I had just the opposite experience Jorjor! I was a "tomboy" who hung with all the guys, matter of fact, I found them to be so much more fun as opposed to girls, so I always liked males too, but I was kind of scared of them sexually. But I quickly got over that! But having said that, I always craved deep emotional relationships with females and bonded better with them emotionally. I never fell into that trap that so many women do of male competition. I could have cared less and I figured if any guy was interested in me then he could chase me; not the other way around.
I think sometimes women are jealous of other attractive women and the male attention they get and that causes so many pro...

I had just the opposite experience Jorjor! I was a "tomboy" who hung with all the guys, matter of fact, I found them to be so much more fun as opposed to girls, so I always liked males too, but I was kind of scared of them sexually. But I quickly got over that! But having said that, I always craved deep emotional relationships with females and bonded better with them emotionally. I never fell into that trap that so many women do of male competition. I could have cared less and I figured if any guy was interested in me then he could chase me; not the other way around.
I think sometimes women are jealous of other attractive women and the male attention they get and that causes so many problems with women. Anyway, I know I'm getting off subject, but your friend is so full of crap with his "theory" that it isn't funny.

Socialization is very different from sexual attraction. Often people over compensate. Attraction to girls, yet desire not to become feminine may translate in an exaggerated fear of "cooties." Attraction to men, but a concern about remaining feminine may result in inordinate emphasis on "boy germs."

It would be my educated guess that the biological mechanisms of sexual attraction inherent in our brain structure are active from our inception, but that we don't have the hormones yet to connect those with a sex drive, hence this confusion among kids. Once the hormones kick in, kissing girls or boys goes from being icky to the only thing we want to do. Eventually, attraction to girls becomes an...

Socialization is very different from sexual attraction. Often people over compensate. Attraction to girls, yet desire not to become feminine may translate in an exaggerated fear of "cooties." Attraction to men, but a concern about remaining feminine may result in inordinate emphasis on "boy germs."

It would be my educated guess that the biological mechanisms of sexual attraction inherent in our brain structure are active from our inception, but that we don't have the hormones yet to connect those with a sex drive, hence this confusion among kids. Once the hormones kick in, kissing girls or boys goes from being icky to the only thing we want to do. Eventually, attraction to girls becomes an important symbol of manliness, and is exaggerated to nearly predatory levels (think Borat) thus alienating women, and resulting in further homo-socialization.

But that's just conjecture.

While I'm at it, here's some more conjecture: all these ideas of "homosexual phases" is also fake. It is predicated on the idea that the world exists of straight people who are completely heterosexual, and gay people who are completely homosexual, and maybe bisexuals who are both homosexual and heterosexual at the same time.

However this dichotomy only makes sense if we interpret sexual identity as merely being the summation of ones sex acts. This is a position held by many evangelical Christians. (For instance, Ted Haggard appears to believe he is not gay any time that he is not physically engaged having sex with another man.) This is a ridiculously superficial understanding of an issue th...

While I'm at it, here's some more conjecture: all these ideas of "homosexual phases" is also fake. It is predicated on the idea that the world exists of straight people who are completely heterosexual, and gay people who are completely homosexual, and maybe bisexuals who are both homosexual and heterosexual at the same time.

However this dichotomy only makes sense if we interpret sexual identity as merely being the summation of ones sex acts. This is a position held by many evangelical Christians. (For instance, Ted Haggard appears to believe he is not gay any time that he is not physically engaged having sex with another man.) This is a ridiculously superficial understanding of an issue that is clearly much deeper. I would suggest that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are ideals, points, mental constructions of perfection.

They exist only as mental and linguistic reference points, they cannot be embodied by complex biological entities in the real world. Each person has a unique genetic code, unique brain architecture, unique physiology, and unique life story. All these factors may well influence sexual identity. Although our lifestyles generally fall into one of these three categories, our actual orientation that leads us to chose the life style we live is infinitely more complex.

Thus, although our orientation may (or may not be) biologically fixed, we will go through different phases as we try to discover what exactly that orientation is.

It is important that we not confuse the quest for identity with a change in fundamental character. Although a caterpillar changes into a butterfly, they are still the same insect, not a simply a (hetero?) worm going through a "butterfly phase."

Actually, what I'm trying to do is supplant the entire nature v. nurture debate altogether. We are what we are, and that forms a single continuous entity. I was a student once, now I'm a teacher, but I'm still in the classroom.

I know that a lot of the queer movement has invested itself in the "we were born this way" argument, reasoning that if it can't be helped they can't be blamed. Perhaps they also do this in a reaction against the Christian attempts to"cure" them.

I think this is extremely dangerous to follow this line of reasoning. Homosexuality should not be accepted on the basis that it can't be stopped. If that's the case, I would imagine we'll start having "queerectomy" procedure...

Actually, what I'm trying to do is supplant the entire nature v. nurture debate altogether. We are what we are, and that forms a single continuous entity. I was a student once, now I'm a teacher, but I'm still in the classroom.

I know that a lot of the queer movement has invested itself in the "we were born this way" argument, reasoning that if it can't be helped they can't be blamed. Perhaps they also do this in a reaction against the Christian attempts to"cure" them.

I think this is extremely dangerous to follow this line of reasoning. Homosexuality should not be accepted on the basis that it can't be stopped. If that's the case, I would imagine we'll start having "queerectomy" procedures to cut the queer part out, and pretty soon they won't just do it to just gays, but those suspected of being gay, like Republican senators, or everyone, just to be safe.

Homosexuality should be excepted not because it is inevitable, but because it is the right of every American. Homosexuality may be a sin for some Christians, but that is not the basis for US law. It is not like bestiality or statutory rape, because both of those include non-consenting parties. Sexual relations between any two consenting adults have no reason to be regulated by the government.

On the same note, I think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. In so far as marriage is a religious ceremony, our government has no right to sanction it. I oppose a gay marriage amendment on the grounds that the government shouldn't be telling churches who they can and can't marry.

On the other hand, I believe that the government should issue civil partnership certificates for legal purposes, and that those should be issued to any consenting adults who want to abide by them. I believe that this is the only constitutional solution to the problem.

And if it was up to the Catholic Church OW? Official church doctrine based on the uptight Saint Augustine (look it up):
babies are born with original sin--because they are products of sexual intercourse--and must be baptized soon after birth to cleanse their souls. Otherwise the merciless God of Augustine would send unbaptized babies who die, too innocent to commit their own sins, straight to Limbo, never to see God. And of Mary's miraculous, sex-free conception, Catholics still sing the hymn" "O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us." (Dammit Ow, I now an earworm)
For Catholics, abstaining from sex altogether is the surest way to Heaven. For those who can't exercise that much self-c...

And if it was up to the Catholic Church OW? Official church doctrine based on the uptight Saint Augustine (look it up):
babies are born with original sin--because they are products of sexual intercourse--and must be baptized soon after birth to cleanse their souls. Otherwise the merciless God of Augustine would send unbaptized babies who die, too innocent to commit their own sins, straight to Limbo, never to see God. And of Mary's miraculous, sex-free conception, Catholics still sing the hymn" "O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us." (Dammit Ow, I now an earworm)
For Catholics, abstaining from sex altogether is the surest way to Heaven. For those who can't exercise that much self-control, marriage is provided as the only acceptable form of sexual release. But, even within marriage, there are limits. Again, intercourse is allowed only within marriage, and there are limits. Intercourse is allowed only for procreation and only within moderation. Pope John Paul II, echoing St. Thomas Aquinas, even suggested that a man who made love to his wife too often could be labeled an adulterer.
So, I pose this question to you OW, is homosexual sex just as bad as heterosexual sex in the Church's eyes? It must be or Jesus would not be the product of the immaculate conception would he? But then, what do I know? Just food for thought

“Give me chastity and continence — but not yet.”

— Saint Augustine

Isn't it interesting that moralizers all the way from Augustine to Laura Schlessinger claim the right to have their fun, get remorse ,then spend the rest of their lives telling others not to do as they did. I much prefer this attitude:

“...texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the sun does indeed rotate around the earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecu...

“Give me chastity and continence — but not yet.”

— Saint Augustine

Isn't it interesting that moralizers all the way from Augustine to Laura Schlessinger claim the right to have their fun, get remorse ,then spend the rest of their lives telling others not to do as they did. I much prefer this attitude:

“...texts from the source we call Holy Scripture have been used in the past to defend the divine right of kings and to oppose the Magna Carta; to condemn Galileo and to assert that the sun does indeed rotate around the earth; to justify slavery, segregation and apartheid; to keep women from being educated, entering the professions, voting or being ordained; to justify war, to persecute and kill Jews; to condemn other world religions; and to continue the oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian people.”

— Bishop John Shelby Spong

I used to live in Chicago, and went to a Second City holiday show in which they did a routine about Joseph and a very pregnant Mary going to a marriage counselor. Here's the bit I like:

Joseph: Rabbi, (lowers voice) the child - it isn't mine.

Rabbi: So, Mary, who is the father of your baby?

Mary: It's the Man upstairs.

Joseph: (jumping up) What? You slept with the landlord?

Yes, I call it a holiday show, because the sketches included Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year's jokes, too.