Really? Can you be convinced to be sexually attracted to other men if you are a man?
And just as my stepbrother chose and unchose it, anyone else can too.
HorseHillary! Your stepbrother is a bi-sexual,not a homosexual.
It's a measure of character and strength of will.
It's a matter of telling a lie.
The propaganda is the notion that it's a birth defect. If it were, the Gay populace wouldn't have to talk so many people into being gay.
HorseHillary again! There is no amount of talk on the planet Earth that could make me sexually attracted to other men. It just ain't there,and it can never be there. If you could be talked into this though,it would mean that you are a bi-sexual yourself.
Family Research Report - May-Jun 2002
Webster's dictionary4 defines 'homosexual' by "sexual attraction toward [or relations with] a person of the same sex" (p. 464). Yet as both the FRI and the Kinsey studies demonstrate, sexual flexibility rather than a fixed interest in or exclusive performance with members of the same sex is characteristic of 'homosexuals.' Almost all 'homosexuals,' in fact, manage to have sex with the opposite sex.
For example, Laumann, et al.5, reported that, of men with male sex partners since puberty, a mere 10% reported only having had sex with other males, and of women with female sex partners since puberty, only 5% reported only having had sex with other females. For those who reported same-sex partners since age 18, about 20% of such men and 10% of such women only had sex with others of their sex. Put in population terms, Laumann, et al. estimated that only 0.6% of "all men" and 0.2% of "all women" have, since puberty, only had sex with their own sex (p. 312).
Given the apparent changeability of human sexual behavior, the term 'homosexual' -- rather than describing 'a condition' or 'state of being' that 'causes' sexual desire to fixate on one's same sex -- seems an inappropriate label for most of those who have same-sex sex. The term certainly does not seem to fit ex-homosexuals, many of whom express no further interest in sex with their sex. Further, the sexual flexibility that the great majority of 'homosexuals' exhibit over their lifetimes does not fit the 'compulsive' nuances associated with the term 'homosexual' either.
As an alternative to 'homosexual,' if we were to consider individuals with a history of sexual relations with both sexes, or who could have sex with both sexes, or who desired to have sex with both sexes, as "omnisexual," very few, if any, 'homosexuals,' would fail to qualify. By shedding the relatively recent, largely psychiatric, and political term 'homosexual' for 'omnisexual' we might get rid of the implication that 'homosexuals' have an unchangeable 'orientation' -- a notion clearly at odds with the empirical reality.
In fact, the Kinsey Institute's use of "sexual preference" far better matches the sexual choices that omnisexuals make. And when an omnisexual decided to quit homosexual activity for heterosexual activity, or changed his mind again, it would not appear linguistically odd, but would instead describe the situation neatly. Better still, there would not be the same 'mystery' about the choice, involving often untestable theories about 'unconscious needs,' parental miscues, or hormonal or genetic differences. Rather, sexual flexibility would be seen as something that omnisexuals often exhibit.
If perhaps only 3-4% of adults have at some time in their lives either engaged in homosexuality or would currently declare themselves interested in doing so by saying they were 'homosexual' or 'bisexual,' and maybe an additional 1-2% or so of the remaining adults are 'ex-homosexuals,' then perhaps 4-6% of adults have been 'homosexuals' or homosexually involved at some point in their lives.
Additionally, about 1-2% of current heterosexuals say that they have some homosexual desire -- i.e., are homosexually 'tempted.' It therefore seems possible that the total pool of adults who are, and who always have been, exclusively heterosexual may be on the order of 92-94%. But perhaps 6-8% of the population is omnisexual -- these individuals can be and often are involved in homosexual relationships at some time.
Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do FECAL SEX About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study,5 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity--half regularly over 6 months. Result? --the "annual incidence of hepatitis A in...homosexual men was 22 percent, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A." In 1992,26 it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.
Homosexual behavior increases risk of AIDS - Dr. Brian J. Kopp, ...
Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.
An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).
A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).
Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact ("Medical Aspects of Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).
AIDS research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had more than 500 different sexual partners in a lifetime. Considered by themselves, the AIDS victims in this study averaged more than 1,100 lifetime sexual partners. Some reported as many as 20,000. Studies reported by A-P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg and S.K. Hammersmith in the book "Sexual Preference" (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3 percent of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2 percent could be classified as either monogamous or semi-monogamous (from "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).
As the Court notes, ante at 192 , the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p*197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.
This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.