" Stay proud dogsncats! Equality will come one day...
CM---you telling a story about how your daughter has a lesbian friend is almost as bad as when people say "Hey! I'm not prejudice! I talk to black people when I see them!" Or, "I have a black friend!"
Sure, maybe you did not teach your children to hate, and that is wonderful, but how would you feel if your daughter told you she was in love with her lesbian friend? "

" karl, if you reference me, please be sure that I am the one posting. I do not believe I posted on this. Your 10:24 post "

" Upon re-reading, I think I may not have been completely clear:

According to the DSM-IV-TR, which is THE authority on defining mental illness in this country, homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. "

" Boy Karl, you clearly need some reading comprehension classes. In a previous post, I CLEARLY stated that I don't hate gay people, I just disapprove of the lifestyle. I'm definately NOT prejudiced against anyone, either. I know several people here at work that are gay, and they are nice people, and I interact with them all the time here. Please stop making assumptions unless you have the facts straight!!! You seem to have a problem with that!! "

" " I agree with Mr. DeBellis. And not only all the points that he makes, but also how it flies in the face of the natural order of the human race. We were not intended to be paired this way. It is my belief that there are a lot of people that are living this life style, thinking that it's somehow glamorous, or stylish. It's still considered deviant behavior. "

Glamorous? Stylish? Lifestyle? Here's a description of my glamorous and stylish lifestyle: I go to work. I come home. I make some dinner, watch TV. I walk the dog. I do some paperwork, pay bills. I go to bed. So explain to me, why I should not get the basic right of marrying my choice for life-long partner, because we are both female? It has nothing to do with you, brother. Don't flatter yourself. Your choice of marrying is YOUR choice. I don't even get the choice.

don't pretend you know what it's like to grow up gay and live your life as a gay person. You would not give me a second look on the street, or if i sold you a pair of shoes, or if I waved you through an intersection. Get over yourselves. My freedom to marry, when it is granted, will not change YOUR life one little bit. It will, however, mean I am no more a second class citizen. "

" karl , if things CAN happen POSTNATAL as your Dr. stated..then is is NOT A PROVEN FACT one is BORN GAY!

I dont have hatred --I have disapproval-which are 2 totally different emotions.
It is simply a lifestyle I totally find disgusting!

If it was a hatred, then my children would not have friends that are gay/lesbian--I would have taught them to hate, they were also raised christian/catholic, I did not raise my kids to hate anyone.

My daughter (21) went to a christian college-one of her best friends since the start of high school "came out" a month ago-something the "group" always thought, but didn't press the issue.
The "group" still hangs out when they are in town--my daughters religion NOR I have taught her to hate! "

" BTW, unknown--being Gay is not a "dysfunction".
Being prejudiced against people for being what they were born to be quite possibly is though. YOu should be tested, IMO.
BTW< make sure that you hate on the couples out there who make PDA's--hugging, kissing, grabbing butts, whatever too--they're PLAINLY pushing their sexual orientation in our faces too. "

" I remember a friend once told me she hoped her infant daughter did not grow up to be gay -- because of the pain of dealing with prejudiced people she'd come across in her life.

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychological Association), which is THE official measure for mental disorders, originally classified homosexuality as a mental disorder in their first edition (1952)

In December 1973, the APA voted to cease to consider it a mental disorder. It took some years before the change went into the DSM, and it has taken a few alternate forms over time, but in the most recent edition, the DSM-IV-TR, homosexuality is consider "sexual orientation" and not a disorder.

The only thing even coming close is gender identity disorder:

"The terms gender identity and gender dysphoria should be distinguished from the term sexual orientation, which refers to erotic attraction to males, females, or both."

The two disorders above have to do with persistent discomfort of individuals who perceive themselves as a male when they are physically female and vice versa. "

" No, cm, your posts are not the "findings" as you'd like to interpret them; additionally I don't think that you realize that in a highly charger issue as this, NO scientist wants to go on the record as stating definitively that the evidence supports the Truth, until the evidence is absolutely 110% certain, and indisputable--however, THIS FACT I will aver. cm, you really weary me. The FACT is, that the preponderance of the evidence, to a HUGE degree, supports the theory. YOu are seizing upon your "holy grail phrase" of "environmental factors" as if that were not just an adjunct to the POSSIBILITY of perhaps biasing a STRAIGHT child into feminized BEHAVIORS--this is NOT the same as being BIOLOGICALLY GAY. The evidence about the Smell Study from the Karolinska INstitute completely supports this fact as well!
What I posted last night was all I could find with a quick google, but I could NOT find the text from Shelby Spong's book which elucidates and describes Derner's detailed experiments--and I have too much to do right now to type it in word for word.
In short, Doerner deliberately deprived the levels of testosterone in rats, in utero, and CONSISTENTLY produced rats who mounted other male rats.
Then he also did the LH test in the rats AS WELL AS ON HUMAN MEN. He tested the idea that if a brain was "sexed" female, it would flood LH hormone as if from a nonexistent ovary when injected with estrogen. When both men and rats who exhibited the aforementioned homosexual behavior were thus injected, the brains of ONLY the homosexual men/rats responded with a flood of this Luteinizing Hormone, as if the brain "expected" an ovary to be in place, ie, a female's body.
Experiments with rhesus monkeys also proved the same exact result--deprivation of testosterone has produced monkeys who exhibit predictable homosexual behavior, consistently. CONSISTENTLY! ANd yet there is NO hormonal abnormalities after birth in their bodies; they function perfectly normally,--they are just "Gay". IE, there is no "Gay Blood Test", because the post-natal functioning of the body is NOT affected. They are born perfectly "normal", but with opposite-sex brains!
SO here's where we are cm--
1.THERE IS NO "GAY GENE"!
2.Environmental factors MAY prejudice a straight child into acting "gay"--but this is NOT THE SAME as being born with an opposite sex's brain.
3. The prenatal body/brain go through a stage of androgynous development. If testosterone levels in th mother are inadequate, this can adversely affect the "pairing" or "matching" of the brain/body sex, resulting in an individual whose brain is alternately/oppositely "sexed".
This explains why the Smell study as well is so significant--it both proves and supports Doerner's theory.
cm, I realize that this has become a classic butting-of-heads, with neither one of us wanting to back down, but why don't you just admit that the evidence supports the fact that Gay people are born that way? One would have to really hate Gay people to hold onto their prejudices in light of such powerful evidence. It's sad that you don't realize what a bigot you are appearing to be, when the weigt of the evidence is really so much in my favor. Read the 11:40 post again as well--you really can't argue with that. It is fact--brains become "sexed" one way or another, not necessarily in relation to the body's development. The evidence proves it, and the Karolinska tests further inform that fact and support that.
Case closed! "

" also POSTNATAL:
During the first stages of this period, the newborn also starts his/her adaptation to extrauterine life, the most significant physiological transition until death.


physiological
of or relating to physiology
2 : characteristic of or appropriate to an organism's healthy or normal functioning
3 : differing in, involving, or affecting physiological factors

physiology:
a branch of biology that deals with the functions and activities of life or of living matter (as organs, tissues, or cells) and of the physical and chemical phenomena involved --


My 10:34 PM post:
Dr Gunter proved nothing but a big
MAYBE prenatal MAYBE postnatal.

Maybe: Perhaps or UNCERTAINTY!!!! "

" karl Your posts are nothing but the START of the studies/tests mine are the FINDINGS!
Do you notice DR GUNTER states POSTNATAL:
is the period beginning immediately after the birth of a child and extending for about six weeks.

In that time frame a child could have stress/environmental issue/medication issues BUT NOT BORN GAY!!!! "

" Karl, being millitant about coupons, or sports or religious beliefs are one thing that most people could be involved in. Being millitant about one's sexual preference is another. That is a personal matter and should not be discussed openly or put on display as if one is proud of their disfunction!! And the only reason they might not like MY lifestyle is that they are trying to force me to accept THEIR lifestyle. Their game is to try to make people feel bad about not accepting their deviant behavior as the norm. Sorry, but I don't roll like that!! And thanks to cm for supporting data. "

" karl, your 10:24 post, where did I enter into this? "

" The truth IS out there... "

" And additionally---this study FURTHER PROVES that Homosexuality is inherent and not "learned" through "environment"
"WASHINGTON -- Gay men's brains respond differently from those of heterosexual males when exposed to a sexual stimulus, researchers have found. The homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone.

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Witelson, who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.

The study, published in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

They exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones.

These chemicals are thought to be pheromones -- molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.

Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.

The Swedish study was one of a series looking at whether parts of the brain involved in reproduction differ in response to odors and pheromones, lead researcher Ivanka Savic said.

The brains of different groups responded similarly to ordinary odors such as lavender, but differed in their response to the chemicals thought to be pheromones, Savic said.

The Swedish researchers divided 36 subjects into three groups -- heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men. They studied the brain response to sniffing the chemicals, using PET scans. All the subjects were healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV-negative.

When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects' brains reacted only in the olfactory region that handles smells.

But when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men, the researchers found.

The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior, the researchers said.

And when estrogen, the female hormone was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain.

Savic said the group is also doing a study involving homosexual women, but those results are not yet complete.

In a separate study looking at people's response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.

"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.

In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said.

Wysocki's team at the Monell Chemical Senses Center studied the response of 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual and homosexual women to the odors of underarm sweat collected from 24 donors of varied gender and sexual orientation.

They found that gay men differed from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups.

Gay men preferred odors from gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbian women in the study. Their findings, released Monday, are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.

The Swedish research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Karolinska Institute and the Magnus Bergvall Foundation. Wysocki's research was supported by the Monell Center. "

" And furthermore...I dare you to explain away this remarkable piece of research--which is exactly along the lines of what Doerner performed:
"In 1959, at the University of California at Los Angeles, the neuroendocrinologist Charles Barraclough found that if a female rat was injected shortly before or after birth with testosterone, a male sex hormone, the abnormal amount of this hormone would make the rat permanently sterile, unable to ovulate. "Ovulation" as used here is in part a technical term: it refers both to what a lay person would think of as ovulation—the movement of an egg from the ovary into the fallopian tube—and to the series of hormonal interactions that cause that event.

Rats have short estrous cycles. Every four days various glands in the rat's body start pumping estrogens, or female sex hormones, into the bloodstream, setting in motion a series of chemical events. Estrogen levels reach a certain concentration and stimulate part of the hypothalamus, the small portion of the brain that regulates (among other things) body temperature, hunger, thirst, and sexual drive. The hypothalamus in turn stimulates the pituitary gland; the pituitary then releases a burst of something called luteinizing hormone, which causes the ovary to release an egg. Barraclnugh discovered that in female rats even a single perinatal exposure to testosterone will prevent this entire process from ever occurring. If that discovery was intriguing, a subsequent one was even more so: the discovery that male rats can ovulate—at least in the sense of going through the hormonal preliminaries. In 1965 Geoffrey Harris, a neuroendocrinologist at Oxford University, castrated a group of newborn male rats, depriving them of the testosterone from their testes. He found that if estrogen was injected into the bodies of these rats after they reached adulthood, it stimulated the hypothalamus, which initiated the sequence of hormone releases described above. The male rats obviously had no ovaries or wombs, but they went through the biochemical motions of ovulation. If one grafted an ovary onto a male rat, he would ovulate perfectly.

Further tests revealed a strange asymmetry. Whereas newborn male rats deprived of testosterone will, as Harris found, experience female-like ovulation, newborn female rats deprived of estrogen will continue to develop as females. In adulthood they will not seem somehow male. Although the rats' ovaries have been removed, their brains will still produce the stimulus to ovulate. Scientists realized that without testosterone the genetic blueprint for masculinity was essentially worthless. Indeed, they learned, for a male rat's brain to become truly organized as male, the rat must be exposed to testosterone within the first five days of life. After the fifth day the masculinizing window of opportunity is closed, and the genetic male will grow up with a "female" brain. In contrast, the brain of a female needs no estrogen for organization; left alone, it will become female.

Thus it came to be understood that what one might think of as the "default brain" for both sexes of the rat is feminine, and that testosterone is as necessary in the creation of a masculine brain as it is in the creation of masculine genitals. This concept, which is the basis of one approach to the neurobiological search for the origins of sexual orientation, is known as the "sexual differentiation of the brain."

Roger Gorski, a neurobiologist at the University of California at Los Angeles who has long been involved in research on sexual differentiation, looked back recently on the development of his field: "We spent much of our professional careers trying to understand this process of sexual differentiation, and what functions happen within it—male sex behavior, female sex behavior, control of ovulation, control of food intake, body weight, aggressive behavior, some aspects of maternal behavior. You know why male dogs lift their legs when they pee? Because the brain has changed. So this is really a fundamental concept, that the brain is inherently female and to develop as male it must be exposed to masculinizing hormones."
SO! The scientist agree that A BRAIN CAN BE EITHER "FEMINIZED" OR "MASCULINE" DEPENDING ON HORMONE LEVELS INUTERO--EXACTLY WHAT DOERNER FOUND!!!! "

" Shall I keep going cm?
" In a large room at the UCAL department of anatomy, Roger Gorski and I recently stood facing a dozen black-topped lab tables, each below a ceiling-mounted video monitor. We were about to watch a tape of rats having sex.

Gorski, an eternally cheerful, almost elfin man of fifty-seven, was energetically describing the tape. "There are six couples," he explained, though at the moment I saw only one uninterested-looking white rat. "That's an unaltered female," he said. "They're going to put in another female that has been injected with testosterone." Sure enough, someone's hand reached down into the screen and a second rat landed in the cage. The rats at first edged around each other, but in just a few seconds on the dozen monitors I saw the testosterone-injected female begin to sniff the other female rat and then mount her aggressively. At the lab tables a handful of medical students went on with their work, paying no attention. After a few moments the tape cut to two males, one perinatally castrated and injected with estrogen, one unaltered. After some initial maneuvering the castrated male responded to the advances of the unaltered male by bending his back and offering himself in what was to me indistinguishable from female-rat lordosis—behavior indicating receptivity to sex, pictures of which Gorski had shown me in his office. The altered rat submitted as the other male mounted him. The tape continued with similar scenes. It was quite dramatic. "

" Oh, ho ho ho, cm---I see now how you have selectively culled the research from a site here to try to back up your point--how very predictable of you to only chose what you felt supported your pre-formed prejudices?! Let's fill it in a bit shall we?
"At the moment of conception an embryo is given its chromosomal sex, which determines whether it will develop testes or ovaries. In female human beings (as in female rats) the female structures will simply develop, without any help from hormones; the Wolffian duct will shrivel up. The process of becoming male, however, is more complex. Where women need none, men need two kinds of hormones: androgens from the testes to prompt the Wolffian duct into development, and a second substance, called Mullerian inhibiting hormone, to suppress the Mullerian duct and defeminize the male fetus.

Pillard speculates that Mullerian inhibiting hormone, or a substance analogous to it, may have brain-organizing effects. Its absence or failure to kick in sufficiently may prevent the brain from defeminizing, thereby creating what Pillard calls "psychosexual androgyny." In this view, gay men are basically masculine males with female aspects, including perhaps certain cognitive abilities and emotional sensibilities. Lesbian women could be understood as women who have some biologically induced masculine aspects.

An experimental basis is provided by research by the psychiatrist Richard Green, of the University of California at Los Angeles, which shows that children who manifest aspects of gender-atypical play are often gay. Green has concluded that an inclination toward gender-atypical play in prepubescent boys—for example, dressing in women's clothes, playing with dolls, or taking the role of the mother when playing house—indicates a homosexual orientation 75 percent of the time. If that is true, it is important, because it would be an example of a trait linked to sexual orientation which does not involve sexual behavior—suggesting how deeply rooted sexual orientation is. Discussing this line of research, Simon LeVay told me, "It's well known from animal work that sex-typical play behavior is under hormonal control. Robert Goy [at the University of Wisconsin at Madison] has done many studies over the years showing that you can reverse the sex-typical play behavior of infant monkeys by hormonal manipulations in prenatal life. [Play] is an example of a sex-reversed trait in gay people that's not directly related to sex. It's not sex, it's play. When you get to adulthood, these things become blurred. It's easier to tell a gay kid than a gay adult--kids are much of a muchness. Most gay men, even those who are very macho as adults, recall at least some gender-atypical behavior as children." "

" CM, ARE YOU SERIOUS?!!!
YOU WILL CITE A MAN WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE "TURNED TO GOD" TO DENY HIS LIFELONG HOMOSEXUALITY?!?!?
SHEESH!!! YOU'LL REACH FOR ANYTHING WON'T YOU?!?!
Once again--I, NOR DOERNER, have EVER claimed a "gay gene"! When are you going to give up that irrelevant line of research?!?! YOu might as well be trying to refute that I had claimed cigarette smoking causes homosexuality!
So I will give you this small measure of satisfaction, cm--THERE IS NO "GAY GENE"! LOL!
SHEESH! "

" Sorry cm, you've done your research but you're barking up the wrong tree--and you've NOT proved Gunter Doernrer's research wrong. And whatever fantasy you have about anything you posted last week/month is purely wishful thinking because Doerner's research is irrefutable and impeccable.
What you've found is a bunch of conveniently-diversive and tangential red herrings that merely obscure the original info.
For one, neither Doerner, nor I, have ever claimed a "Gay gene". I completely reject such a notion.
Secondly, regarding pollutants--it has been seen in amphibians as well that pollutants adversely affect sexual and reproductive behaviors. This may be true, but it is purely tangential to the original argument.
Third, there is no corroboration, nor any claim in Doerner's research to a correlation between EXISTING TESTOSTERONE levels vs Gay/Hetero men. This is simply another misguided tangential assumption which ws undertaken independently of Doerner's research.
Lastly, Doerner's research clearly found a link between LH and homosexuality. In the next post, I will cut-n-paste exactly as you have here--if you actually UNDERSTOOD what ypou pasted, you wouldn't have bothered, because 3 out of your 4 posts are basically irrelevant--the last one is just wrong, period,---as I shall prove. "

" Shall I keep going Karl?
ok...
Most people do not have the knowledge to understand the research and are simply hoodwinked by the pro-gay activists.

It is obvious to many that the environmental factors play the major
role in same-sex behavior, if this were not so how does one explain the thousands of men and women
who have left homosexuality.

Recent example of Michael Glatze, founder of Young Gay American Magazine, film producer, pro-gay lecturer and author, and well-recognized leader in the gay movement. At age 14 he
believed himself to be “gay,” but at age 30 he “seriously began to doubt” what he was doing (Moore,
2007).
He explains:
Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God…It became clear to me that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true selves…I was leading a
movement of sin and corruption…Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one.
I’ll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise…Healing from the wounds
caused by homosexuality is not easy—there’s little support. In my experience, coming out from
under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing
things I’ve ever experienced…I believe that all people, intrinsically know the truth.

I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all
possess. Conscience tell us right from wrong and is a guide by which we can grow and become stronger and freer human beings (Moore, 2007).

In conclusion, I believe that the genetic evidence for homosexuality is just not there. It’s the values and
politics of homosexuals and their supporters that is driving the gay gene agenda, not good science. "

" 6. If the reader is still unconvinced that scientists have not found the “gay gene,” let me share with you one
final bit of knowledge about behavioral genetics.

Suppose you could isolate a segment of DNA that you thought was related to homosexuality. You could then specify the exact, let’s say 183,000 base pairs, that make up this portion of DNA.

The “gene” would look something like this sequence: TA, GC, TA, TA,
GC, CG, AT, AT, AT, GC, GC, CG, TA….. The letter A, T, G, and C stand for the four nucleotides that make up DNA: adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine.

Now you get DNA samples of other gay men and examine this exact 183,000 base-pair sequence on the same chromosome. You compare the sequencing of TA, CG, GC, and AT along the whole length of the gay gene.
Surprise: The sequences from 10 gay men don’t nearly match!
Some portions are similar, but most are dissimilar.
But you don’t give up.

You recruit the brothers of the original 10 gay men. You code their nucleotides at the same foci on the suspected gay gene. You find that the DNA sequences of the gay/non-gay brothers are more similar than that of the gay/gay men.

In other words, the non-gay brothers’ DNA sequence is more similar to their gay brothers than is the sequencing of the gay men to each other!
You are persistent so try once more.

You recruit another 20 gay men and code their DNA. Again, you find that there is more dissimilarity in the sequences of base pairs between the gay men than similarities.
Undaunted, you write another grant and keep looking.
Scientists have actually done just this. (Lippman, 1991).

That’s an amazing fact and puts the crimp in anyone’s plan to
discover the elusive gay gene. "

" Many uninformed people take a simplistic view of behavioral genetics: they believe that one gene controls and determines a specific behavior. This is true for a very few, abnormal physical conditions:
including Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, PKU, and achondroplasia (Dwarfism).
This fact has led some to believe that there is an alcoholic gene, a manic-depression gene, or a gay gene.
However, “Genes do not act as master puppeteers within us. They are chemical structures that control the production of proteins; thereby indirectly affecting behavior…Genes do not determine one’s destiny” (Plomin,1990, ).
“It is an oversimplification to say that any gene is ‘the gene for a trait’.
Each gene simply specifies one of the proteins involved in the process [of gene-environmental interaction], notes Hubbard. (Hubbard & Wald, 1999).
Complex psycho-social behaviors such as sexual preference are not determined by a single gene, but by a
gene-environmental process involving possibly hundreds of genes acting through complex environmental factors (Rutter, 2006).

“The fact is that so far, scientific research has not confirmed any one-to-one correspondence between a gene and a [complex psycho-social] behavior. Behavior results from the activity of multiple genes amidst the influence of multiple environmental factors” (Baker, 2004).

NOTE: line one "UNIFORMED PEOPLE" (karl) "

" 4.physician John R. Lee, M.D noted an earlier, similar finding: mothers who took the synthetic hormone DES during pregnancy were more likely to have daughters who developed vaginal and cervical cancer, and a higher-than-normal proportion also became bisexuals or lesbians. Theorizing that environmental pollutants could have the same effect, he concluded, "If xenobiotics can blur the distinctions between the sexes in seagulls and alligators at nanogram levels, how far-fetched is it to speculate that the same pollutants may be affecting humans in the same fashion?" "

" In an article published in 1990 in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, Heino Meyer-Bahlberg surveyed the work done so far on hormonal research in general and concluded: "The evidence available to date is inconsistent, most studies are methodologically unsatisfactory, and alternative interpretations of the results cannot be ruled out.

3. The evidence from hormonal research may circumstantially implicate biology in sexual orientation, but it is far from conclusive. William Byne raises a warning flag: "If the prenatal-hormone hypothesis were correct, then one might expect to see in a large proportion of homosexuals evidence of prenatal endocrine disturbance, such as genital or gonadal abnormalities. But we simply don't find this." Moreover, the hormonal research does not answer the question of ultimate cause. If hormones help to influence sexual orientation, what is influencing the hormones? "

" 2. In 1984 Heino Meyer-Bahlburg, a neurobiologist at Columbia University, analyzed the results of twenty-seven studies undertaken to test the theory. According to Meyer-Bahlburg, a score of the studies in fact showed no difference between the testosterone or estrogen levels of homosexual and heterosexual men.
They speculated that gay men, their brains presumably not organized prenatally by testicular hormones, just as women's are not, would show a positive LH feedback.
This line of inquiry has given rise to an active field of study that as yet has little to show for itself. The uncertainties are of two kinds. The first one involves the following question: Do LH feedback patterns of the sort being sought in fact exist in human beings? The second comes down to this: Even if LH feedback patterns of the sort being sought do exist, will they really tell us anything about events that occurred before birth? Unfortunately, neuroscientists lack unequivocal answers to both questions, despite considerable efforts.

Different studies have yielded conflicting data. No one has yet come up with what one neurobiologist facetiously terms a "gay blood test." "

" oh please! karl we had this discussion a week ago and I proved that your OUTDATED research was totally bogus!!

let me enlighten you:
1. Dr Gunter Doerner:
A heterozygous form of steroid 21-hydroxylase deficiency was found to exist in homosexual females. Such genetic enzyme alteration gives rise to increased adrenal androgen production
(particularly in the case of stressful events in both pre- and postnatal life) leading to a more male-type sexual brain organization (i.e. female homosexuality).
Findings obtained in identical and non-identical twins, as well as in families with an increased prevalence of homosexuality, suggest that heterozygous gene alterations and/or
early environmental influences (e.g. prenatal stress) leading to androgen deficiency can predispose males to a more female-type sexual brain organization (i.e. male homosexuality).

be sure to note ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES>> "

" movedsouth, there are people who act "militant" about being for one soccer team over another. There are militant Christians. Militant White Supremacists. Militant coupon users. Militant Football Dads and soccer moms. I never hear you bitchhing about them?
I promise yo that they don't like YOUR lifestyle any more than YOU like THEIRS!
Ask yourself this --Exactly when did you "decide" that you were heterosexual; that you liked women? Was it EVER something you had to actually consider or "decide"?!
I promise you--a gay person is THAT CERTAIN himself--unless there's something ELSE you want to tell us?! "

" Oh Karl....
I must admit that like you, I don't believe everything I read or hear. As as far as looking at the facts & figures, being a mechanical engineer has brought me down a long road of a lot of research. I question everything & look at all the evidence, too. And I must admit that there are things that the Church says, that I HIGHLY question, but I do go to church on Sunday. I must say that I'm not a hater. I don't dislike gay people. I just don't like the lifestyle. I just don't believe in it. I don't like when a gay person acts militant about it, and goes out of the way to let you know that they are gay (I know some like that). But in the end, as it goes, the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, ax, & saw!!! THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE... "

" Yes...two INTELLIGENT people can mutually admire one another's expressions. I don't expect that my posts can or will change someone's lifelong opinions such as yours unknown..but I will rightfully defend my beliefs just as you are entitled to yours. Name calling? Unless "dinosaur" counts, I don't think that our posts were "sophmore."
But now that you mention it...one of the best quotes I've ever heard springs to mind...
"Never argue with an idiot. People watching may not be able to tell the difference."
See you on the nest topic "unknown".... "

" Ah...."Roman Catholic"--well, that explains a LOT! LOL!
Unknown, no, I do not believe that Gay people are born that way "Just because this guy says so".
I believe it because I have studied and analyzed his data, and experiments and like two+two=four, it all adds up.
That's the difference between people like you and people like me--I can read and observe and challenge my beliefs, and then, if the EVIDENCE PROVES IT, I will turn my most deeply-held convictions on their head. You DO know that I USED TO BE A PASSIONATE ROMAN CATHOLIC MYSELF don't you?!?! Until I found out the Truth about THAT hypocritical cult!
You, on the other hand, will dismiss any blatant evidence that contradicts your pre-conceived or drilled-into-you conceptions of what you've been told is "true". I feel sorry for you; you should try thinking for yourself--I did, and the Truth id set me FREE!
Can I get a "Hallelujah" and an "A-MEN!, Brother"?! LOL! "

" Oh la de da!! Aren't you 2 the mutual admiration society!! You know, it's nice that you guys can have your opinions and rule the roost, but if someone has an opposing opinion, you resort to name calling & brow beating that only a high school sophmore could be proud of!! But that's ok, it's your right to do so!! I still say, though, that same sex marriages are wrong, and fly in the face of pro creataion. They are also illegal (thank God!!!). Karl, you stated that some Dr. in Germany says that all gay people are born that way?? Do you really believe that just because this guy says so?? I think it's a vast generalization, almost to the point of stereotyping!! I make it a point to question things I read of that nature, and definately not put too much creedence in them. I could write a research paper on all kinds of stuff, and state all kinds of made up facts, too! No trick to that!! I'm not saying that is what this guy did, but you never know. I'm willing to bet that if they were to put this issue up for a vote here on this site, that you & your friend katiede would be in the minority!! Yes, I'm a Roman Catholic, and no, I'm not Mr.DeBellis. "

" Amen, Katiede!--sounds like you're a good Mom! ;) "

" So true Karl..the dinosaurs of years past must become extinct 1st...
I can only hope that when my child is grown he will say "Wow mom, in YOUR day only heterosexual couples were recognized?!" People seem to forget that the right to religion does not give them the right to force their specific religious beliefs on others.. "

" Thank you, sincerely, Katiede!
Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way to change people like Mr DeBellis's mind--no matter how much fact or Science you point them to. I think we will have to wait for their kind to simply die off before the weight of this generation's "higher morality", tolerance and acceptance of people who are different than the masses becomes the norm, and Mr DeBellis' kind will then be the "aberration"!
The best thing is, that day is now--I believe--in sight!
Thanks for your comment! "

" Karl--your insights and research are both intelligent and factual..kudos to someone who actually researches a topic instead of running at the mouth..sadly though, I doubt Peter K can or ever will understand it..or the brave "unknown" who says that gay people are gay bc it is "glamourous" or stylish! WOW...I bet he also thinks that if gay marriage becomes legal, my mother, married to my father for over 30 years will catch "gayness" and leave him for a woman...Unreal...does anyone know the year? Is it 2008 or have I been warped back in time? "

" OK< here's the rebuttal if the Citizen doesn't print it:
“My Goodness! Where will this end?!” asks Peter K DeBellis with the typical misguided paranoia and scientific ignorance of the conservative view point when confronting the reality of Gay Marriage and Homosexuality in general.
Fist of all, let’s get something straight; being born-Gay to the extent that one could/would even THINK about marrying another of the same sex for life is NOT a “lifestyle”, nor a “choice”. It is a scientifically-proven FACT discovered, tested, and replicated by Dr Gunter Doerner at the University of Humboldt in Berlin. It doesn’t matter one hoot if you “don’t agree with it”.
This is not the same as “situational homosexuality” as such which occurs in the deprivation of the opposite sex—such as in prison. Furthermore, when reintroduced to an opposite-sex partner, very few “situational homosexuals” continue with relations with the same sex—much less marry one!
Many born-Gay people also spend years in “phony” marriages due to social pressure and fear, until they “come out”. These examples are, however, perhaps from where the pervasive myth of “lifestyle choice” originates?.
People such as Mr DeBellis should reflect upon Barack Obama’s astute characterization of the changing cultural paradigms of today’s younger generation.
--- “…kids -- 7, 8, 9 years old -- take for granted now that of course a black can run for president. Of course a woman can run for president. There's a matter of factness to it that I think bodes well for the future."
There is also an undeniable and unstoppable movement to reject the 1st-century unscientific ignorance of religious-based bigotry and to once again embrace the true ideals of the Enlightenment values upon which our country was founded—Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—for ALL—Gay people included!
It’s not a question of “Morality”, but of “Equality”—and it’s about time! "

" Wrong again, Karl, I'm not Mr. DeBellis!!! "

" Unknown--I mean, Mr DeBellis--you're a complete ignoramus.
First of all, it is not a "lifestyle"--it is a way that people are born. It has been medically proven and tested in a laboratory by Dr Gunter Doerner of The University of Humboldt in Berlin; look it up!
Your "natural order of the human race" was decided upon by 1st-century peasants who also thought that the world was flat! Boy--talk about intellectual stagnation! "

" Your moral law does not apply to me. It is your morals and you cannot create a moral law against me anymore than you can enforce your religious beliefs on me. Good try though. "

" OK, Peter K--which bigot on the "Two Cents" forum are you exactly?
What a ridiculous, laughable piece of ignorance! I would have been ashamed to sign my name to this letter!
Expect a rebuttal! "

" I agree with Mr. DeBellis. And not only all the points that he makes, but also how it flies in the face of the natural order of the human race. We were not intended to be paired this way. It is my belief that there are a lot of people that are living this life style, thinking that it's somehow glamorous, or stylish. It's still considered deviant behavior. "

" I must have not seen the section of the United States Constitution or its amendments that discusses moral law. I did, however see the parts about separation of church and state and equality. "