is a personal choice and neglect any physiological or psychological (in some part due to genetic or innate traits) reasons behind that choice is obtuse and in some ways dangerous.

Frankly I don’t think that anyone is exclusively either homosexual or heterosexual but rather follows the scale below (hopefully the diagram will show) but in case it doesn’t I believe that people can be strongly homosexual (where the physiological and psychological imperative overrides the heterosexual one), bisexual with either a heterosexual/homosexual bias, bisexual no clear bias or strongly heterosexual where independently of or in addition to physiological or psychological imperatives, societal norms individuals to subconsciously suppress homosexual/bisexual preference (any overt suppression is obviously in conflict with any biological imperative.

Strongly Bisexual Bisexual Bisexual Strongly

Homosexual w/ Homosexual Bias No bias W/ Heterosexual Bias Heterosexual

Either way I personally subscribe to Paul Newman’s view on homosexuality:

“I’m a supporter of gay rights. And not a closet supporter either. From the time I was a kid, I have never been able to understand attacks upon the gay community. There are so many qualities that make up a human being… by the time I get through with all the things that I really admire about people, what they do with their private parts is probably so low on the list that it is irrelevant.”

shit the diagram didn’t come out properly…. I hope th explanantion is clear

There are also a lot of heterosexuals who have become gay ; ). There are actually very few homosexuals who go back in the closet, judging from enrollment in and ‘success’ rates of conversion programs.

I think you’re referring to Reparative Therapy is widely discredited by almost all mainstream mental health bodies and can actually be very dangerous, leading to depression and suicide. As the American Psychiatric Association says,

The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone “reparative therapy” relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed

Conversions studies (as far as my reading went) are not published in peer-review journals, and their measures are inaccurate, often only measuring what people report as they leave treatment, when they have a high motivation to claim ‘success’. One report comes from the horse’s mouth:

Dr. Nicolosi, the founder of NARTH who coined the term “reparative therapy” said in an interview with the Washington Post that of the patients at the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic, of which he is founding director,
* One third experience “significant improvement — they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control.” However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior.
* Another third are “cured;” they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone.
* The other third fail to change.

It would seem that he is admitting that reparative therapy has a nearly 100% failure rate in terms of converting persons with a homosexual orientation to heterosexual. He does imply that some of his second group may become either asexual — suffer a complete loss of sexual desire — or successfully decide to remain celibate. All or almost all of his clinic’s patients retain same-sex desires; they remain either with a homosexual or bisexual orientation (religioustolerance.org)

On a more basic level, homosexuality isn’t classed as a disease, so trying to change it through therapy is purely cosmetic. This APA statement is good reading on that. You can’t ‘cure’ homosexuality, and even if you could it is too dangerous to do as a responsible psychiatrist.

“There are very many homosexuals who have become/reverted back to heterosexuality”

Janus I think you’ll find that anyway the ‘converts’ represent a minority (and a small one at that) within the homosexual community, plus no studies have been carried out in researching the long term psychological impact of such conversions.

I’d also wager that many of the converted have done so due external pressure/coersion via religious/societal interventions, neglegibly few have done so out of their own volition. I’m trying to find this one study (googling as we speak) which researches the number of converts who revert back to a homosexual lifestyle.

excellent post.
for my part i don’t think there is such a thing called homosexuality and heterosexuality, all ppl are somewhere in between genetically more or less and travel around due to various factors in th environment.

What about homosexual acts versus homosexuality? This may sound confusing but some people who take part in homosexual acts don’t consider themselves homosexual. I don’t remember the details but some years ago there was a study in S.America about homosexuality and, S. American men being the macho individuals they are, the survey came out with very few respondents stating that they were gay. The survey was redone with the questions tweaked a little and the results were astonishing apparently. A lot of the men who claimed they were not gay admitted to taking part in homosexual activities. It was just that in their culture, you are only gay if you ‘receive’. Apparently, for the ‘doer’ it is just the another ‘hole’! This is pretty similar to the way that the ancient Greeks viewed homosexuality too. And closer to home, this must be the way that a lot of the guys in boarding at our local schools consider the art of ‘cupping’!

I was not referring to Reparative Therapy. I am not quite sure about that. In fact, you may be right. Reparative Therapy conducted inappropriately would lead to serious psychological damage. I was referring more to spontaneous reversal. Something more in the line of Joseph Wolpe’s example.
A number of reversals I’ve found have christian connections and would probably be inappropriate here.

I am not anti-gay. Read my comments. What i am trying to say is that, your portrayal of homosexuality as being largely genetic, and controlled by genes in the same way as hair colour is, is inappropriate. Do not make people think that they are born a certain way and thus they have to be that way. Its a person’s prerogative.

If you’re referring to spontaneous reversal (excluding reparative therapy) then the amount of cases is statistically insignificant. Reparative therapy success cases themselve are tiny and statistically insignificant, so the amount of spontaneous reversals is truly tiny

It may be inappropriate to discuss the genetic component of homosexuality, but it is not inaccurate. There is most certainly a genetic component, and its significance is slowly being demonstrated.

I said “your portrayal of homosexuality as being largely genetic, and controlled by genes in the same way as hair colour is, is inappropriate.”

stress on largely genetic. I didnt say discussing the genetic component of homosexuality is inappropriate. There may be a genetic component, but the degree of significance is still been researched.

The number of cases of spontaneous reversal may be insignificant statistically. But that’s just it. Its only insignificant statistically. Statistics doesnt place value on an individual. Even if it is just one person, you should not give the impression that his sexual orientation was fixed upon him from birth. We’ll have parents doing scans on foetus for the ‘homo’ gene now!

(There are christian testimonies of spontaneous reversal if you are willing to include them in the ‘statistically insignificant’ list.)

I said “your portrayal of homosexuality as being largely genetic, and controlled by genes in the same way as hair colour is, is inappropriate.”

This is a wholesale misinterpretation, and putting words in my mouth. I never said ‘largely genetic’, that’s your misinterpretation. None of the studies say that. All I’ve said is genetic component. I never compared homosexuality to hair color or physical traits, only to complex traits like extroversion. If you want to argue against a straw man that’s fine, but that’s not the argument at hand.

Whether homosexuality having a genetic component ‘hurts’ people is an interesting assertion, but I think people can look at the research and decide for themselves.

If you’re going to reject statistics outright the it’s a matter of belief for you. There’s no need to debate here. However, I believe that science enables us to see beyond our own noses and immediate experiences to see how things really are.

That is, it’s hard to make a ‘choice’ when you’re hypothalamus is wired funny.

This line, interpreted, would mean that the genetic component of homosexuality inhibits the choice of the individual. Thus, i dont believe i misinterpreted.

Scientific data is often manipulated according to bias.

If you wanted people to judge solely by research then you would have included both sides of the story, instead of research simply supporting your point of view.

[...] My post “The Truths behind Homosexuality” has drawn some interesting comments and also a reponse post from Indi titled “For the Gayness” which has a couple of interesting facts and comments too. [...]

The nature/nurture debate is between genetics and environment, not genetics and choice. Almost all traits are influenced by environment (including physical ones like height). Childhood and social environment is especially important. Note, genetics and environment, not choice. There is a significant environmental component to homosexuality, and that plus genetics means that by the time people reach adulthood, there’s very little choice left.

Choice is mostly left to philosophers and it doesn’t play into most biological research. You’ve misinterpreted the entire field of genetics vs environment research.

This being a blog post it has no particular obligation to include opposing research, but I have tried to look. I’d be interested if you could find anything serious and peer-review that posits no or insignificant genetic component to homosexuality. The best I can find is that the contribution of genes to homosexuality is unclear (which I agree with), but no one says that there is no genetic component. No scientist would say that any trait is a pure choice (extroversion, intelligence, memory), and the cultural bias against homosexuality is the only thing that makes this issue. Almost every trait has a genetic component, some more significant than others. Saying that homosexuality is a pure choice is an interesting philosophical position, but it has no backing in science.

Whereas genetics leaves no room for choice, environmental factors themselves create an inclination, or tendency, and not some form of hardwiring that leaves no other option. Therefore there is room for choice.

I have already given a few examples of opposing research already.

There are problems with twin studies, the hypothalamus study, the middle ear study, the longer-finger and what-not. You can find it all over the web.

Dont categorically state that i have misinterpreted anything. I also never said that homosexuality is pure choice.
In your last message you have stated that there is a significant (there’s that word again!) environmental component. That is a more balanced view to take, and i agree with you.

I dont believe that simple persistence is any means by which one should win an argument, so cheers!

Fair enough. I think we both agree that there is a genetic and environmental component to homosexuality. Cheers

Re: The Benevolent Dictator above, yes indeed, they’re called men who have sex with men, or MSM, and women who have sex with women (WSW):

Wikipedia’s entry on MSM and WSW:

Firstly, there is very little CONCLUSIVE or CONCRETE evidence showing any definite genetic determination of an unchangeable sexual orientation. People are so easily moved by just one piece of research which suggests a certain conclusion, among dozens of other pieces of research which do NOT show any such conclusion. Such research has never proven anything; it has, at best, only suggested the possiblity of SOME genetic connection but never proven anything concrete.

Secondly, even if there was SOME genetic determination, one must keep in mind it is not absolute. That is, there might be one person who is more inclined in one direction or the other; but that’s all – it isn’t an absolute. Even among “normal” heterosexuals, there are “levels” (for lack of a better word) of sexuality: thus the stereotypical macho man versus a more wimpy man – but both are hetero… same for females.

More relevant however, consider these are examples of genetics: genetics do (probably) to some extent determine whether a person is violent or peaceful: however that does NOT give an excuse to one person to beat up his wife (or her husband!) or the right to act upon his/her violent nature in any way; instead, both people, regardless of the “it’s my genes” excuse, has an equal responsibility to avoid violence, because avoidance of violence is the accepted “norm” of humanity. (Yes, if you’re a Christian it’d be easier to accept that this is the norm for humanity; same with all other major religions; however, even if one is not a believer, the fact is it is a HUMAN norm, nothing to do with religion, which defines the fact that avoidance of violence is the ‘correct thing to do”.)

Thus, one’s propensity to be more violent than average, due to one’s genetic makeup, is NOT an excuse; one is still under obligation to do the right thing. One more example: some people are more likely than others to “need” some sort of ego gratification by having multiple partners: such people are more likely to be unfaithful in marriage – and it is quite possible that there is a genetic connection here. Does that make it OK for them to cheat? NO, a resounding NO. Similarly, EVEN if homosexual/lesbian orientation WAS somewhat determined by one’s genes, that does not lead us to conclude that therefore it is ok for such people to ACT upon that tendency; no more than the violent person or the unfaithful person has no right to act upon his/her tendency of violence or tendency to cheat.

So even if one assumes that there is a genetic connection: well, it still doesn’t jusify acting upon one’s wrong tendencies. The issue of genetics is thus irrelvant here; what IS relevant is simply the fact that heterosexuality (within a monogamous marriage) is the norm of humanity; the norm of our human nature. There is nothing more to it.

So even if one assumes that there is a genetic connection: well, it still doesn’t jusify acting upon one’s wrong tendencies. The issue of genetics is thus irrelvant here; what IS relevant is simply the fact that heterosexuality (within a monogamous marriage) is the norm of humanity; the norm of our human nature. There is nothing more to it.

How is homosexuality wrong? Its their life and its their love and that’s a beautiful thing. There have been homosexuals throughout history and the fact that they’re a minority doesn’t make them ‘wrong’. If you want to have sex only within heterosexual marriage that’s your business, more power to you. I just don’t think you have any right telling consenting adults that their love is wrong. Why do you really care?

>There have been homosexuals throughout history and the fact that they’re a minority doesn’t make them ‘wrong’.

I never said that being a MINORITY make them ‘wrong’. Certainly not.
It’s wrong simply because it is against the norm of humanity – however perhaps I’m using the word “norm” incorrectly here. It is part of human nature that there is a right way and a wrong way. Things like murder or pedophilia are CLEARLY seen as “wrong”, with only a few people having doubts about those matters. But when it comes to things like “homosexuality (or even heterosexual promiscuity) among consenting adults”, people tend to be more blind to the fact that these too are “wrong” (“wrong”, as in, against the “right way”; against true human nature; against the “natural law”).

Yes, of course I sympathize with the fact that this idea of a natural law is not something that comes naturally to most of us. It is not a clearly visible or rational or clearly logical thing, this “natural law”; hence we are uncomfortable with the idea of it, and most people (like me!) who talk about its existence will be regarded as crazy, weird, eccentric, or whatever! But it is a fact: there IS such a natural law (a natural moral law) which is an integral part of our very NATURE as humans.

Take it another way: one could quite justifiably ask “what is wrong with a consenting adult and a consenting EDUCATED INTELLIGENT chimpanzees or gorilla, from having sex”? I am not joking; this is a serious question: 500 years from now it may well be being debated by law makers. Well, what IS wrong with that? Some apes are highly intelligent; there was that female gorilla, Koko, who could speak sign language AND truly understood it. her IQ was almost 100 (100 being “average human IQ”) – see http://www.koko.org/world/ or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29

Many “consenting adults” have a lower IQ than Koko! It is then a fair question to ask why Koko and a human cannot have sex. I cannot PROVE that it is “wrong” for them to do so! Neither do I think any of us other bloggers here can do so. Yet – I hope! – most of us will agree that THAT is certainly wrong…. But it is NOT a matter of PROOF; not any kind of intellectual proof or logical or even scientific(medical?) proof: instead, the reason it is “wrong” is simply because this thing which, for lack of a better phrase, I refer to as “natural moral law”, is against such action.

Admittedly, it is very difficult to reach agreement about WHAT this natural law “says”. Some (few) people will, unfortunately, claim that such natural law does NOT oppose pedophilia. We all get shocked and indignant at that. Yet, there is no way to prove to such people, that they are doing something wrong, and even if they accept presence of a natural law, they will say this natural law does not prohibit it. In some societies (including too much of ours), people will deny that natural law is against men beating up their wives (hey, women are their property… so THEY are convinced; hence logical analysis can’t be use to prove them wrong). There are countless examples of things that ARE against this natural law, and you and I will agree on those; yet smart intelligent people will disagree and say “prove it”. It cannot be proven.

One more thing: there are loads of people “throughout history ” who have been pedophiles or wife beaters or murderers or have had sex with animals: and in many cases, accepted by society: THAT does not make it RIGHT. Hence the fact that there have been homosexuals throughout history, is irrelevant to this discussion: it is neither here nor there.

I am not passing judgment, by the way. It is wrong, but all of us do wrong and cannot look down on anyone else. We CAN, and MUST, however, call a wrong a wrong.

Natural Law is not what you define as a ‘norm’. In fact, it has very little to do with Norms. Natural Law is a state of perfect human reason, which does not exist. It is an ideal state, not in anyway a norm.

If you want to talk about Natural Law you can start with Jefferson

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Or Hobbes,

The eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.
The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.

There’s nothing in natural law that says gay people are gross. In fact, natural law says that consenting adults can put their penises anywhere they damn well please. Homophobes (like racists) violate natural law by looking down on gays and comparing them to apes (as you did here). Natural Law is about freedom, and people are free to be gay. You may, in your pride, condemn them as wrong, but you have no refuge in ‘natural law’. Every professional psychological body says that homosexuality is not pathological or damaging to anyone. In law, courts all over the world are discovering the natural law that adults are free to love and build relationships and families as they please. Even in the States the over-ruled an anti-sodomy law:

The majority decision found that “the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections.” Holding that “the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” the court struck down the anti-sodomy law as unconstitutional.

Loving who you wish to love is a good thing. It is good for individuals and it is good for society. You have compared many good and noble people, friends, and family to pedophiles, wife-beaters or murders simply for being gay. That is prideful, it is homophobic, and it is wrong. Don’t hold up Natural Law to defend yourself. Natural Law is not about sex. Natural Law is about freedom.

Indi – my response has taken the form of today’s post, so do check it out

I’d do Koko if he/she was hot.

voice in cyberspace : if homosexuality is against the natural order of things, how come it exists? how come it’s been around since the very beginning? shouldn’t it have been stamped out by evolution if it’s not meant to exist?

i think the human species has come a long way. for us to say that our primal need is to reproduce is ridiculous. our needs and our pleasures are far more complexed now, as are our problems and our minds.

don’t you think that if every single person on this planet was reproducing we’d have an even bigger problem than you feel homosexuality is? maybe homosexuality is a another way for nature to maintain its balance, ever thought of that?

promiscuity in general, is damaging as long as only one party of the relationship is engaging in it. if there is a commitment, no has the right to cheat, be you gay or straight. i don’t condone promiscuity unless a couple has decided to be so, decided to be ‘open’, i don’t condone it because it’s harmful and risky. there is no proof that gays are more promiscuous than straights, nor that straights are more promiscuous than gays. its just a human way, it has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation.

While I think V in C has probably lost his way in his post somewhat, Electra does actually sum it up in her first, and inadvertently helpful, first paragraph. ” (H)ow come it’s been around since the very beginning? shouldn’t it have been stamped out by evolution if it’s not meant to exist?” she says.

That – and I maybe mistaken, because it was more than slightly convoluted – is V in C’s point. Murder (Cain and Abel), incest (Adam and Eve, the siblings would have HAD to fuck), bestiality (no documented instance comes to mind) and pedophilia (same again) have been around for just as wrong Electra. And V in C says that in those cases we have no qualms in calling those acts wrong even though they show the same characteristics as gay sex, or even oral sex for that matter. Non – reproductive sex acts are all deviant in a matter of degree (I don’t agree but that’s V in C’s argument), and he has a point.

The point being simply…where do we draw the line? I don’t think anyone should. But in that case we’ll have to decriminalise bestiality and pedophilia too. There are some little girls that are imminently doable ( I mean when they are around 15 at least OK!!). But it’s legally wrong. Why?

Great discourse everyone. Bottome line is there is fluidity in gender and sexuality which people need to acknowledge. One has the right t o be who they are sexually. And as for gender, this is also a choice. Consider the Intersex person (born with both male and female sex organs) or the transgender person – born perhaps as a male in a femalebody and vice versa. The moment we can think out of the box and accept that binary genders and heteronormative constructs of sexuality and gender are a thing of the past, then we can begin to understand the diversity that makes up this world!