Great. More ammunition.

And...why the picture of Dick Cheney?

Interesting.

It's really not. There are many documented cases of drastic personality changes occurring after a brain change, such as a stroke (or injury).

Unless you were saying it is ammunition for a biological basis? Then, yes, it shows that there is something (as yet unclear) in the brain makeup that affects sexuality: it is not a "choice." Just like the personality you have is not your choice (but is in some ways affected by your environment).

Great! Now some loony will decide it is reversible, or curable, or whatever!.
See? Just cause them to have a stroke!


Not really sure about the Dick Cheney pic either, unless 2many wants him to have a stroke.
He has a gay daughter and supports gay marriage.

A stroke that switches sexuality? I think Icepigs tried that move on me a few times.

The pic of cheney came up when searching for stroke victim, just threw it up because I figured people would either be amused or confused.

The scariest part of this is what Bingo said, namely that someone will look at homosexuality as a disorder or someway "curable". They will advocate for surgery duplicating the effects even on children. It could be very bad.

Then again, the people better read the entire article where his homosexuality reasserted itself a few years afterward.

I also wonder if it works the opposite way. Is there a case where a heterosexual found him/herself sexually attracted to the same gender after a stroke or other brain injury.

You must have read it wrong. The article says:

"His sexual orientation remained heterosexual 4 years following the second stroke, and he preferred to describe himself as bisexual because of his previous homosexual orientation."

I interpreted that to mean that his orientation remained heterosexual for 4 years, after which he reverted back to being homosexual and that he described himself as bisexual during those 4 years.

Conguera is right: It probably means after 4 years,(at the time the study was done) he was still attracted to women rather than men.

There's no implication that he reverted back to homosexuality. They're saying that at the time the paper was written, four years after the second stroke, the patient was still attracted to women. He only described himself as bisexual because of his previous homosexual orientation.

How unfair is it. Mother nature made people gay, and then messed them up by making it biologically impossible for that couple to reproduce.

Shouldn't evolution taken care of the homosexuality gene? How can a species survive when it creates in itself a reproductive impossibility.

Now, of course I'll be blasted as a close-minded bigot with out-dated ideologies and whatnot. That's OK, as long as you keep an open mind....

It is not bigotry to believe that someone has a genetic tendency toward homosexuality, and yet still believe it is wrong; for someone to understand that just because something "feels right" doesn't make it right.

It is also not impossible for someone to have a live-and-let-live mentality, without having to compromise their own values; without being branded a hater for having a different value system.

What is the most ironic, of course, is that my liberal, peace loving friends will turn in to haters when they read this. Righteous anger, no doubt.

(lets see - will this trigger some nice , peaceful explanatory responses to enlighten me or hateful liberal venom.... let the carnage begin....)

Fortunately, the rest of a species reproduces sufficiently without these genetic contributors. So, to answer: A species can survive by having a lot of genetic options.

For an animal comparison: Special hybrids, such as mules. A female horse plus a male donkey equals a generally sterile animal. And yet we have mules.

...I thought of something else. You said
That's a lot like believing God made people black, but that being black is a bad thing (and should be controlled by the 'wiser' whites). Which isn't just philosophy; that's how some people felt historically. Can you see the parallels?

It could be a recessive gene you know. Or a combination of different genes.

It sounds like you believe that lefty liberal pinkos are out to get you.

What about those who don't believe that there is anything wrong with it? I'm sure people like who you are saying exist, but there are also people who aren't like what you are saying.

If you want to live and let live, then why would you interfere with people instead of letting them choose for themselves? If you believe in live and let live, then you must first prove the harmfulness of something to the public safety before you can ban it. You can't just go around banning things just because you think its somehow wrong. You need evidence that its your business in the first place, and that its harmful, and you don't seem to be providing any of this.

So if anyone disagrees with you, that makes them haters?

Plime doesn't let me add my comment :(

I have to assume that you aren't a religious person. Otherwise, you would probably say that God created human genes, and therefore He created homosexuals. Because if you do believe that God created genes, then you're saying that what God created is "wrong".

If you aren't a religious person, according to which set of principles, ethics and morality is it wrong?

If I can make my girlfriend have a stroke, will that make her stop cheating on me so much?

You probably just need to stroke her more.

Probably.

You might change her sexuality, but you're more likely to leave her paralysed on the left side of her face/body. Which will make it so much harder to cheat!

Woah! So you're saying she'll stop cheating and be hotter by fulfilling my freak zombie sex fantasy? What's not to like?!

Am I the only one who laughed when the article said he started COMPLAINING that he was attracted to women.