Yep, neither do I have any problem. The purpose of asking this question I think is to detach any prejudice because evolution implies genetics and thus a lack of control over said orientation.

The problem with this though is people with more conservative views think that by looking for (and finding?) biological reasons we can "cure" (not my words) homosexuality so it is an incredibly dangerous subject to get involved.

I think that implying homosexuality is a "choice" is a worse alternative. For it can lead people to "punish" homosexuals, beyond trying to "cure" them (one can choose to try cocaine, and people will try to "cure" him anyway, won't they?).

@Rodrigo - You are advocating a position (in spite of contrary evidence) on the basis that society cannot be trusted with science, and needs to be lied to. If you cannot make the case without corrupting science and public education, you need to refine your position.

@CarlSmith 1st, you are confusing "absence of evidence" with "evidence of absence". 2nd, who said there are no evidences? There's lots of evidences from genetics and, mostly, epigenetic, inside biology, and also from anthropology, outside of it. Not to mention the most obvious point: why would so many people (about 10%) CHOOSE to suffer so much in any monotheistic, dogmatic and prejudiced society? In the most extreme case, homosexuality is nothing but a border case of our natural bisexual nature (since you live in one of such societies - and one of the worst - you'll find it hard to believe).

@Rodrigo - The contrary evidence is the point of the entire discussion - basically, Darwinism. I would invite you to a chat (as I genuinely want to understand), but your racist comment about my society (England) put me right off.

@CarlSmith It wasn't racist. That's a fact. Homosexuality was a crime in England up to 1967. Your country did invade India, and in the next year homosexuality was a crime there too. Rock is a music of protest, and there's a reason why the best rock came from England. Your people treated (and still treat) other peoples as inferior (a lot based on race, yes), and you are calling ME racist? Laughable! About Darwinism, your understanding of it is so shallow that you'll probably say that it can't explain social insects giving up on reproduction, too?

Calling English society "one of the worst" is obviously racist. It's a completely unqualified, general, derogatory statement about an entire country.

Homosexuality was a widely seen as a crime back in the day. People overwhelmingly wanted it that way. The English changed their view, and abolished sodomy laws half a century ago. There are many places in the world where it is still illegal. How does that make us "one of the worst" societies?

As for the statement that my "country did invade India, and in the next year homosexuality was a crime there too", I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. The British never invaded India. The East India Company established British control over India through wars that were fought (in alliance with local rulers) against other European empires (like the Spanish and French) who got there long before we did.

There are many folk in India who maintain shrines devoted to the British Royal Family, with pictures of the Queen Mother and Princess Diana et cetera. They do it out of gratitude and respect for the British Raj, which is still widely considered to be the greatest raj in Indian history - the raj that modernized India, and put it on the path to become a world power. It was far from perfect, but the British Empire was the most benevolent empire in history, and the world is far more civilized today because of the legacy of Great Britain.

this is way off-topic - if you wish to discuss this please move it to a private chat.

@rg255 - You're right. Sorry. I did consider doing that early on, but was worried it wouldn't go well. Obviously, continuing the same conversation here was no better. I'm just tired of my nationality and race being spat on. It implies that my family are legitimate targets for bigotry.

@CarlSmith Every country has a corrupt elite that sells their country cheap to colonizers. This doesn't mean at all that the colonization is a good thing. If colonization was good, Gandhi would have no meaning in history. Though that's why so many white (and even a few black) people try so hard to destroy his image. And I meant one of the worst so-called "Christian" societies. Now, if you really think UK is so good, then tell us which other European country still criminalized homosexuality after 1967?

European countries that decriminalized homosexuality after 1967 (when England and Wales decriminalized it): Bulgaria, East Germany, Austria, Finland, Norway, Spain, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ireland, Lithuania, Russia, Serbia, Albania, Moldova, Romania, Macedonia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Cyprus. Also, it was 1967, most people that supported, made and enforced those laws are probably long dead, There's plenty more recent events you could use to make the brits look bad (trust me, I am a brit). On gay-rights, we have been relatively good..

@rg255 Thanks for the information and for admitting the obvious. So the problem is indeed with Christianity and Islam. And Europe as a whole is even worse than I already thought. In Brazil -- this "primitive" and "brutish" country -- sodomy laws were repelled in 1830. France did the same in 1791. So, the conclusion is that England, together with so many other Christian nations, were/are indeed some of the worst. Or maybe Carl Smith will also try to justify the torture and killing of Alan Turing as a good thing...

@Rodrigo you are in Brazil according to your profile: a) Brazil is a Christian nation, b) Brazil currently has a far-right government - does this mean you are a far right Christian? No. Does the British empire of yesteryear and a law that was abolished over 50 years ago mean all Brits are gay-hating imperialists? No.Grow up.

Neither Carl nor I need to apologise for the history of others. I don't know about Carl, but I was born long after the events. While I don't like the way things were and what happened, I am no more responsible for them than you.