It still amazes me that when you describe homosexuality as a medical condition of some sort akin to having a disease, people will get all aggressive and up-in-arms. When I make this classification, I say this with full understanding of what scientific findings suggest. There is no value judgment in understanding the sheer scientific relevance of homosexuality and what it means -- science is 100% value-free.

Nevertheless, there are definitely homosexuals who fall out of this neurobiological condition. Some homosexuals become gay due to traumatic childhood episodes or bad histories with the opposite sex (sometimes both). I've spoken with lesbians who claim to be lesbians because of bad relationships with men and they claim that their gayness was a choice. I've also spoken with gay men who have had traumatic pasts and do not seem to possess any of the effeminate characteristics one would find in a typical homosexual man. This leads me to believe that their gayness stems from feelings of estrangement and an overall negative view of sex in general.

Classifying these particular kinds of homosexuals as practioners of a "lifestyle decision" would certainly be shortsighted. After all, I don't think people like this can become "ungay" no matter how hard they try -- not at least without extensive therapy and counseling. So when we begin to genetically remove homosexuality from the population, which we inevitably will (and as a certified technophobe myself, I see no difference between this and removing bad eyesight or removing a particular hair color), what will become of these wayward, environment-influenced homosexuals?

My point is that gay culture might shift dramatically, and it might even show more devious characteristics than before and fit the stereotypes of fundamentalist Christians even better. But don't expect any easy answers out of this. Keep in mind Kinsey's study of gays that showed that some straight people take on gay tendencies. The debate certainly won't disappear in such a cut-and-dry fashion. It will remain a matter of cultural contentiousness, at least until a definite solution is agreed upon.

A gay male is a male that is attracted only to other males. Not a male that acts effeminate.

Some effeminate males are straight and have strong female partners.

I really can't ever picture Raymond Burr being effeminate.

No one thought George Takay or Rock Hudson were gay until the news broke. Has George suddenly started acting effeminate now that he is out? Not in Heroes at least.

You have a valid point, and I've seen very masculine gays in the closet. And as soon as they come out, very typically the effeminate behavior starts to show. Furthermore, many say "Oh it feels so good to finally be me," suggesting that when they were "in the closet" they were repressing their own effeminate behavior. I mean, coming out of the closet is a routine thing, is it not? When you meet someone and they don't know you're gay, you typically have to "come out of the closet" to them if you're going to have a discussion on sexuality. So it makes a lot of sense that the official act of "coming out" would be to embrace one's effeminate tendencies as opposed to keep them locked away. It seems as though that very act is the essence of what "coming out" is all about.

And of course not all biological gays are effeminate, but do you at least understand my point?

It seems more absurd to say "they're all naturally born that way!" almost as a dogmatic warcry and classify gays with a blanket generalization rather than understand that there is plenty of grey matter on the issue.