Print
God's cure for gays lost in sin
by SMH
Thanks to Gordon Wong for the link.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bspecial-investigationb-gods-cure-for-gays-lost-in-sin/2008/03/18/1205602385236.html
God's cure for gays lost in sin
Former residents say separation contracts, a ban on physical contact and teachings by an 'ex-gay' are part of Mercy Ministry's attempts to stamp out lesbianism in its flock, reports Ruth Pollard.
WHEN Mercy Ministries says it helps young women with "life-controlling issues", it means in part that it aims to teach them not to be lesbians.
In line with the Hillsong Church's strict doctrines teaching that homosexuality is an affliction that can be cured, Mercy Ministries is keen to ensure there is no lesbianism under its roof. It issues "separation contracts" to young women who make friends with each other and prevents any form of physical contact between residents.
"While I was there, we received much teaching on the evils of gay and lesbian lifestyles," said Naomi Johnson, who spent nine months in the ministry's Sydney house.
As someone with no issues about her sexuality, she was perplexed by the ministry's continuing focus on the issue.
"In particular, there was an ongoing teaching video series by Sy Rogers an 'ex-gay' - now reformed - married Christian," she said.
Rogers - an American who conducts speaking tours on Christianity and sexuality- spoke at Hillsong Church's Sense and Sexuality Workshop in Sydney last September and is due to address its Colour Your World Conference next year.
"Sy will bless you with his insights into identity and the heart," the Hillsong website says.
"Happily, homosexuality can be turned around," Mr Rogers says in a clip of his show, Turnaround, on youtube.com. "Homosexuality is out of tune with religion; it is not what God planned for human sexuality."
On its application form, Mercy Ministries used to ask young women if they had been involved in lesbianism, next to the question on whether they had been involved in prostitution. They changed that in 2006 to ask "have you ever been involved in any form of same-sex relationships?".
Another former resident, who did not wish to be identified, said: "Girls were asked on the application form, as well as in a telephone interview, if they have ever had lesbian or bisexual relationships. They asked if I had
been involved in drug abuse, witchcraft, or lesbianism. They bunched them in together like that."
In the house, residents were prevented from having any form of physical contact - no comforting hugs, no shoulder to cry on - and even though there were three young women to each bedroom, they were not allowed to change clothes if another person was in the room, she said.
Mercy Ministries denies it runs an "ex-gay" program, and Hillsong has stopped running its "ex-gay" program, called Living Waters, although both organisations remain staunchly conservative - anti-abortion and anti-gay.
The Herald asked Hillsong to explain its teachings on homosexuality. No response had been received last night.
One former member of Hillsong, who held several "leadership positions" in the church, revealed that he was shunned when he disclosed his homosexuality.
"The ostracising that occurred by fellow worshippers was severe," said the man, who asked not to be identified. "As soon as I came out my entire social network decided the best way to deal with the situation was to stop all communication with me.
"The only hope I had was my family and friends who were extremely supportive as they were not Hillsong members."
Hillsong Church taught that the devil inspired people to act on homosexual desires, he said.
"Hillsong believes that homosexuality is not normal and not a part of God's design for mankind - their belief is that it should be fixed and it's something that can be removed from someone's life."
One option presented to the man was to force himself into a heterosexual relationship. In the meantime, he was removed from his leadership role in the church and isolated.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bspecial-investigationb-gods-cure-for-gays-lost-in-sin/2008/03/18/1205602385236.html
God's cure for gays lost in sin
Former residents say separation contracts, a ban on physical contact and teachings by an 'ex-gay' are part of Mercy Ministry's attempts to stamp out lesbianism in its flock, reports Ruth Pollard.
WHEN Mercy Ministries says it helps young women with "life-controlling issues", it means in part that it aims to teach them not to be lesbians.
In line with the Hillsong Church's strict doctrines teaching that homosexuality is an affliction that can be cured, Mercy Ministries is keen to ensure there is no lesbianism under its roof. It issues "separation contracts" to young women who make friends with each other and prevents any form of physical contact between residents.
"While I was there, we received much teaching on the evils of gay and lesbian lifestyles," said Naomi Johnson, who spent nine months in the ministry's Sydney house.
As someone with no issues about her sexuality, she was perplexed by the ministry's continuing focus on the issue.
"In particular, there was an ongoing teaching video series by Sy Rogers an 'ex-gay' - now reformed - married Christian," she said.
Rogers - an American who conducts speaking tours on Christianity and sexuality- spoke at Hillsong Church's Sense and Sexuality Workshop in Sydney last September and is due to address its Colour Your World Conference next year.
"Sy will bless you with his insights into identity and the heart," the Hillsong website says.
"Happily, homosexuality can be turned around," Mr Rogers says in a clip of his show, Turnaround, on youtube.com. "Homosexuality is out of tune with religion; it is not what God planned for human sexuality."
On its application form, Mercy Ministries used to ask young women if they had been involved in lesbianism, next to the question on whether they had been involved in prostitution. They changed that in 2006 to ask "have you ever been involved in any form of same-sex relationships?".
Another former resident, who did not wish to be identified, said: "Girls were asked on the application form, as well as in a telephone interview, if they have ever had lesbian or bisexual relationships. They asked if I had
been involved in drug abuse, witchcraft, or lesbianism. They bunched them in together like that."
In the house, residents were prevented from having any form of physical contact - no comforting hugs, no shoulder to cry on - and even though there were three young women to each bedroom, they were not allowed to change clothes if another person was in the room, she said.
Mercy Ministries denies it runs an "ex-gay" program, and Hillsong has stopped running its "ex-gay" program, called Living Waters, although both organisations remain staunchly conservative - anti-abortion and anti-gay.
The Herald asked Hillsong to explain its teachings on homosexuality. No response had been received last night.
One former member of Hillsong, who held several "leadership positions" in the church, revealed that he was shunned when he disclosed his homosexuality.
"The ostracising that occurred by fellow worshippers was severe," said the man, who asked not to be identified. "As soon as I came out my entire social network decided the best way to deal with the situation was to stop all communication with me.
"The only hope I had was my family and friends who were extremely supportive as they were not Hillsong members."
Hillsong Church taught that the devil inspired people to act on homosexual desires, he said.
"Hillsong believes that homosexuality is not normal and not a part of God's design for mankind - their belief is that it should be fixed and it's something that can be removed from someone's life."
One option presented to the man was to force himself into a heterosexual relationship. In the meantime, he was removed from his leadership role in the church and isolated.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | PermalinkComments 251 - 272 of 272 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers252. Comment #147452 by Richard Morgan on March 20, 2008 at 1:01 pm
CALLING ALL SOCKTARDS!!!!Music Update : The Sock on the Stair Reel.
(as requested) : Standalone Player - N°1
http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
253. Comment #147468 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I don't see why it matters whether homosexuality is normal or a choice. It's usually a choice to have kids but that doesn't make it wrong not to. It's not normal to live in a pink house or marry someone 400 lbs overweight, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't.I also don't see what good "love the sinner, hate the sin" is for gays. Surely, it's important to feel that others approve of a major part of your personality. As far as gay rights go, restricting their freedom due to either hatred or mere disapproval makes no difference. Either way, someone's freedom is taken away.
I think we ought to just abolish the marriage license.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
254. Comment #147471 by Madmaili on March 20, 2008 at 2:26 pm
The concept of marriage is pretty worthless, in anthropology it's defined as a relationship between two or more people where it is socially recognized that they have a monopoly on sexual acess.
Am I the only one who doesn't care how society views my relationships with other people ?
Other Comments by Madmaili
255. Comment #147508 by Mitchell Gilks on March 20, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I agree , It's probably like all sexual perferances learned. I like girls with dark hair and petite bodies ,I dobut i'am biologcally predisposed to liking them. I do think it's intresting that all the WIKI on gay animals included only mamals .......
I don't like blondes either, I also like dark hair. Not to insult any blondes out there, and I could look past it if they were hot enough. I also prefer dark hair. I find smaller girls, in the low to mid five foot range to have the best natural builds, that require the least amount of maintainance, but I've seen some really hot taller women that obviously put a lot of work into it.
The concept of marriage is pretty worthless, in anthropology it's defined as a relationship between two or more people where it is socially recognized that they have a monopoly on sexual acess.
Am I the only one who doesn't care how society views my relationships with other people ?
I also don't find the concept of marriage to be important. I also fear commitment, and it is a lot harder to get out of a marriage than it is just a normal relationship.
Though, if the right person pushed me hard enough, I might cave, and agree to a secular wedding.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
256. Comment #147514 by Gordy on March 20, 2008 at 7:36 pm
AtheistAspy >I agree, it shouldn't matter whether homosexuality is normal or not (and even if it did matter, given that at least 5-10% of people are gay, it is normal as far as I'm concerned). But I do think there is a dangerous misconception that homosexuality is a choice. It may be for some, but most gay people I know just always knew that they were gay. They didn't choose it any more than I "chose" to be heterosexual.
The reason I wrote what I wrote yesterday was to try and demonstrate that at least one of the developmental events that can predispose an individual to homosexuality occurs before birth. This can hardly be considered a choice!
Unfortunately, I got so caught up in the explanation, I forgot to relate it back to the topic... What I wanted to say was that the idea of trying to "cure" homosexuality makes about as much sense as trying to "cure" a giraffe of having a long neck.
Other Comments by Gordy
257. Comment #147520 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Gordy,it shouldn't matter whether homosexuality is normal or not (and even if it did matter, given that at least 5-10% of people are gay, it is normal as far as I'm concerned). But I do think there is a dangerous misconception that homosexuality is a choice..
I cheer the first sentence but I am disappointed in what follows.
Why is it a dangerous misconception? A misconception may be, but why dangerous? The implication is that somehow homosexuality becomes more excusable if it is not a choice.
It shouldn't matter one bit whether homosexuality is by choice. It may very well not be, but so what if it is?
If homosexuality is undesirable then it is undesirable whether it is choice or born."Blaming it on the genes",--or mom's hormonal level when she is pregnant with you,-- is hardly very empowering because the haters can still say it is a born disorder which needs interventions. Fetal alcohol syndrome is not a choice either, If you tell them a "cure" is not possible they can still insist that homosexuals need ongoing therapy or something to manage the "disease".
If it is not undesirable why do we feel compelled to insist to others that we don't become gay by choice as if we have fetal alcohol syndrome and ask for sympathy? You don't need sympathy and understanding unless you think you are somehow having problems for reasons out of your control,
Do I hear people insisting that they like garlic because they were born that way so they can't help it? Maybe they were, maybe they were not but no one would care because no one thinks it is a problem to crave garlic.
I am gay but I don't feel there is anything wrong that I have to look for excuses. I have nothing to explain or apologize for.
Other Comments by Bonzai
258. Comment #147527 by Gordy on March 20, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Bonzai >Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that choice had anything to do with whether or not homosexuality should be considered good or bad. I think it's a dangerous misconception because choices can be made and unmade. The idea that homosexuality is a choice that can somehow be reversed underpins what the Mercy Ministries and others like them are trying to do. Dispelling this myth would make it harder for them to justify what they're doing.
That's all I was trying to say. I'm very sorry if I offended you - I certainly didn't mean to.
Other Comments by Gordy
259. Comment #147535 by Bonzai on March 20, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I'm very sorry if I offended you - I certainly didn't mean to
No, I wasn't offended, I was just making a general point, I might come across angry because it is the internet and sometimes it is difficult to discern people's mood, especially when the writer doesn't communicate very well. I was not angry or offended, I was just a bit annoyed but not by you personally. The "we don't choose to be gay" plead is commonly made by gays themselves so we have nobody else to blame if we come across as pathetic,
Well even if homosexuality cannot be unmade,--like fetal alcohol syndrome,--there will still be efforts from idiots who would tell you to "manage" your "condition" with prayers and perhaps chemicals. I just don't think "we were born this way and cannot be changed" is a very compelling argument for gay rights. Whether we could change or not is besides the point. Why should we in the first place if we don't think there is anything wrong with it?
Other Comments by Bonzai
260. Comment #147547 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Gordy:I tend to agree that homosexuality isn't a choice.
I just don't think it matters either way.
al-rawandi:
There was a young man who came out about this. He said his parents (Mormons) arranged for him to go, all it did was increase his shame and contributed to his psychological deterioration.
There's a group for gay Mormons, believe it or not. Their website is here: http://www.affirmation.org/
I'm just wondering, but how many of you would approve of those with severe and moderate learning disabilities having children (e.g., Down Syndrome, autism, Asperger's, ADHD, etc.)?
I don't know about you, but I wholeheartedly approve of it.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
261. Comment #147566 by dlitt on March 20, 2008 at 10:29 pm
So, I'm to understand that if I told them I was gay, they would force me into a heterosexual relationship. Sounds inviting. :-) Other Comments by dlitt
262. Comment #147568 by dlitt on March 20, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Comment #146590 by Pathfinder on March 19, 2008 at 7:59 amSince we are all animals I can agree with the lack of 'celestial help' statement.
[edit] ...and you can say what you like about other species exhibiting same-sex sexual proclivities but animals do not have CELESTIAL HELP, or awareness of the divine.
Other Comments by dlitt
263. Comment #147572 by Gordy on March 20, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Bonzai >
"like fetal alcohol syndrome" !?
You're not exactly doing yourself any favours with that analogy! Some people might see it like that, but personally I don't think homosexuality should be compared to a disease or dysfunction, and I'm sure you don't either. Can I suggest left-handedness as a better analogy? It's relatively infrequent but common enough to be considered normal and it doesn't cause any ill effects...
"Whether we could change or not is besides the point. Why should we in the first place if we don't think there is anything wrong with it?"
I agree entirely. Sorry if I didn't make that clear earlier.
Other Comments by Gordy
264. Comment #147573 by dlitt on March 20, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Comment #147572 by Gordy on March 20, 2008 at 10:47 pmI had a CVA (stroke) 17 years ago, that affected the coordination of my right arm. Since I was a lefty all my life, it wasn't much of a loss. Since strokes involving the cerebellum tend to affect the right side of the body, then left-handedness is advantageous.
Bonzai >
[edit]Can I suggest left-handedness as a better analogy? It's relatively infrequent but common enough to be considered normal and it doesn't cause any ill effects...
Other Comments by dlitt
265. Comment #147578 by AtheistAspy on March 20, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I notice a lot of posters condemn inflammatory use of the word "gay" (e.g., "that stupid movie's so gay") but use words like "retard," "sped," or "short bus." Why is wrong to use the word "gay," but okay to use words like "retard"? Other Comments by AtheistAspy
266. Comment #147580 by dlitt on March 20, 2008 at 11:22 pm
When I was a kid 'gay' was 'happy.'I suppose it depends on the context - 'Retard' sounds derogatory, whereas 'retarded' does not.
Other Comments by dlitt
267. Comment #147626 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 2:58 am
GordyYou're not exactly doing yourself any favours with that analogy! Some people might see it like that, but personally I don't think homosexuality should be compared to a disease or dysfunction, and I'm sure you don't either. Can I suggest left-handedness as a better analogy? It's relatively infrequent but common enough to be considered normal and it doesn't cause any ill effects..
That was not "my" comparison. The point is for those who have a problem with homosexuals, saying that it is born doesn't make it less problematic. They can still say it is a "condition" like fetal alcohol syndrome which requires treatments. In context that would be the appropriate analogy. because that is what they would think. Left handedness is what you and I might think of.
Secondly, I used fas because you did write in your excellent post that even if gays are born that way it doesn't necessarily imply it is purely genetic, other circumstances associated with birth or pregnancy might be relevant. Left handedness seems too cut and dry genetic.
Other Comments by Bonzai
268. Comment #147660 by Gordy on March 21, 2008 at 4:56 am
Bonzai >Fair enough - I was wondering where that came from, but now I can see what you're getting at.
Incidentally, is left handedness genetic? I didn't know that...
Other Comments by Gordy
269. Comment #147810 by j s bach on March 21, 2008 at 10:05 am
These loonies should invite Ted Haggard along to be cured. Funny, though, he being so close to god, I would have expected an instant conversion to being straight. Other Comments by j s bach
270. Comment #147812 by Bonzai on March 21, 2008 at 10:15 am
These loonies should invite Ted Haggard along to be cured. Funny, though, he being so close to god, I would have expected an instant conversion to being straight.
Ted said he is cured. :)
Other Comments by Bonzai
271. Comment #147833 by Teratornis on March 21, 2008 at 11:50 am
In reply to comment #146787 by mero:
I guess naked women are good, so long as they fall within an my preferred acceptable weight range.
Keep your sizeism to yourself, thanks.
Why is it OK for some people to express their sexual preferences, and not OK for others?
Whether it is OK or not, people in general do not keep their sexual preferences to themselves. Even if PC speech codes manage to suppress some of the verbal expressions, people will still express their preferences through their actions, by subtly or blatantly favoring those they find attractive.
For example, at a typical party gathering, the conventionally attractive people tend to be surrounded by admirers looking to get a word in (or, in some cases, a wood in), while the conventionally unattractive tend to be sitting alone, or with each other.
I can, of course, understand the utility of PC speech codes. Few victims of unpleasant reality like to have yet more reminders of the unpleasant reality they experience each day.
I read a statistic that women spend more money over their lifetimes on their appearance than they spend on their education. I have no idea whether this is true, but it seems plausible, and would make perfect sense in light of sociobiology.
Other Comments by Teratornis
272. Comment #148402 by Cartomancer on March 22, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Blimey, things do move quickly round here. I missed this thread when I logged on yesterday, and now there are six whole pages of it - with my own name being invoked no fewer than four times! I guess any leviticus-based thread is going to be thus for your average boy-loving wannabe warlock!
Well, given the tone of some recent posts I simply have to mention some utterly fantastic three-in-a-bed gay scrabble I played on a rainy weekend a couple of years back with my beloved and his boyfriend. The scores those two managed to get with "dildoes" and "queeniest" on a triple triple are just unreal...
Such a shame there was no actual sex afterwards. That would really have rounded off the evening nicely. Natch.
Anyway, what was it again? Genetic, environmental or cultural causes of homosexual orientation? Well, as a non-specialist I try not to place too much confidence in the conclusions of my idle musings and patchy reading. To be honest it doesn't really matter to me why I turned out this way, though the academic speculation is certainly very interesting. I expect science will eventually get to the heart of the matter, but without lots more studies on which to base our findings I think that our conclusions must necessarily be of only the most tentative character.
Where I think general speculation and discussion are helpful, though, is with regard to how individuals perceive and accommodate their own sexuality - how it becomes a part of their personality and self-definition. Just as important is how it is perceived by society in general.
The nature / nurture debate is shot through with political implications from the history of the gay rights movement. In the seventies there was a conscious decision among the more postmodernistic elements of the campaigning fraternity to alight on the nurture side of the equation for political gain. The reasoning seemed to be that if homosexual orientation was acquired then anyone could theoretically experience it, and thus discrimination against a particular minority for exhibiting it was entirely unfounded - we're all potentially gay, there's no reason why it couldn't be you on the receiving end of the abuse. There but for the grace of god...
Cultural changes ensued throughout the late seventies and eighties. In particular a wider popular understanding of genetics changed the tone of the conversation - we see an increased prominence in public debate of genetic models and concepts, and the acceptance of the idea that our DNA, to a great extent, makes us who we are. I think we can probably thank a certain Professor Dawkins for shifting the zeitgeist to some extent. Those still seeking acceptance for gay people thus gradually turned to the science of genetics for validation - if homosexuality is coded for in the genes then surely it's just as natural as any other kind of behaviour and, more importantly, it can't be avoided. In part this was a reaction to those homophobes who tried to criticise the old postmodernist nurture model - even if the behaviour was learned, they said, it would still be possible to avoid teaching it in the first place. With a genetic basis for homosexuality, such an argument would not stand.
Both positions are positions of political expediency - trying to argue for the same goals from a radically different basis. Both require the science to be a certain way and thus provide a powerful impetus to distort or twist scientific findings. I would like to think that the modern view is a better and less intellectually unsound one - irrespective of the cause the effect is harmless, so let's just give everyone the rights, protections and opportunities they deserve eh?
I must admit that I approach the question from a somewhat involved position, and potentially I could have a lot vested in the answer. I am indeed the gay brother of a straight identical twin (he's dextral, I'm sinistral too if you were wondering) so the importance of placing and explaining this has actually been somewhat crucial to my own self-definition ever since I hit puberty. From a purely subjective perspective I find it hard to think in terms of a spectrum of sexual preferences like Kinsey did - I have never even been able to entertain the notion of heterosexuality in my own life, so people who are a bit curious either way seem altogether quite strange to me. My brother is the same but from a straight perspective, indeed of all the people I know his visceral reaction to the idea of homosexuality is the most negative by far - the binary opposition between us seems profound in this area.
But I know that it is not wise to conflate personal identity issues with a dispassionate pursuit of the underlying scientific truth. I fear that a large number of people who have debated on this topic in the past have probably not been so circumspect. As ever, the assembled RD.net notables seem refreshingly self-aware in this regard.
Oh, and the Mercy Ministries people? Drowning them in a vat of fizzy drink would be letting them off too lightly. Let us hope the rotten heart of their loathesome activities is exposed for all to see and the unfortunates in their care given proper help and support as soon as possible.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."
Mark Twain
Other Recommended Reading
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Kluge
Gary Marcus
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
251. Comment #147450 by Madmaili on March 20, 2008 at 12:58 pm
As I said, I highly doubt that I have a "like anime" gene, and a "hate onion" gene. For one, it just doesn't seem economic, and the other, it seems highly unlikely that such a thing could be so specific.
I think we are predisposed to have sexuality, and the direction it is aimed at, is decided by other factors during developement in the first few years of life.
It doesn't seem likely to be that specifics like that could be easily programmed.
That doesn't mean they are consciousless decided. Only 10% of our actions reach conscious awareness, that doesn't mean that we are genetically predisposed toward the other 90%. It means that we have trained ourselves through experience, and life.
I think that the factors involved in any preference is likely convoluted, and many. Hard, if not impossible to pin down, and likely have huge variance between individuals.
To be clear, I don't think that heterosexuality is genetic either. I think purely sexuality is. Clearly, for whatever reason, 90% of people aim their sexual attraction toward the opposite sex, while 10% aim it toward the same sex."
I agree , It's probably like all sexual perferances learned. I like girls with dark hair and petite bodies ,I dobut i'am biologcally predisposed to liking them. I do think it's intresting that all the WIKI on gay animals included only mamals .......
Other Comments by Madmaili