btw i found an informative website, lot of detail:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/burr2.htm
it seems experiments have been carried out which suggest that homosexuality is partly genetic, anyway if you want you can read it all for yourself, but ive included a section below;
WHEN BIOLOGISTS ARE INTERESTED IN ESTABLISHING whether genetics is involved in the appearance of certain characteristics or conditions, one obvious place to look is among people who are closely related to one another. In "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation," a study that has now achieved almost as much renown as LeVay's, the Northwestern University psychologist Michael Bailey and Boston University's Richard Pillard compared fifty-six "monozygotic" twins (identical twins, from the same zygote, or fertilized egg), fifty-four "dizygotic" (fraternal) twins, and fifty-seven genetically unrelated adopted brothers. Identical twins are important in sexual-orientation research because, of course, they have identical genomes, including the sex-chromosome pair. If homosexuality is largely genetic in origin, then the more closely related that people are, the greater should be the concordance of their sexual orientation.
That is, in fact, what the study found. Bailey and Pillard reported a gay-gay concordance rate of 11 percent for the adoptive brothers, 22 percent for the dizygotic twins, and 52 percent for the monozygotic twins. The findings suggest that homosexuality is highly attributable to genetics -- by some measures up to 70 percent attributable, according to Pillard. This figure is based on something geneticists call "heritability," a painstakingly calculated indicator of how much genes have to do with a given variation among people. If heritability is less than 100 percent, then the characteristic being studied is by definition "multifactorial." Eye color is 100 percent dependent on genetics. Height, on the other hand, though about 90 percent genetic, is also affected by nutrition, and thus is multifactorial.
---
and as for protocol, to clarify, i was simply stating from what i saw, people who said they did not like homosexual behaviour were getting called shallow or unenlightened etc., i simply stated that people have a right to their opinions and if you flame them or ridicule them after they have made their opinion you are unlikely to get others wanting to go against the flow and voice their alternate viewpoint, that to me would result in the sanitation of the board, everyone would have the same view and i cant see how that would be beneificial to anyone, and i cant see from what ive post how i've been hypocritical, i have not ridiculed other people for their viewpoint, nor expressed my viewpoint as the correct one, or the "enlightened" one, in fact i dont think i posted my view, i am willing to listen to everyone and accept what they have to say...
