[playa_playa]

This horse-trodden topic has reared its face on so many different media that finding such subject here on this board for the first time seems astonishing.

The arguments, the prejudices and the bigotry that abound are all interchangeable in every single one of these discussions. In fact, they are so tediously congruent that reading them serves as a definition of a deja vu.

What I will say is this: the arguments really break down into a few parts -

1)Is the primary purpose of sex an attainment of pleasure?

2)Is homosexuality genetic (hence the_natural_argument)?

3)If, in fact, it is, does it mean predestination with an unavoidable pattern of behavior? Or does it mean that an individual is simply predisposed to incline towards this pattern of behavior?

You might think that argument 1 is sort of out of place. But actually, it is relevant in the sense that if homosexuality is genetic, but that genetic component would only mean a predisposition, one would still have a choice to determine a behavioral pattern. That is, just because a man is *inclined* to like men does not mean he has to have sex with men. If the man believes that the primary purpose of sex is not the attainment of pleasure, he would most likely be able to suppress his pleasure in lieu of a purpose he would deem more significant (procreation, for example).

But if the dictates of our genetic makeup absolutely forces someone to be gay, then argument 1 would have no bearing on the matter; as having different-sex relationship would be so taboo to the person who is gay. If this homosexual person were to have sex with a partner of the opposite gender, his/her body would literally shut down - disabling intercourse to take place.

What I find disturbing (and shamelessly intriguing at the same time) is that right now, it's trendy for girls to be bisexual. As a matter of fact, some guys are quite turned on by such a tendency. Now, this sort of perversion would definitely muddy the issue of gay genetics as at least some gay/biseuxal people are having these relationships strictly out of pleasure. If this is so, then homosexuality, at least for these types of people, would be a predisposition - in other words, something that could be controlled rationally.

You know what? There are other types of predispositions. Alcoholism, drug abuse and other forms of common addiction are also determined in the genetic code. Some people are more prone to be addicted to things, while some people are not.

Now, does this mean that those people who are more prone to addiction be given an automatic understanding and sympathy should they destroy their lives in general? Sure, they were on the short end of the stick with that troublesome genetic makeup, but they still had a choice as to remain sober or to go on with their destructive lifestyles.

What I'm trying to say is, it seems that everyone nowdays are blaming genetics for everything that might go awry from the norm of the society. Most homosexuals would have no problem adhering to the belief that this is, in fact, solid truth. But I clearly see an inherent problem with a society where, biology is treated as the sole culprit of a deviant (don't misinterpret this word; I don't mean this in a criminial context) behavior that clearly violates the things biology wholeheartedly supports and depends on in order to continue the cycle of life.