No.

The thing that scares me is this idea of "curing" someone of homosexuality if it's conclusively proven to be genetic.  It's just sad.

You can look at this from either side and there is only one answer. God does NOT make "mistakes". To change God's decision to have someone be gay or whatever would be a sin. To not accept these people would also be a sin according to the bible. Every church says God is right, well practice what you preach. How dare you say you would accept a "change" to "correct" this, God's decision. You all think about it. God may gay animals,fish, mammals. The only thing we haven't proven yet is gay plant life. God DOESNOT make mistakes. Concider this a test of his statement,"Judge not lest ye be judged". What, did you think He would make everything easy for you religious people just because you have the problem and God doesn't?

sandy, What in the wide world of sports are you talking about? I have read your post several times, and must report to you I come away more bewildered each time.

Surely you are not suggesting God makes homosexuals? How could you be so confused? I am not a student of God's Word to the degree I should be; I do try but the demands of work and school are heavy on me. But, I do know enough to know you are so very, very mistaken about our God.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, there is no conclusive proof of a Homosexual gene, just speculation by biased researchers. Every time a researcher comes out and claims it, another researcher cannot replicate their findings. Have cheer, they never intend to quit trying. They will just never find it.

I never judge a person, I recognize behavior, and when it is unrepentant evil, I let it go and move on. I did that with just the other day with another thread. It was of no value to try to discuss with hatred spewing at me. I just leave. God only requires I speak the truth as He has shown it to me, then He requires me to get out of the way and let Him be in charge. So, you see, my friend, I do not feel anger and frustration. I pass the word and let God have the wheel.

You are right about one thing, and I would be dishonest to not agree, God does not make mistakes. Now, He does allow free will, so if you choose to head off in some direction of your own choosing -- my friend, He will let you do so. You might want to consider the implications of what you say. Your own words can become your worst nightmare. If, as you say, and I agree, God does not make mistakes, why are we killing the children He has given us? Did He err by making one of us (humans) inadvertantly? So, we must conclude He erred and we should kill His mistake? Hummm', don't think so. You might want to put that argument back under your seat. It is not so good.

Lisa, people can choose to stop errant behavior, and be, your word, 'cured' and it is not a bad thing. I want to believe people can overcome any destructive behavior they would choose to want to overcome. Only if you fall under the spell of the Evil One can you come to believe homosexuality is not a behavior choice.

Have a good and Godly day.

Kenneth, my point was that it is sad that people think they can "cure" others of behaviors or genetics.  My point was to live & let live, not to focus energy on correcting other people. 

I was commenting specifically on the last line of the entry:
"What remains to be seen, however, is whether the neurobiological explanations for homosexuality will lead to opponents pushing for ways to use science to overturn one’s sexuality. And that could have massive, and very dangerous, ramifications for children and LGBT people."
I agree: that this could have very serious ramifications for everyone involved - and if people try to "cure" LGBT people, then who's next?  I shudder to think where the line is drawn.

Ok Lisa, behaviors should be left alone. Are you so sure you want to head down this trail?

We use science all the time, and btw -- I am not an advocate, to modify behaviors. And we have no conclusive proof of sexuality being 'located' in our neurobiological makeup either. We are settled on using drugs to control behaviors we don't like, such as ADHD being controlled with Ritalin, without regard to the side effects, such as stunted growth, and mental sluggishness. I suggest we stop this foolishness, and spend time knowing the reasons for behavior and offer care and structured environments for overcoming destructive behaviors.

We also must stop the 'flame-on' rhetoric from all sides. Homosexuality can be overcome, so many have mandged it, but drugs won't manage it.

There is obviously no line drawn, anywhere.

" Homosexuality can be overcome, so many have mandged it, but drugs won't manage it."

This is what I think is sad.  Why can't people just be who they are?  Why does homosexuality have to be "managed"? 

Who do we "manage" next?  Or rather I should be asking:  Who DOESN'T need to be managed?

Lisa, look from the other side; now, not trying to get you to change your beliefs, just look at this dispassionatly from another angle -- perhaps it is, "WHO does not need management?"

From this perspective the clear response is, "we all do." And, normally, we manage ourselves. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have a wife or husband to help us, but sometimes we have to go it alone -- mostly. So, why should a person practicing the Homosexual lifestyle be a bit different. The fact is many manage themselves through celebate living, but the better way would be to find a group of recovering former Homosexuals and get help. It is entirely possible to recover, and live a good and full life as our God intended.

When I hear someone say let me be who I am, I want to remind them who they are supposed to be. If you are born with the body, and features of a male of the species, then that is who you are. If the converse is true, one is born a female, then that is who you are. Don't get trapped by jingoistic chatter about Homosexual genes, and all that nonsense. Be who God made you, and if you have fallen prey to the Homosexual lifestyle proponents, be assured it is possible to recover.

Good day. 

Being what or who one is, is not always something chosen.  There is a biological basis to gender identification.  Our brains are wired in particular ways.  Its the reason little girls talk to their dolls (because females tend to have better communication skills because of a larger corpus collusum-the part that links the logical side of the brain to the verbal side) and why little boys play with cars and blocks (because males tend to have stronger wiring in the spatial recognition department of the brain). When a little boy starts playing with his sister's dolls in secret after being admonished by his father for not playing with the "boy" toys, he has already shown a predisposition to have the mental wiring similar to the opposite sex.  Research has shown that male homosexuals tend to have a larger corpus collosum (the main link between the two brain hemispheres) than most men, and that homosexual women tend to have smaller ones than most women.  Although most research focuses on gay men, so there is LESS proportional evidence for women. 
Whether these behaviors are repressed does not make them go away.  For the same reason that I must gaurd against depression because of my mental wiring (it has been to be genetic and there is a strong family history for me), someone who chooses to repress this part of their being for social reasons must also constantly gaurd against it.  It is still a part of them.  There is no being "ex-gay" any more than i can say i've been "cured" of depression. 
Whether people choose to repress this part of themselves for social, or personal, or religious reasons should be just that: a choice; and that choice should not be dictated for them.

Erin, I like science, however psuedo-science is a little hard to take. Please cite specific sources of studies conducted as foundation for the claims you make. I have heard much of this "it is thought" kind of talk before. Just saying brains are wired differently is nice, but where is finding for this claim. I can claim that men have different wiring in their brains for behaviors I want to color as support for a contention I support. Is not of value until we can show factual unbiased studies supporting such beliefs -- otherwise it is urban legend or better "old wives tales."

There are many individuals who were formerly engaged in homosexual behaviors. Not sure I would use the word cured due to the medical conotation. It might be better to think of changed behavior as a way to express the accomplishment. When one learns a behavior, one can change it given a desire and time.

Kenneth,
Do tell, why do you believe scientific inquiry is completely negligible as proof for homosexual behavior, yet, God, perhaps the most amorphous concept known to man, serves as utterly conclusive evidence. God is just as speculative as science.

Saying someone is "cured" of homosexual behavior is about as absurd as saying someone is "cured" of alcoholism or anorexia.  Perhaps to some, it seems these people are "choosing" to drink or to stop eating when in fact it is so deeply ingrained in them that they cannot control the urges that make them drink or starve themselves.  Being "cured" of homosexuality, would then just be repressing one's natural behaviors. 

And who cares who someone else falls in love with?  Seriously, what does it have to do with you personally? 

"Be who God made you"

If I have choosen anything, it has been to be who God made me. Please, read the admirable argument presented by Rev. Mel White regarding the (mis)use of the Scriptures to define God's position on "homosexuality."

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

I challenge you to deconstruct the Reverand's case. Yes, the Reverand is gay and brings with his discussion a bias. But, you too bring your own bias in your definition of who God made me to be. Everyone has biases, but that is no reason to throw out an argument entirely.

Joseph, you can be who you want to be. I make no choices for you, just make a wide pathway around the psuedo-science. I do not accept the argument that God or some supreme universal power or the other made you homosexual. It is an twisting of science to try to use it to prove your behaviors are somehow genetically imprinted. I ain't buying.

Lisa, are you positing a theory that homosexuality is a disease. Alcoholism is a disease, as is anoxeria. They can be managed with treatment. Homosexuality is a behavior, I do not claim it a disease. It certainly leads to diseases, as it is corrupt biologically.

Joseph, I am sorry, but I choose to pass on Mel White. He has nothing to say I want to hear. Sorry, you cannot engage me in a discussion using corrupt theological writings. I could raise the Bible, which I believe is a statement of my God's will, intention, and desire for us all. But you are not interested in His Bible, are you? If you are, may I suggest you start by reading the basic foundational books (this would be the first five books of what we refer to as the Old Testament).

How are we to have a debate if the other side will not hear our argument? I hear your argument loud and clear—"His" Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Please, I simply want you to consider "His" Bible in the context of place and time. To consider how "His" Bible has been appropriated by humanity and in this appropriation it has been translated, interpreted, and understood in different ways at different times. I encourage you interrogate a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture as there is an argument that these writings may not reflect the original text.

Also, i'm actually quite fascinated by the Bible. I'm an art historian. I deal with Biblical stories on nearly a daily basis. So, i'm familiar with those books we refer to as the Old Testament. I even know a bit about those other folks that come after it.

I don't believe I said anything in regard to homosexuality being a "disease".   I was making a comparison to other "behaviors" that have no "cure" or that require the person to acknowledge that what they're doing is destructive.  Since homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone any more than heterosexuality, why then is it so important for other people to want it to be "cured" out of others? 

I first learned of these studies in Bio-psychology class, the material of which i cannot post online.  However, here is one example of a vetted publisher and the findings i previously mentioned on homosexual brains resembling that of the opposite sex:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

and another study from Queen Mary University of London showing both genetic and evironmental factors playing a role in the developement of homosexuality: http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

And a collaborative study on brain reactions to pheromones as differing between straight and homosexual reactions: http://sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/?p=news1&id=525660

And another from the Neuroendocrinology Letters showing clear differences in brain structures: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11315232.html

There are even more articles that i could not access because many article wearhouses require subscriptions.
I find it interesting how quickly you are willing to dismiss scientific findings as "psuedo-science".  What's the point of arguing anything with someone who refuses to acknowlege the other side of the argument? And so far as "'it is thought' talk": that's what science is.  It is meant to question things until concrete cause and effect can be found, though for many things results still relly upon corollation and not causation.  Still it is a far more concrete way to create governance than something that has absolutely no proof: god

I think both sides of this argument are troubling.  Kenneth is right that there is no conclusive proof that homosexuality has a "biological" cause.  But I might ask where there is conclusive proof of a heterosexual gene?  And he is also right in pointing out the problematic argument of our brains being "wired" differently in order to support a gender binary.  But here I ask why then use another biologically-based argument (that of our male/female bodies or "features") to claim that we are born into a certain role? I simply argue against any essentialist viewpoint of gender and sexuality, and especially ones that confuse gender with sexuality.What we need to bring to these discussions is an understanding that all of our points of view are shaped by and through the times in which we live.  Less than 150 years ago there was no such person as a "homosexual" (and concordantly, "heterosexual")- it was a behavior, one that has been found throughout history.  The point is, sexual identity is constructed, just as gender is constructed, in order to fit the needs of certain power structures.  In reality, there is much more fluidity between the current binaries of straight/gay, male/female, then our current discourse allows. 

The only reason why gay activists want so wholeheartedly to believe in a biological cause is because we've been led to believe that this will prove we are "natural," without ever have been given proof of the naturalness of "straight."  It is simply a default, a given.    

The real question is, how do we define "natural?"  Who gets to define it?  The government?  The patriarchal structures of white male society?  Animals?  The church?  Western cultures?

These are the questions we should be asking.  Not, why am I the way I am?  But, why is it necessary to substantiate this at all? 

know what?  I love my friends no matter what or who they are.  I don't need "proof" as to why they identify their sexuality as one thing or another.  I just need "proof" that they love me back. 

I like this idea that GT brings up about why do we need to substantiate anything??  Prove that heterosexuality is hardwired and then maybe there can be a discussion about homosexuality NOT being "normal". 

What really bothers me is the people who live in denial - marrying and continuing a masquerade their entire lives, never being happy with who they are.  I know someone like this, her whole life denying her true self, and she is the most miserable person I've ever seen.  If "love" & "acceptance" were enough no one would ever feel the need to hide.

Will we ever have a society that just accepts everyone as "normal"??

Until then, my friends are who they are and I love them no matter.

two words for you two, GT and Lisa:  Right On. :-)

Lisa,

I rather doubt we shall define everyone as normal. I am sure there are members of the Man-Boy Love Organization that would want to have themselves declared "normal." I am not willing to do so, regardless of the amount of effort they might make to show it is considered "normal" elsewhere.

In like manner, I do not accept the claim that somehow it is "normal" for two men to practice sodomy. Not to be graphic without need, it is not "normal" to want to force a part of ones sexual anatomy into an orifice designed for excrement. It is a horrid aberration of the physiology of our human form. Can't change an anus into some sort of vaginal orifice regardless of desire to have it so operate. Sorry if this offends us in polite discussion, but the fact is homosexuality is an aberrant behavior.

And, with that .. I am out of here to return to work.

"Sorry if this offends us in polite discussion, but the fact is homosexuality is an aberrant behavior."

Here's a question, though, can you prove that every single homosexual partnership practices anal sex?

Perhaps it's not homosexuality, then, that's the problem for some people, but anal sex itself. 

The nature vs nurture debate is a misnomer in the first place. It came from the idea that we're such a percent nature and such a percent nurture. That's not what it's about at all. Nature vs nurture is just a way scientists measure the proportion of a SAMPLE, not an individual, having an inherited trait. Which says something about us trying to turn it upon the individual. In fact, when you do that, it becomes nothing more than a generalization and actually misses the individual altogether.

Anyway, it's the same old argument: humans were born to marry the opposite sex, black people were born for slavery, animals were born to be eaten, women were born to do the dishes. Utter rubbish, but it goes on and on and on. Nature is inevitably an argument for every last sort of oppression perpetrated by nature. It's completely irrelevant; it's like calling upon God, except we just call God Nature this time. Everything in nature is natural, but that doesn't say anything about whether or not it is morally supportable. But IF something is natural, the question is not about some man-made figure in the sky... it's a question of the Nature of that being. We can violate nature, do her a violence, by tearing harmony (homeostasis for the science nerds) away from her... It's not a harmony written in a book or even in our genes... it's written in our very lives. And since there's neither proof in our lives nor in society that gay marriage is disharmonious - i.e. harmful - to any living being, the notion that it violates nature is absurd.

And, just for the hell of it, I will add that since God is the source of the universe, God is just like Nature here... God IS the universe (seriously, since everyone, religious or not, refers to Nature as if Nature were God, then if Nature is our Creator, and we are part of Nature, then aren't we divine?), so arguing that God said such and such also is completely irrelevant to whether or not something is morally supportable as an ideal. Those who take the universe for what it is, Nature for what Nature is, God for what God is, and humans for what humans are - who accept the universe - they would say that only by first doing this can we arrive at the ideal. Only when we cease to violate Nature do we reach Nature's ideal. So don't take it lightly! Seek out in earnest the answer to Nature's question when she asks you how to revere her and respect all her creatures to the greatest extent possible because they ARE her. Till you do that, have fun worshipping your own puny fragment of Nature's whole.

Kenneth, I think it is pretty ignorant to tie the "normalness" or "naturalness" of being gay strictly to your thoughts on anal sex.  Surveys show that 20-25% of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex.  Are all of them also not normal?  It seems like you're taking a personal viewpoint and using that to define what is normal for everyone.

The greatest mistake is to consider homosexuality as
"sexual orientation."  It is not that. It is an obsessive/compulsive/addictive disorder from which one can recover in the same ways as one can recover from other obsessive/compulsive/addictive disorders.

This has been clearly demonstrated by HA and this refutes the "nature" or "genetic" argument, which was also advanced by alcoholics at one time.

http://www.ha-fs.org/

The problem is that many homosexuals, like alcoholics and other addicts, don't want to be cured.

How can a person be "addicted" to being attracted to a particular type of person (whether that attraction is homo or hetero-sexual)?  Have you ever met someone with a compulsive disorder?  It causes them to do things over and over again. If they do not complete this action, something in their head (the obsessive part of OCD) tells them that something bad will happen because they didn't do the action.  This does not line up with anything i know of homosexuality. 
ANYONE can purposefully correct for a personal leaning.  I tend to buy impusively and overspend my money.  Its a personality trait that is detrimental to me because it puts me in debt.  Therefore i purposefully correct this by budgeting.  Anyone who feels that being homosexual is a detriment to themselves can purposefully attempt to right this apparent wrong, but that doesn't make the personality leaning a disorder.  Because i'm an impulsive buyer doesn't mean i'm addicted to shopping. and being homosexual doesn't mean the person has a disorder or addiction.

And here I thought we lived in America. I'm not going to attack anyone I'm just going to say it how I live it. Who am I to decide what's natural or un natural? What makes me so special and all knowing that it's my place to sit in judgement of what goes on in the bedrooms of two consenting adults?  How am I so informed that I can define what love is for all people? The answer is I'm not, and neither is anyone else.

  I'm so tired of so called Christians twisting the words in the Bible to fit their own ideals. Jesus preached a message of love and acceptance yet people are taking that message and using it to spew hate. The only perfect being ever created was Jesus Christ, the stories in the Bible were written by men who were told these stories; they didn't witness it. From there the stories were translated from Koine Greek, to Hebrew and then to the various languages that we have received it in now. Think about how many different versions of the Bible there are off the top of my head I can name 2 NIV, and King James; there are differences in each version. Any idiot can see that unless you have an original copy of the text it it's original language then it's all left up to interpretation. It's funny to me how people accept some things in the Bible at face value and then discard what doesn't suit their ideals at that moment. Literally, it's said that if a daughter disobeys her father she should be put to death or sold into slavery. Slavery is condoned in the Bible, does that make it okay to enslave people? I think this country fought a very serious war based on the abolition of that very institution.

I could go on but I won't because it's pointless, some people will believe whatever makes them most comfortable or best suits their own purposes, and cling to that til death. Rational arguments are wasted on these people, because they feel justified by remaining ignorant. So no matter how many scientists get together and prove that their is a genetic basis for homosexuality, there will always be people who will try with everything in them to prove that there isn't. No matter how many plausible positions, or truths you present to these people regarding the truth of how the Bible addresses homosexuality; some people are going to ignore that and argue that 'God hates Homosexuals' so he couldn't possibly have created them.  They will do this because it gives them that sense of rightousness and justification for their hate and fear. Don't waste your time arguing back and forth with these people, just do your part in helping the people you can help, the people who want help and let God deal with the rest and He will.

God loves every one just how we are... we all sinners, who are we to judge but i don't believe people are born gay... God made a Women and a man but its us who come and change things...and no God does not hate anybody gay not gay He hates the sin, but loves the sinner..

It is my personal belief that being gay is a matter of nature.  I am sickened at the thought of curing someone of it.  Loving a person is the most beautiful thing why take away peoples choice...it would be a world full of lies if we started that...a world of conformity b/c we have a want to not be different and to be like everyone else.

It is either biological/hormonal/built in/ and all other "nature" proponents or a mix between them and nurture/environment.

The nature side as well as the persons view of how society views sexuality will ensure if a kid will be straight, he will be even if he is raised by parents who are gay.

"Nurture" is not strong enough to be applied to most or all cases. Perhaps a few but definitely not anywhere near enough to use it as your evidence to outlaw gay marriage/adoption.  As long as the parent explains that either way liking boys or girls or both, they will be loved. Its an attraction of love/(sexual and romantic attraction), it will come naturally and it wil just happen.

bible bashers have no evidence to stand on and science has not pinpointed exactly how sexual orientation is decided(if not at different times and different influences have more or less influence.) But what is true is that nature has a big influence and as it is, that is enough to legalize marriage and adoption.

bible bashers(social conservatives) do not separate religion from their politics. That is wrong. Conservatives have a problem. They follow the constitution and "values" and "morals" when it suits them.

If you think jesus will save your pathetic ass just b/c you seem him as your savior, you have something else coming ;)

Your striving for objectivity jew,
Robert

WHY DO WE HAVE TO FIX PEOPLE OR WHY DO WE EVEN NEED A REASON FOR PEOPLE TO BE WHO THEY ARE? THIS IS AMERICA!!! WE THE PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE WHAT WE WANT TO BE AND WHAT WE DO NOT WANT TO BE. JUST LET IT BE.