@MacBeths I appreciate that point of view. Really, I do. But I don't have an appreciation for Freud. I grew up in the nineties and the oughts. I was exposed to certain sexual aspects insinuating themselves into pop culture through Hollywood, 4c han and obnoxious GLAAD staged activism. I considered living in such a way long term as well. I'll even go so far as to say I had the urge to do so; I had a particular affinity for androgyny that spikes every now and again. But even then, I understood that an urge was no different from an infatuation. The only discernible difference between the two is expressed through an abstract understanding of one's emotions--which are not in any way credible. But I put all that to bed. I actively went against my usual sexual proclivities to clean up my life and I don't allow myself to linger too long on those past thoughts or those cultural components lest the infatuation develop all over again. Essentially, I grew up. If you want to maintain the view that you are predisposed to live the way that you do, and that it's not within your control to be that way....Well, that's your bed to make. But you cannot claim that-that lifestyle is practical.

@toffifee I happen to love people of the same gender of me as well. But I also happen to believe that to express that love romantically is inappropriate due to our common physiology. Does that sound unreasonable or hateful to you?

@Smokescreened "But I never chose to live and be as I am, nature chose for me when I was in the womb back in the late 70s." Okay, this is the bulk of the problem right here: you're confusing what you allege to be a passive condition for an active aspect of your life. To "live" and to "be" are both verbs. They require action on your part to apply to this scenario. Regardless of what you feel, the fact is that you chose to live a particular way. And it just so happened that you decided to live according to how you felt. You cannot conflate the feelings you have with the decision making process. They are two separate animals. You could have chosen to deny those feelings and categorize them as irrational just as easily as you had decided to embrace them. Maybe there would have been discomfort, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was normal or abnormal since feelings are, by design, abstract notions.

@geitenvla "You call it a trait, I call it a variety. Whether it is thanks to chemical imbalances or it is hard wired in the brain is irrelevant to the fact that homosexuality is common between mammals and birds and also was present during recorded history." But that's not really the crux of the "born that way" argument. And it's also not a validating factor to the lifestyle. @avand "Shame on all of you, what does it matter to any of you how somebody lives their lives. Personally I am not homosexual, but it is no skin off my back if my neighbor is. It has zero affect on my life." Actually, as I already pointed out earlier, it does. If not culturally, then financially.

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

@bobothetoast "However that's exactly where i disagree with you, children should be taught that there is nothing wrong with being homosexual. All children need role models, including homosexual children." That decision should be left up to the parents. To take it out of their hands in the interest of your own values is the very definition of "tyranny" and "intolerance." What people of your mindset tend not to accept is that not everyone who has observed homosexual behavior agrees that it's a trait is assigned at birth rather than a developed behavior. And therefore, they refuse to raise their children with such a perception--which is a perfectly valid approach as there is no objective reasoning beyond social pressures that makes such an argument. The problem with trying to label a child as homosexual is that the parent, guardian, observer, or teacher has no frame of reference by which to judge their behavior beyond their own cultural exposure to the idea that people are "born that way." And so, there's no way they could properly distinguish a child's natural behavior from a "homosexual child's." As an addendum, I'll go so far as to say it's inevitable that with increased homosexual exposure throughout culture that the number of people who're "born that way" will increase. This completely undermines the idea that environment has no effect on sexual orientation.

@geitenvla "fair enough: Scientific research" Question: since you're using it as an example, I'm sure you can clarify on exactly what the research proves in favor. Personally, I find it rather damning against the idea that homosexuality is ingrained at birth. Chemical imbalances in the brain have always been known to affect behavior, but that doesn't specify sexual orientation. These tests could just as easily prove that homosexuals are just individuals with brains that are more vulnerable to chemical imbalances, and thus affect their decision making processes abnormally. Are you prepared to reason that as being the "born that way" trait that has led people towards people of their own gender? If so, does that mean you'd label all individuals who tend to have chemical imbalances as dormant homosexuals?

@Peter "But you are not grasping the whole point of this, who are YOU....to say that this decision is wrong." I'm the guy who's pointing out that it's anatomically incorrect. I've offered material to address so that you may argue the issue. However, you've just resorted to a constant stream of cliches. I know homosexual behavior exists Peter. I also know that it's been going on for quite some time. But it's mere existence is not a validating factor of its practice--which is exactly the opposite of what's going to be taught in schools. Yours is a logical fallacy. It's all well and fine to teach about homosexuality as a cultural phenomenon seen throughout history, but not necessarily as a mandated civil rights issue. If I choose to carry on a heterosexual lifestyle, that in and of itself carries no objective flaws. If I choose to marry a woman, procreate, and teach my children to view homosexuality as a disorder, I'm not only following my natural drive to function as a man, but I'm also encouraging my children to function according to the sexes they were born with and not the sexual whims they might entertain at any given time. As such, I will also be contributing to the integrity of the culture I inhabit by strengthening its population and philosophical aspects. As such, whatever taxes homosexuals pay towards such a lifestyle goes towards the strengthening of their own way of life juxtaposed to my own. Their lifestyle trends on the other hand, don't entail such tendencies.

@Geitenvla "To classify something single handed as a disorder, you at least have to back it up with some trustworthy authority. You can't just go around and make statements like that without some proof other than your own opinion." It's rather self-evident really. A man's body is not compatible with another man's. A woman's body is not compatible with another woman's. The evidence is damning--and it has been since time immemorial. The only way that the proponents of homosexuals have circumvented that fact is by claiming, "They're born that way! They can't help it!" as if that validates the reality that such a coupling is an inherent negation of their mutual natures. I mean, even if they were "born that way," that doesn't really dismiss the implications of the act now does it? After all, the "born that way" excuse can principally be applied in an emotional context with just about anything. Homosexuals hardly have the monopoly on it. As such, anyone can apply that reasoning to any act and be exonerated for their behavior.

I see a great deal of people here have a penchant for ad hominem. They're not interested in addressing the fact that the physical aspects of homosexuality all point to a disorder, and more interested repeating the same "born that way" party line over and over again. Emotional tactics are certainly powerful tools in a public forum, but they don't make for particularly reasonable discussion. So to Scmokescreened, Meekrat, and Peter: I challenge you all to show your objective proof that homosexuality--or any sexuality for that matter--is a "born that way" condition. Instead of just repeating that phrase over and over again, try to flesh it out. You don't even have to prove it beyond doubt; merely show that it's more empirically evident that it's spawned rather than developed.