Yes, kids get called gay their entire life and it means nothing...except for the ones to whom it does mean something. In this case, I think the fault lies with both society and with the people who 'drove' him to it. Remember, I'm speculating here, but it seems reasonable to me - the kid enjoys doing activities that are typically associated with feminine. He gets told all his life how "gay" that is and he doesn't have a father who is supportive of his interests enough. The father has two older boys with the same interests that he has, so he likely neglects the younger child without even intending to. As you say, nearly every boy wonders at some point in his life whether he is gay or not. He's been told that his whole life. The more society tells him that there is nothing wrong with this, the more he's going to just slide into that role. I do understand your question, though, and I haven't answered it. Should he have to live a "depressing lie"? No, I think that people who are homosexual should be allowed to live that way. Unfortunately, society is overly curious. Celebrities auction off the exclusive photo rights for their unborn children for absorbatant dollar amounts. Call it free enterprize, but it's a blight on society, IMO, that there is even a market for something like that. The media makes a bit deal out of it. Why can't homosexuals just live their lives without throwing it into everyone else's faces? Because they media, to a large degree won't let them, any more than it won't let celebrities live normal lives. Some homosexuals want that attention and want people to know and see openly the lifestyles they live and I have little respect for those people. Others want to have the freedom to live their lives without being judged and I do have respect for them. I don't know if I've answered your question, but I also don't know if I can answer your question because it is my believe that, genetic disposition or no, gender is an eternal concept and homosexuality is a concept localized to this life. We could get into a huge religious discussion here, but I'm pretty sure its the wrong forum for that. I believe homosexuality is wrong in the same way I believe smoking is harmful. Just because someone is predisposed to a behavior does not mean that they should embrace that behavior. Perhaps it is a challenge that they have been given to work through. But I don't say that to judge or condemn. That's not my place to do and I don't know the circumstances that led a person to that behavior, so I accept them as a person without accepting their behavior. Now, this is an interesting thing because I have a different perspective. Oversoul - you say that some of the things I've brought up might be interesting as a theological discussion, but insist that this isn't one. I would argue that you cannot discuss these issues without discussing theology. As for the government and separation of church and state, that doesn't mean that law shouldn't take theology into consideration. It frustrates me that they removed the pledge of allegiance from schools because to me, it seems you are establishing a religion of agnostatism. The pledge of allegiance talks about "God" and the founding fathers talk of a "Creator", but I know a lot of people who interpret that as "Nature" (with a capitol 'N') and are okay with it. So, by forcing it's removal...well, that's another discussion and off topic. My point in bringing this up is that laws can be instituted and enforced that are based on religious principles without crossing the line of institutionalized religion. By saying that you cannot even consider your religion when discussing legal issues, you are effectively forcing everyone to take an agnostic stance, which is, IMO, requiring a religion, that of agnostacism. Procreation, and by extrapolation, sex, is, fundimentally, a religious matter in the sense that the power to procreate is creation, which begs the question of how we were originally created, which leads into religious issues. You can quote science all you want, but the science of creation is so complex that you have to wonder how it was able to develop - back to religion (and I still accept agnostacism as religion, so if you choose to believe that a million monkeys would eventually type out Shakespeare, I'll accpept that as reasonable, even if I don't believe the same).