Fantt said:
I don't think there's ever been any conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuality is a genetic trait.
I posted in this thread an explanation about that. DNA can have an influence, but through hormonal levels. Homosexuality is due to a lack of male hormones (for men) or an excess of it (for women) during the period of pregancy when the barin was formed. Few are the cases like Kami-sama cited with the gang-rape when someone changes sexual orientation after birth (because of a trauma against one sex).
For some reasons, I feel it is easier for (beautiful) women to become bisexuals (even just kissing or caressing other female friends) because women have easier to create deep emotional contacts, are warmer and more seductive. That is just my impression based on my observations though.
Fantt said:
Other examples of victimless "crimes" that Moral Conservatives want to stop:
"Vitimless" crime, as you call it, is usually referred to as "offence". I suppose that Amercian people also make this distinction. For example, riding without seatbelt, speeding, foreigners overstaying their visas, etc. are all offences and not crimes. The difference is that punishments are much milder for offences and almost always limited to a fine, and no emprisonment (or execution), justly because their was no victim.
These laws are generally intened to protect people against themselves. Forcing motorcyclist to wear a helmet is for their own safety, and the law exist because many people are not responsible enough to do it otherwise. Same for setting a legal age for alcohol and driving, banning dangerous drugs, etc.
Visas and tax laws are a bit different as they aren't really protecting anybody, and nor respecting them is plainly defying the government.
In the case of moral laws that conservative want to impose on the whole population, it is yet another category. These laws aren't really protecting people from themselves (where is the risk in buying pornography or sex tools, or being gay and getting married ?). These are subjective values based on a particular religion and shouldn't be imposed on the whole population. Otherwise they become breach of liberties, and the government turns into an authoritarian one that care more for its self-satisfaction than for the good of its people.
This said, if people who strongly believe that all these sex-realted issues are immoral by their standards, they are still free not to do them. But if it becomes illegal, the rest of the population won't be free to do them anymore, because of a some people's selfishness.
Fantt said:
Kami, at any moment I can choose to be homosexual or not. I decide for myself what I find sexually stimulating at any given time. When we get down to it, an orgasm is an orgasm. Why do people have to be so obsessed with labels?
I don't think you can do that, except if you are borderline gay-straight, and therefore have a high chance of being bisexual. Actually, gayness can be tested with simple questionaires (as in the book
Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps ), because being gay just mean having a brain like the other sex. So if you are a man but think and feel like a woman (good at fashion, good at listening to people's problems, more emotional than logical, poor sense of directions, etc.), you are surely gay. And it's not something you can change.