Now homosexuals are victims, I'm not buying that crap! Before long you are going to tell me that child molesters are born wanting to have sex with children, after all how could someone choose the hardships of being a child molester.
Don't buy it, I don't care. You don't think it's got to be confusing as hell growing up not being attracted to girls, not being like the rest of the guys? I remember, when I was in school, pre-college, the guys everyone thought were gay were teased to the point of being stripped of any dignity whatsoever. I'm glad I never had to deal with that, that's for damn sure. I have known people that have struggled with their sexuality and if you think it's fun and games, you are sadly mistaken.
That analogy is severely lacking. 'Food' would have to be analagous to sexual arousal, and different flavors of food would be analagous to the physical traits, including gender, that you enjoy. Kinda like how you don't know why you don't like the way a certain food tastes, you've just never enjoyed it. Similarly, there are probably women that you find attractive that other men do not, and vice-versa. Then you'd have to suggest that all gays are exposed to homosexual behavior at an early age. Most gays are not, in any sense, raised in environments conducive to such.
Food was analogous to sexual behavior in my example. A person, not having any sexual tendencies whatsoever, might get sexually satisfied by a member of the same sex -- then would in the future associate all sexual arousal and pleasure with members of the same sex rather than opposite. Another environment conducive to homosexual behavior could be that of a household where: 1) there was no father in the picture so the child lacked any kind of male relationship and sought out inappropriate male companionship to fill that void upon reaching adulthood 2) the mother was a stronger figure than the father and the child, having no sufficient male role model to live by, gave up trying to be "male".
But you simply can't dictate how those pheremones detect or respond to specific scents. Just like the example I used about food, you can't just one day decide that a certain food tastes good. Either you like it, or you do not. (I realize that this example may be somewhat lacking in that your taste buds are said to change every seven years or something like that - but just about every food that I've ever disliked I still can't stand) I strongly disagree with that. You can only change behavioral traits that are strictly contingent upon some sort of rationale or volition. It's the old 'nature vs nurture' argument. Elite scientists have never been able to prove one more prevalent than the other. So for someone to completely disregard that idea that homosexuality is genetic rather than learned is nothing more than an emotional, dogmatic response based on a deep-rooted moral supposition of right and wrong.
But, as a matter of procreation, all human beings are born with sexual tendencies. Either way, you'd have to assume that all gays had some sort of homosexual experience at an early age, and it would be some tall task to do anything in the way of proving that. Every gay person I've ever known was raised by both parents, who are, more times than not, incredibly disappointed with their childs lifestyle (some to the point of disowning). Besides, it's been shown that a stronger relationship with the parent of the opposite sex yields stronger relationships (platonic and non-platonic) with the opposite sex later in life. I was raised by my mom and am a real lady-killer (this might sound sarcastic or arrogant, but it's true - I've never, ever had trouble getting the girls that I wanted).
what about the moderately talented scientists, have they had the same poor luck as the elite scientists? how about the below average scientists?
No one listens to them because they aren't elite. And I decide which ones are elite so the rest of the world doesn't have to sift through all the other nonsense.
One of the most fascinating examples of the 'nature vs nurture' debate was the case of the boy that was raised as a girl that I learned about in a PSYCH class. There was an 'accident' (ouch) during the circumcision, so the parents tried to raise the boy as a girl, dressing him that way, and exposing him to behavior commonly associated with females. Eventually, he started asking his parents why he did not like the same things or have the same tendencies as all of his girl-friends. His parents eventually told him the truth (when he was in his teens, I believe). If I remember correctly, the dude eventually began living life as a male (he could not overcome his nature) with what I guess are the miniscule remains of a penis. It's been 5 years since I took that class, but I'm reasonably certain the jist of it is accurate.
I read of a situation where the doctor was looking to do an experiment so he lied to the parents - saying that the testicles and penis were cancerous and had to be removed. The same exact thing happened as in your example.
