PDA

View Full Version : The Homosexual Theory



HotPancakes
December 2nd, 2008, 10:02 PM
Being new to debating, I hope I have placed this thread in the appropriate category.

To begin,

1. Homosexuality isn't a choice.
2. You are a much better debater than I.
3. I'll do my best to state clear ideas, not large, abstract post containing confusing, and multiple meaning words.


I've heard much discussion about the following italics:

Homosexuality could become a dominant gene, and perhaps even the future of human evolution.

My first conclusion is that homosexuality is not a choice.
(Evidence should be apparent.)

1. Some penguins will mate with the same sex for life.
2. Homosexuality is found in over 1500 different animal species (many of them not smart enough to decide sexual preference for themselves.)


Evolution has played not part in homosexuality for a several of reasons.


1. For homosexuality to "spread," it must first become a passable genetic trait. Currently, homosexuality isn't a verified genetic trait. Until there is a scientific cause of homosexuality, we cannot predict its future play on the human race.

2. Because of modern human technology, humans could continue to flourish even if no reproductive sex took place. "Test Tube Babies" would be a way of life.

Without this technology though, homosexuality would never become dominate in nature. Homosexual species without the mental capability to consider reproducing with the opposite sex for the sake of their species would fade out of existence.

This fact makes a homosexual human evolution very slim. Evolution would effectively cease to exist, and selective breeding would be in affect human race.


Homosexuality is not a trait controlled by evolution.

1. If homosexuality were controlled by evolution, then 1500 animals would not exhibit the trait. An animal with very little intelligence does what its body tells it to do. If it has urges to mate with the same sex, then it will, and will not produce any offspring, therefore eliminating the trait.

2. Homosexuals who choose to produce offspring do not have more homosexual children than people who are not homosexual. This means that there is no genetic code being passed on. Without genetic traits, evolution does not take place.


Homosexuality is a "birth defect."
I hate using "birth defect," but honestly, that is all I can describe it as.

From what I see, homosexuality is an error in genetic transferring.

Down Syndrome: 21 chromosomes
Excessive anger and aggression: Extra y-chromosome


I do not know what the defect is, but from what I see it is the most plausible explanation.


Nit-pick this post please.
I am a newbie, and my ideas are not logical or reasonable!:cry:

Just Me
December 3rd, 2008, 04:36 AM
1. Homosexuality isn't a choice.
I agree






Evolution has played not part in homosexuality for a several of reasons.


1. For homosexuality to "spread," it must first become a passable genetic trait. Currently, homosexuality isn't a verified genetic trait. Until there is a scientific cause of homosexuality, we cannot predict its future play on the human race.
If genetics and such has not played a part in homosexuality then how do you get that it is a choice? Do you believe someone is born homosexual or choices to be homosexual?



Homosexuality is a "birth defect."
I hate using "birth defect," but honestly, that is all I can describe it as.

From what I see, homosexuality is an error in genetic transferring.

Down Syndrome: 21 chromosomes
Excessive anger and aggression: Extra y-chromosome


I do not know what the defect is, but from what I see it is the most plausible explanation.
RE-WORDED for niceness : What brought you to this explanation? Any support behind this explanation?
Geez better???

ians25
December 3rd, 2008, 05:26 AM
Homosexuality is a "birth defect."
I hate using "birth defect," but honestly, that is all I can describe it as.

From what I see, homosexuality is an error in genetic transferring.

Down Syndrome: 21 chromosomes
Excessive anger and aggression: Extra y-chromosome


I do not know what the defect is, but from what I see it is the most plausible explanation.


Nit-pick this post please.
I am a newbie, and my ideas are not logical or reasonable!:cry:

For you to claim that homosexuality is and error or a defect, you would first have to prove that homosexuality is detrimental to the survival of the species, given that homosexuality could be a reproductive "safety valve" against overpopulation (and thus resource decimation) due to an uncontrolled (considering we are at the top of the food chain) reproduction of the species, homosexuality might be just as beneficial and evolutionary sound for the species' survival as heterosexuality is, therefore considering it an error/defective trait is just wrong.

Sigfried
December 3rd, 2008, 10:19 AM
We are still understanding the way our genetics work and its more complicated than simply counting our DNA pairs. Identical twins can end up with different non pathogen caused diseases due to epigenetic differences.

Evolution can only act on traits that can be reproduced, but the chain of cause and effect between genes and behaviors is something we don't really understand yet so its very much an open question.

Sexuality is clearly pretty complicated and while its normally black and white for most of us, there are certainly those for whom it is pretty gray and the sex traits are somewhat cross wired.

I'd say homosexuality is defective in the sense that if it were the dominant state it would inhibit survival, but as a minority trait it doesn't threaten the species.

As wondrous and amazing as living things are, they are far from "perfect". Diversity is a key strategy of life and diversity requires variation which leads to less than optimal outcomes in many cases. Variations inhibiting survival are weeded out. Variations that ensure dominance tend to propagate. Variations that are both good and bad but not extreme enough to ensure death or dominance just mill around the genetic pool waiting for an environment that favors or disfavors them more strongly.

dbogjohnson
December 3rd, 2008, 10:26 AM
1. Homosexuality isn't a choice.



let me ask you this:1.how isnt it a choice?
2.using the info we have so far no one has found a gene for whether your gay or not, but in your opinion do you truly think there is?

Blackturtle
December 3rd, 2008, 10:32 AM
For you to claim that homosexuality is and error or a defect, you would first have to prove that homosexuality is detrimental to the survival of the species, given that homosexuality could be a reproductive "safety valve" against overpopulation (and thus resource decimation) due to an uncontrolled (considering we are at the top of the food chain) reproduction of the species, homosexuality might be just as beneficial and evolutionary sound for the species' survival as heterosexuality is, therefore considering it an error/defective trait is just wrong.

a gene mutation that benefits survival will become more frequent in the population. but homosexuality cant be passed down. if homosexuality was beneficial, how would it spread? if it could, then many species would have become homosexual by now. but it cant. that means each individual case of homosexuality is indeed individual. that means

A)its a choice
B)Mutation or defect(for a lack of a better term)

evolution cant play a hand if the gene isnt passed down.

Sigfried
December 3rd, 2008, 10:55 AM
let me ask you this:1.how isnt it a choice?
2.using the info we have so far no one has found a gene for whether your gay or not, but in your opinion do you truly think there is?

Its simple reasoning and it starts with you.
1. Did you choose to be heterosexual? (Generally the answer is no, you have naturally developed a desire for women.)
2. Homosexuals almost always report the same feeling, that they are naturally attracted to people of the same sex.
3. Since this seems to be the common nature of sexual feeling it is reasonable to assume that there must be a genetic cause for sexual desire.

I could force myself to have sex with a man and that would be a choice, but the desire not to do so was not a choice I made, it is simply the way I'm wired. I might if I tried hard enough, learn to enjoy or appreciate it, but that would be the choice and not my nature.

ians25
December 3rd, 2008, 11:15 AM
but homosexuality cant be passed down
If it couldn't be passed down the first homosexual in human history would also had been the last one. If in turn is a genetic mutation that is passed on from heterosexuals, that says nothing about it being beneficial or detrimental to the survival of the species, it is just a mutation, as green eyes vs brown eyes, blonde vs brown hair, etc. So Mutation yes, defect no.

dbogjohnson
December 3rd, 2008, 11:15 AM
Its simple reasoning and it starts with you.
1. Did you choose to be heterosexual? (Generally the answer is no, you have naturally developed a desire for women.)
2. Homosexuals almost always report the same feeling, that they are naturally attracted to people of the same sex.
3. Since this seems to be the common nature of sexual feeling it is reasonable to assume that there must be a genetic cause for sexual desire.
1.yes I thought it was the right choice, I really did think about it, bur I know most people say the genneral answer
2.thats what confuses me, I think theres only a natural attraction after you chose what to be, thats how it was for me at least
3.... like I said I can only guess on the genetics part, but I go with what black turtle said.
my ending to the debate in this would be probably that the way youre childhood was

Dionysus
December 3rd, 2008, 11:25 AM
Really dbog? It was actually the case for you that you pondered over whether you were sexually attracted to a man or a woman?

ians25
December 3rd, 2008, 12:02 PM
1.yes I thought it was the right choice, I really did think about it, bur I know most people say the genneral answer
2.thats what confuses me, I think theres only a natural attraction after you chose what to be, thats how it was for me at least
3.... like I said I can only guess on the genetics part, but I go with what black turtle said.
my ending to the debate in this would be probably that the way youre childhood was

Dbog if you feel equally attracted to both men and women (which is what I would deduce if you just had to choose whom to stay with) then you are bisexual, a bisexual who chose to restrict his sexual activities to women, but still a bisexual.

dbogjohnson
December 3rd, 2008, 01:24 PM
Really dbog? It was actually the case for you that you pondered over whether you were sexually attracted to a man or a woman?
__________________
yes, I thought about[but not that long]

Dbog if you feel equally attracted to both men and women (which is what I would deduce if you just had to choose whom to stay with) then you are bisexual, a bisexual who chose to restrict his sexual activities to women, but still a bisexual.
Im not By or gay Im straight![no offense to by or gay people, bue after I thought about it for about it I thought it was pretty sick]

Dionysus
December 3rd, 2008, 02:22 PM
That sounds remarkably manufactured dbog. Your qualifiers "but not that long" and "Im not By or gay Im straight" [sic] are very telling because:The first one says that your ponderance and conclusions were almost immediate, which means you probably didn't really think about them at all, as you'd have us believe You immediately wanted it crystal clear that there's no way you could possibly be anything but straight.

I think you're making it all up, and I don't mean offense, but I think you're simply being obstinate in order to support your position.

Tarja
December 3rd, 2008, 04:56 PM
yes, I thought about[but not that long]

Im not By or gay Im straight![no offense to by or gay people, bue after I thought about it for about it I thought it was pretty sick]

The fact that you had to think about whether you were gay or straight kinda proves that you are bisexual. 'Real' straight people never have to choose because it's something you always know.

Sigfried
December 3rd, 2008, 05:24 PM
1.yes I thought it was the right choice, I really did think about it, bur I know most people say the genneral answer
2.thats what confuses me, I think theres only a natural attraction after you chose what to be, thats how it was for me at least
3.... like I said I can only guess on the genetics part, but I go with what black turtle said.
my ending to the debate in this would be probably that the way youre childhood was

That makes you very unusual. Its quite possible you were born without a strong preference which would be a genetic abnormality in and of itself. At least I can understand how you would see the issue differently from most people. Generally I find that bisexuals tend to side with gay folks on political issues even though clearly for them sexual preference isn't especially hard wired.

Most studies have shown that its a complicated mix of genetics and environment and that both can shape your sexual preferences. This doesn't surprise me based on my own experiences and sexual feelings. I can imagine what being homosexual is like, I can even imagine what being a woman feels like. Its not my natural state but its not beyond conception. So there must be a wide range of possibilities. We know that people taking sex hormones to change their physical sex and their sex drives change, but they rarely change from gay to straight even with the sex change. Clearly physical sexuality and sex preference are linked but not completely dependent.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Im not By or gay Im straight![no offense to by or gay people, bue after I thought about it for about it I thought it was pretty sick]

Hold up there. That doesn't square. Just imagining being gay doesn't mean you made a real choice in the matter. If the though of gay sex makes you feel sick, then you are straight and it wasn't a choice. No one is going to choose a sexuality that makes them feel ill or disgusted.

Blackturtle
December 3rd, 2008, 05:25 PM
If it couldn't be passed down the first homosexual in human history would also had been the last one. If in turn is a genetic mutation that is passed on from heterosexuals, that says nothing about it being beneficial or detrimental to the survival of the species, it is just a mutation, as green eyes vs brown eyes, blonde vs brown hair, etc. So Mutation yes, defect no.

as a mutation that cant be passed down, it is neither beneficial nor detrimental.

HotPancakes
December 3rd, 2008, 06:06 PM
If genetics and such has not played a part in homosexuality then how do you get that it is a choice? Do you believe someone is born homosexual or choices to be homosexual?

There isn't any strict evidence revealing that homosexuality is caused by genetics, at least there isn't any now, there could be in the future. While homosexuality may not be caused by genetics, this doesn't mean it is a choice. The objective of this thread was to discuss the possible explanations for the trait.

I cannot determine the exact cause of homosexuality. I can however eliminate the other causes.



RE-WORDED for niceness : What brought you to this explanation? Any support behind this explanation?
Geez better???

I understand your frustration, it looks as if I just stated an idea without any sort of proof.

Without available statistics on homosexuality I cannot prove much of anything. In order for me to come to a conclusion, I must start with possible explanations, and begin eliminating them.

This reminds me much of a theist debate, you cannot disprove God until further technology is available. I cannot disprove genetics as a possible explanation for homosexuality until further technology.

So for now, my thoughts are that homosexuality could be caused by birth abnormality.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

If it couldn't be passed down the first homosexual in human history would also had been the last one. If in turn is a genetic mutation that is passed on from heterosexuals, that says nothing about it being beneficial or detrimental to the survival of the species, it is just a mutation, as green eyes vs brown eyes, blonde vs brown hair, etc. So Mutation yes, defect no.

A couple with no recessive blue eyed genes will not give birth to a blue eyed child.

You could however have generations of straight offspring (eliminating the chance of the "homosexual recessive gene" in the family), and have a homosexual child.

In the near future we may find more on how or if homosexuality is passed on genetically. Until this, my above statement about generations of straight offspring cannot be proven, it is only a person word, but before homosexuality was even slightly accepted, who knows if the family actually had generations of straight offspring.

The point is, we are just now realizing the true extent of homosexuality. By this I mean how many people are actually born with the abnormity.

Blackturtle
December 4th, 2008, 04:23 AM
by the way, if homosexuals can have children through scientific means, then it does not really protect against overpopulation.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>
as a matter of fact, homosexuality may even be psychological. But i cant prove this or anything. has anyone ever seen a child attracted to another of the same sex?? if there is such a case, then you can say its genetic. but if it doesnt show right away, it might be a mix of both predispositions and environment.

Dionysus
December 4th, 2008, 04:36 AM
as a matter of fact, homosexuality may even be psychological. But i cant prove this or anything. has anyone ever seen a child attracted to another of the same sex?? if there is such a case, then you can say its genetic. but if it doesnt show right away, it might be a mix of both predispositions and environment.I had my nephew pegged as a homosexual when he was 3. He's 15 now and came out of the closet this last summer. He has a younger brother, and he's being brought up in the same house, with the same people, under the same conditions, eating the same foods, going to the same chuch, following the same rules, etc. But they're as different as night and day with their sexual orientations (at least, they will be. His brother is only 8, but he's a straight up boy. No question about it.)

dbogjohnson
December 4th, 2008, 05:43 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sounds remarkably manufactured dbog. Your qualifiers "but not that long" and "Im not By or gay Im straight" [sic] are very telling because:
The first one says that your ponderance and conclusions were almost immediate, which means you probably didn't really think about them at all, as you'd have us believe
You immediately wanted it crystal clear that there's no way you could possibly be anything but straight.

I think you're making it all up, and I don't mean offense, but I think you're simply being obstinate in order to support your position.

Hold up there. That doesn't square. Just imagining being gay doesn't mean you made a real choice in the matter. If the though of gay sex makes you feel sick, then you are straight and it wasn't a choice. No one is going to choose a sexuality that makes them feel ill or disgusted.
well i know i'll have to earn some trust back after this one, yes your right I was originally straight and only thought about being gay for about a minute or 2.


Im not gay or by because It was like that from the beggenning, and I never really questioned it, because no one I knew as a freind till litterally 9th grade was by or gay,
this points to either:its in my genetics, but as dio and black turtle,and hot pancakes just said, it cant be proven until further evidence

ians25
December 4th, 2008, 07:16 AM
by the way, if homosexuals can have children through scientific means, then it does not really protect against overpopulation.


But then it also debunks the argument that homosexuality would be detrimental for the survival of the species
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>


You could however have generations of straight offspring (eliminating the chance of the "homosexual recessive gene" in the family), and have a homosexual child.


And maybe just as likely you couldn't

Determined
December 4th, 2008, 05:17 PM
I had my nephew pegged as a homosexual when he was 3. He's 15 now and came out of the closet this last summer. He has a younger brother, and he's being brought up in the same house, with the same people, under the same conditions, eating the same foods, going to the same chuch, following the same rules, etc. But they're as different as night and day with their sexual orientations (at least, they will be. His brother is only 8, but he's a straight up boy. No question about it.)

not arguing, but how did you determine that he was homosexual?

Dionysus
December 4th, 2008, 08:17 PM
not arguing, but how did you determine that he was homosexual?It was his mannerisms, his demeanor, and his overall lack of interest in anything most boys are fond of. Likewise, he was (and is) very emotionally expressive rather than physically so. He just seemed that way.

Just Me
December 5th, 2008, 04:57 AM
It was his mannerisms, his demeanor, and his overall lack of interest in anything most boys are fond of. Likewise, he was (and is) very emotionally expressive rather than physically so. He just seemed that way.

Dio, you described my cousin there... At 5 years old his dad made the comment that he was gay... Well turned out, he's gay....

They had the most beautiful yard because of him, flowers and plants everyone in a very neatly fashion... I think the only thing he actually done that could be considered a 'guy' thing was go mud riding on 4-wheelers.. But hell, even us girls did that.. I think that is more of a country thing then a guy thing...

He has one younger brother.. Who is totally straight!!!!! A very religious family.... As you said, the same environment...

PhoenixBlack
December 5th, 2008, 01:55 PM
I see where you are all going with this, but if you really want to understand the makeup of things like homosexuality than you have to stop thinking about it like an animal.
I know this might sound like some strange hippie babble to some of you who aren't educated beyond your own personal beliefs, but stick with me and be open-minded. There are two major players in each life on this planet, you have the shell (the human body), and you have the controller (the soul, if you will). The human body is an animal just like any other animal, obviously you can tell we are animals, especially if you take away the clothes, jobs, and cars. The animal has animal instincts and survival tendencies, as all living things do. Then you have the controller, which is the user inserted into the animal. The animal has a sex, either a male of female in the case of humans, but the soul has gone through many births, deaths, and rebirths. Each time this happens the soul carries baggage from one lifetime to the next, just like you, and I, and your girlfriend do into every new relationship.
Because of this "baggage" or "soul memories" no two people experience the same two lives. So let me explain in a clearer way. If in your past lifetime you were a viking killing machine, in the next lifetime you would be more drawn to those old memories that you can't recall. The same way you cant always remember dreams, but that deja vu allows you to know you are familiar with an experience somehow, from your subconscious, but you know inside that it means something.
The point is, if someone was a female in the last lifetime, and they were very feminine, and carried some of that lifetimes baggage into this lifetime, it would interfere with their ability to, so simply, follow societies norms.

You see, we are not born gay or straight, we are loaded into a male or female human body, and cultural norms, and our ability to not recall past lifetimes makes it seem normal for a man to be with a woman and a woman with a man, but if you got past your animal instincts to a level where you are familiar with yourself much deeper than your animal you control, you would see that gay and straight exists for no one other than the animal we control. So next time you see a gay person, don't think anything negative, if anything, be envious that you are witnessing a person carrying something through from their last lifetime into the present.

Sigfried
December 5th, 2008, 02:40 PM
Sorry Phoenix Black but these souls and past lives of yours are pure speculation and opinion. Now if you can provide any kind of isolated test for these phenomena I'd be keenly interested.

HotPancakes
December 7th, 2008, 08:46 PM
I know this might sound like some strange hippie babble to some of you who aren't educated beyond your own personal beliefs.

Continues to...


If in your past lifetime you were a viking killing machine, in the next lifetime you would be more drawn to those old memories that you can't recall.


Those two quotes are hypricritical.

I don't remember you directly stating "incarnation," but I believe that is what you are getting after. If so, why are you right to assume that your beliefs are correct?

You essentially call yourself "uneducated beyond personal beliefs."

I can be educated of other beliefs and still disagree with them.

I would like to look at scientific evidence before I jump to the "I don't know the answer, there for there is none, I mean it's God!?"



But if you got past your animal instincts to a level where you are familiar with yourself much deeper than your animal you control, you would see that gay and straight exists for no one other than the animal we control.

I was gonna make a rude comment about the possible animal you could have been previous to this lifetime, but I realized you are newer to ODN than I am, and crudeness isn't needed.

Scarlett44
December 12th, 2008, 09:27 AM
homosexuality cant be passed down.

I disagree.

Currently, homosexuality can be passed down in humans, if an openly gay person voluntarily chooses to have their own biological child through a surrogate mother, or a sperm donor.

In the past, before in-vitro fertilization and artifical insemination, human homosexuality could have been passed down if a person came out as gay after producing biological children, or if they chose to masquerade permanently as a straight person by marrying and having their own biological children.

Among animals, homosexual behavior is usually NON-EXCLUSIVE, meaning that animals who prefer same-sex partners will also mate with the opposite sex to produce offspring.
In that way, an animal who prefers same-sex partners will still pass on his genetic traits.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

Therefore, I believe that homosexuality is a genetic trait, and not a choice or random mutation.

ladyphoenix
December 15th, 2008, 07:08 AM
I disagree.

Currently, homosexuality can be passed down in humans, if an openly gay person voluntarily chooses to have their own biological child through a surrogate mother, or a sperm donor.That doesn't do anything to demonstrate that the parent's gayness is either a) inhereted from his own parents, or b) that it can and does get passed from the gay person to it's offspring, regardless of its desire to actually procreate in spite of it's gayness... ;)

Scarlett44
December 15th, 2008, 10:09 AM
That doesn't do anything to demonstrate that the parent's gayness is either a) inhereted from his own parents, or b) that it can and does get passed from the gay person to it's offspring, regardless of its desire to actually procreate in spite of it's gayness... ;)

True....but the other part of my post does demonstrate that possibility:



In the past, before in-vitro fertilization and artifical insemination, human homosexuality could have been passed down if a person came out as gay after producing biological children, or if they chose to masquerade permanently as a straight person by marrying and having their own biological children.

ladyphoenix
December 15th, 2008, 10:16 AM
Indeed, I didn't go back and read the full context of what you were replying to. I would certainly agree that homosexual couples still seek to have children, and do so with surrogates and donors often enough. Sorry about that.

Scarlett44
December 16th, 2008, 10:07 AM
No problem, LP.......:afro:

UniqueAngel
December 19th, 2008, 12:28 PM
1. Homosexuality isn't a choice

I believed that homosexuality wasn't genetic as I have known people to come out as gay when they are older and thus have experienced things in which they feel wasn't right for them. For example they may have felt arkward when kissing a girl...

However I went onto a site in which is a long article about how genetics may be a factor in homosexuality.

http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html (Feel free to read, however only some of it actually appears to make sense to me)


Julie Harren, Ph.D., LMFT states that
"Although not supported by the research, many therapists believe that homosexuality is solely biological in nature, and therefore unchangeable. Yet despite ongoing efforts, researchers have not discovered a biological basis for same-sex attractions. In fact, many researchers hypothesize that a homosexual orientation stems from a combination of biological and environmental factors. For example, when asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, gay gene researcher, Dean Hamer, replied, "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors" (Anastasia, 1995, p. 43). In addition, brain researcher Simon LeVay has acknowledged that multiple factors may contribute to a homosexual orientation (LeVay, 1996)."

Although, I'm not quite sure if this information is a 100percent accurate.

However I did find it quite interesting to see how both environmental and biological factors take part.

adamcakes
January 7th, 2009, 06:05 AM
I have two ideas on this topic.

The first, I believe is that homosexuality is something that is neither a choice nor genetic. It just simply IS. Whether that's through chemical imbalances or otherwise, it's certainly not something anyone has any control over. I definately do not see any downsides to being gay, therefore I would suggest there is nothing beneficial nor limiting. Though many would argue that a limitation would be the inablility to reproduce which isn't true because nothing stops a homosexual man having children with a straight woman. I don't believe that homosexuality is beneficial in the way of population control because as I said before, it's not like homosexual men do not have the ability to reproduce, or lesbians don't have wombs. Surely a more logical way to naturally control the populations would have been less women developing menstrual cycles, or more men having the inablilty to create sperm?

Secondly, is an opinion I have that is probably going to be more open to criticism and ridicule. I wouldn't label myself as a person with much faith in religions, however I do have my own personal beliefs. A part of me believes that homosexuality could have been a subconcious choice, one made at such an early age that there would be no true understanding of what homosexuality really entails. I think in a way, it is a choice made to be given a challenge in life. I know many of you will now think "homosexuals have no more a challange than straight people", but I feel different. Whether this choice is made for us by a higher being, I don't know.

Either way, I'm pretty sure it's not genetic and it's not a choice made by US. Though it could be a sunconcious choice made by us or FOR us in the early development as a child.

I'd just like to share that with you.

MoneyMan
January 17th, 2009, 09:15 AM
Personally, I believe homosexuality is not genetic but moreso a chemical difference at birth. I don't think it is a gene because there are many levels of homosexuality just as there are heterosexuality and I don't believe these levels of a type of sexuality are passed down. A very sexual man can have a child with very low sexual levels due to hormones in the body. Homosexuality is the same thing. At birth, a child can be born with different levels of hormones, specifically testosterone. If a male child was born with a low level of certain hormones, the chances of him not be attracted to the same type of sexual partners are those with the current and normal levels are the hormone are greatly reduced. Homosexuality isn't a choice. You don't just say, "Hey, I am going to be sexually turned on by men", in a certain time in your life. You just are due to body levels of hormones.

cdubs
January 22nd, 2009, 02:33 PM
i might be in over my head hear but my thoughts on this are

you might have been able to pass it off as some kind of fad or act of rebellion if it was only in teens but what about when small children behave in a homosexual ( dont mean to stereotype but you know what i mean) way? why would a 9 year old boy choose to like other boys? What logic would this young boy ( or girl) have behind subjecting themselves to years of being a social outcast?

as for psychological ive heard that boys in houses with abusive mothers and compassionate fathers have a higher rate of ending up homo

GeneralZap
January 27th, 2009, 06:46 PM
I don't believe homosexuality is a gene defect, as I believe there is a noticable amount of homosexuals whose parents were non-existent in their lives, spuratic in constancy, abusive (possibly sexually abusive), et cetera. I believe this makes constant victims of such events more prone to want attention in a much more strange/warped way. Perhaps it is because they are having trouble distinguishing the difference between love and sexual attraction. Perhaps that would be because: lack of experience during younger years with non-sexual relationships (More so in a young impressionable mind), (They say the first 6 years are what make a person if I remember correctly.), lack of experience in general with non-sexual relationships, a constant push from the mind to get companions of the same gender and at the same time a sexual desire.

Or perhaps a combination of those things...

Either way I believe anyone can quit being a homosexual, they must train their mind to resist constant lusts, until they do not even notice or meld those lusts with what would normaly be a non-sexual relationship.

They are addicted, just not to something you ussually buy. Just like any other addiction it can be thwarted, and fortunately you cannot die turning into a more natural human.

HotPancakes
February 26th, 2009, 01:13 PM
Either way I believe anyone can quit being a homosexual, they must train their mind to resist constant lusts, until they do not even notice or meld those lusts with what would normaly be a non-sexual relationship.

Your proposition for sexuality changes must go both ways, as your assumption is that people are in fact "turned" gay due to a variety of childhood factors. Essentially, if one can train oneself to be gay, one can train oneself to be straight.


With that being said, I have but one challenge for you...

Charlatan
February 26th, 2009, 02:03 PM
Homosexuality isn;t a choice, it is a gene. If you want to bed a man that is because you are driven to. You are driven to it because your body wants another of your sex. Basically homosexuality is part of you. There is a gene for this because it is evident in hamaphrodites where genes get mixed up, or are driven to be that way. You know that it is genetic because it is very evident in their appearance, so take a step back and you got male hormones inside a woman or the other way around, and it all makes sense from our visible example of a shemale where it has become a bigger influence. We know it is genetic because it is evident - men will be aroused sexually by another while surivival instinct supports this as being undesirable. Normal men are driven away from sex with other men, but for people to persue it it must be a drive, to become visibly aroused by this.

Also gay people have different voice boxes than straight people as you can hear them tend to the other side vocally. If you can see it, you can hear it, and heck you can drive it, it must be genetic.

YamiB.
March 4th, 2009, 05:08 AM
I wouldn't be so quick to say that homosexuality is just genetics, it seems likely that there are various factors such as genetics, environment in the womb, and input during the early developmental stages. This doesn't make it anymore a choice and I think except for the rare exceptions that exist for pretty much anything human the evidence seems to indicate that it would be impossible to change.

rymyst3rio
May 9th, 2009, 07:28 AM
Ok I am also new and I will chime in on two of your arguments.
1. I think Homosexuality is a choice.
As someone previously stated there is no proof what so ever of a gene or chemical imbalance in the brain which would cause one to feel an attraction to the same sex. Also humans learn from their own experiences. People who are serial killers usually grow up in a messed up environment where they are abused, see abuse, take part in abusing, etc. This over the development of their mind and body builds a psychological "need" for them to do so. So if they decided before hand to separate from the violence or someone else removed them from it they would turn out differently. The same goes for homosexuality. If someone grows up around people who like men, or a place where women are condemned or are for whatever reason given a bad association, then they would tend not to like women.

Secondly, when you mentioned the test tube babies, that is done through technology which is in no way natural. This proves that there is no natural way for the species of humans to survive through homosexuality. And every animal's brain is wired with natural instincts on how to survive. Based on how all animal's brains work, why would a human brain be homosexual if it is not conductive to survival?
Thats just my first attempt at debating here hope I did well.

SupremeBeing
May 9th, 2009, 10:06 AM
I would guess to say that the suppose genetic recessive gene that carries the homosexuality make-up represents about 20% of all homosexuals.

Therefore reasoning that the majority of homosexuality is based on abnormal emotions of disattachment from the opposite sex. Which makes it a choice. Given this as a pluralism, it should be classified as a "mental disorder". Which gives them the same rights as handicaps- yet, not the right to join the army forces, just as handicaps are disallowed.

On the issuse of marriage ( I know it may be off of topic), the efforts to redefine the family function of sexuality orientation of a male as the husband and the father, and the female as the wife and mother, is beyond reason. The right to call it a civic unite would not offset these defintions, however, new policies must be put in place to prove equal rights to health, property, and child custody must be enacted.

In regard to the athour of this post, it was mentioned that life can go on, if homosexual continues to spread through "test tube babies" would be a selfish act. It would deny a child the right to be natured naturally by a mother, in the case of two mens, as well as, a child raised by two females without a male father as a role model for the male child and for the female child in learning how to interact with the opposite sex, good or bad.

shootingstar
May 9th, 2009, 08:08 PM
There is no absolute, clear-cut evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. What I'm saying is that even if there was a gene for homosexuality, it's something that you can control in most cases. For example, it is a proven fact that children whose mothers smoked a lot, drank heavily, or did drugs while pregnant with them are four times more likely to start smoking, drinking heavily, or doing drugs than children who are born to mothers that did none of these things while pregnant. I am one of these people. My mother did all these things very heavily when she was pregnant with both me and my sister. It is literally in my genes to be really tempted to drink, smoke, or do drugs. I have never, ever touched any of those things in my entire life, even though the temptation to do so is in my genes. I don't know if this makes sense, but it's just like homosexuality. Even if you are born with a "homosexual" gene, in most cases, it can still be controllable.

Tarja
May 9th, 2009, 08:27 PM
'rymyst3rio' you say that homosexuality is a choice.
I can clear this up in five seconds flat.

Answer this question: Did you choose to be straight?

I am guessing your answer is no. If you didnt choose to be straight, you cannot say that gay people choose to be gay.

Thanks, I think this debate is over.

SupremeBeing
May 10th, 2009, 06:04 AM
Rebuttal, to Tarja Turunen point of choice.

It is a choice for most. Your position that a person is not naturally born straight, defies moral reasoning. Just as eating raw meat, you can eat it raw, however, to get the true nutrients of the meal and for health benefits (prepared food kills bacteria) 99% of most people cook it.

Even animals are attracted to the opposite sex, based on scent. So being born straight is the natural and health way to function in the universal order.

Tarja
May 10th, 2009, 06:56 PM
Rebuttal, to Tarja Turunen point of choice.

It is a choice for most. Your position that a person is not naturally born straight, defies moral reasoning. Just as eating raw meat, you can eat it raw, however, to get the true nutrients of the meal and for health benefits (prepared food kills bacteria) 99% of most people cook it.

Even animals are attracted to the opposite sex, based on scent. So being born straight is the natural and health way to function in the universal order.

Most people are born naturally straight, but some are born naturally gay.

Nothing in your post can prove me wrong, I have no idea what Aspo was thinking when she repped you.

AliceLiddell
May 10th, 2009, 08:11 PM
It is a choice for most. Your position that a person is not naturally born straight, defies moral reasoning. Just as eating raw meat, you can eat it raw, however, to get the true nutrients of the meal and for health benefits (prepared food kills bacteria) 99% of most people cook it.

We choose to cook meat even though "naturally" it is raw. By your own reasoning doing the natural thing is not always the best thing.


Even animals are attracted to the opposite sex, based on scent.

Bee hives have one female who gets pregnant, and a bunch of members who don't even have the ability to have sex. Since they are natural animals, we should do what they do?



So being born straight is the natural and health way to function in the universal order.
Most people are born right handed; some are born left handed. It doesn't mean they weren't naturally born that way or that they are any less healthy.

Further, people are born with hair that will naturally grow long. That doesn't mean choosing to cut it is wrong.

AliceLiddell
May 10th, 2009, 08:35 PM
I would guess to say that the suppose genetic recessive gene that carries the homosexuality make-up represents about 20% of all homosexuals.

Support or retract. Especially as you use this to "prove" your next paragraph.



Therefore reasoning that the majority of homosexuality is based on abnormal emotions of disattachment from the opposite sex. Which makes it a choice. Given this as a pluralism, it should be classified as a "mental disorder". Which gives them the same rights as handicaps- yet, not the right to join the army forces, just as handicaps are disallowed.

You call it a mental disorder. Is having a mental disorder a choice? Also, the armed forces do not prevent someone with depression and/or many other physical and mental disabilities from entering.


In regard to the athour of this post, it was mentioned that life can go on, if homosexual continues to spread through "test tube babies" would be a selfish act. It would deny a child the right to be natured naturally by a mother, in the case of two mens, as well as, a child raised by two females without a male father as a role model for the male child and for the female child in learning how to interact with the opposite sex, good or bad.
So by this argument we should outlaw divorce of people with children so they can be raised with two sexes? Or else, we should take children away from single parents so they can raised by two different sexed parents since that is more important than any other factor.

Just Me
May 11th, 2009, 02:38 PM
I would actually like to see Tarja's question answered.. I bet it would be interesting..

Is someone born straight or does people choose to be straight?
Is there a straight gene?
Does genetics in any way show someone is naturally born straight?

AliceLiddell
May 11th, 2009, 04:19 PM
I believe there is a genetic component as to whom a person is naturally attracted. Whether one chooses to act up on their natural attractions is a choice.

People have all sorts of natural impulses. That doesn't make them automatically wrong or right. One would need to find some grounds other than whether they are natural or not to consider homosexual acts wrong. However, if such a reason could be found, it would be the act that was wrong, not the desire.

Just Me
May 11th, 2009, 07:20 PM
I believe there is a genetic component as to whom a person is naturally attracted. Whether one chooses to act up on their natural attractions is a choice.
Right, I agree with you here... That's where the sexuality 'behavior' comes in at... Not the sexuality itself..


People have all sorts of natural impulses. That doesn't make them automatically wrong or right. One would need to find some grounds other than whether they are natural or not to consider homosexual acts wrong. However, if such a reason could be found, it would be the act that was wrong, not the desire.
Again, I agree :)

Now a question...

Wouldn't acting on heterosexual attractions also be a choice? Therefor say heterosexual sex is a choice?

Lord Infamous
May 11th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Answer this question: Did you choose to be straight?


This is why homosexual debates don't ever get anywhere. The gay person always uses the above as an argument. The straight person always uses the "there's no gene argument." It's the same thing over and over again. Both arguments make sense. Why? Well for one I damn sure didn't chose to be attracted to women. So the homosexual has a point. However, it's universally known that there's no gay gene WHATSOEVER. So the straight person has a point. And I'm sorry, homosexuality will NEVER be deemed normal (to me at least) until that f'n gene pops up. Plus if you wanna be technical, I'm almost 99.99999999999999999% sure that you'll find more men and women that will admit that one day they chose to be gay OR straight, before we'll ever find the gene.

Peace.

AliceLiddell
May 11th, 2009, 09:25 PM
Wouldn't acting on heterosexual attractions also be a choice? Therefore say heterosexual sex is a choice?

Absolutely. Hetrosexuals don't choose to be heterosexuals, but they do choose to engage in heterosexuals acts and/or to avoid homosexual acts. In fact, some heterosexuals chose to engage in homosexual acts, but I don't consider them true homosexuals. (I'm thinking of those who get paid to participate in girl on girl actions).

I've been told that in some Muslim cultures that men are forbidden to masturbate and therefore will engage in homosexual acts (especially since there is a limit on available women due to polygamy). I still wouldn't consider these men homosexual. But even if they aren't homosexual by nature, if you consider homosexual acts wrong, they are no better than the actual homosexuals having homosexual sex, and probably worse than the homosexuals that are celibate.

Tarja
May 12th, 2009, 01:29 AM
This is why homosexual debates don't ever get anywhere. The gay person always uses the above as an argument. The straight person always uses the "there's no gene argument." It's the same thing over and over again. Both arguments make sense. Why? Well for one I damn sure didn't chose to be attracted to women. So the homosexual has a point. However, it's universally known that there's no gay gene WHATSOEVER. So the straight person has a point. And I'm sorry, homosexuality will NEVER be deemed normal (to me at least) until that f'n gene pops up. Plus if you wanna be technical, I'm almost 99.99999999999999999% sure that you'll find more men and women that will admit that one day they chose to be gay OR straight, before we'll ever find the gene.

Peace.

You cannot say there is no gay gene. We are still working on that one, but the general consensus (did I spell that right) is that homosexuality is not chosen.

Anyone who claims they chose to be straight is bisexual. You cannot chose to be straight, because that suggest you had to chose between being gay or straight, and there would be no reason to choose if you were straight all along, right?

Just Me
May 12th, 2009, 07:44 AM
You cannot say there is no gay gene. We are still working on that one, but the general consensus (did I spell that right) is that homosexuality is not chosen.
To add to this Tarja, one can not say there is no gay gene simply because a gene has not been found... The only thing they can say is there is no known gene...

Homosexuality the sexuality itself is no more of a choice then the actual sexuality of heterosexuals.. :)


Anyone who claims they chose to be straight is bisexual. You cannot chose to be straight, because that suggest you had to chose between being gay or straight, and there would be no reason to choose if you were straight all along, right?
Just as one can not 'choose' to be homosexual... Someone can 'choose' to have homosexual OR heterosexual sex, but that would not necessary make them one or the other..

Lord Infamous
May 12th, 2009, 05:18 PM
You cannot say there is no gay gene. We are still working on that one,

Well fine then. It hasn't surfaced. But still, until it does arguments insisting that homosexuality is strictly determined by genetics will mean nothing to me. That should be understandable.



Anyone who claims they chose to be straight is bisexual. You cannot chose to be straight, because that suggest you had to chose between being gay or straight, and there would be no reason to choose if you were straight all along, right?

See this another reason why I don't like debating this. The whole bisexual label is a crock of sh!t to me. I still don't understand how a woman that used to sleep with women but then decides she only wants to be with men from now on, is still bisexual and not straight. I just don't get it. That's like saying if a basektball player retires, he's still a basketball player.

Lastly, if you reply back leave the bisexual part alone. I'm only saying that because NO argument's gonna be able to help me understand why a bisexual person is still a bisexual despite the fact that they've chose to be with a man or a woman. I'm sorry, but that's probably something I'll never get.

AliceLiddell
May 12th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Well fine then. It hasn't surfaced. But still, until it does arguments insisting that homosexuality is strictly determined by genetics will mean nothing to me. That should be understandable.

It's not proven, but that doesn't mean it's false either.



See this another reason why I don't like debating this. The whole bisexual label is a crock of sh!t to me. I still don't understand how a woman that used to sleep with women but then decides she only wants to be with men from now on, is still bisexual and not straight. I just don't get it. That's like saying if a basektball player retires, he's still a basketball player.

Lastly, if you reply back leave the bisexual part alone.


Sorry, I had to reply. Just because a basketball player retires, it doesn't mean he is now a bad basketball player. There is a difference between what is innate to you and what you do.


I'm only saying that because NO argument's gonna be able to help me understand why a bisexual person is still a bisexual despite the fact that they've chose to be with a man or a woman. I'm sorry, but that's probably something I'll never get.
It depends on if you determine ones sexuality by their acts or their desires.

AuspiciousFist
May 12th, 2009, 07:14 PM
Well fine then. It hasn't surfaced. But still, until it does arguments insisting that homosexuality is strictly determined by genetics will mean nothing to me. That should be understandable.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but I believe the current understanding (among psychologists) is that genetics can give someone a disposition towards homosexuality, For example, someone can have a very strong disposition towards homosexuality and that would be enough. While for others there could be a fairly strong disposition towards it, but requires environmental/psychological factors to "trigger" them.

This theory is supported by the fact that in identical twins, who have the exact same genes, if one is homosexual the other has around 50% chance of being gay, which is much higher than an average person's chances, but if it were just genes then the percentage should be very near 100%

here's a quick source I found (I don't want to type out my textbook)
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html


also I would like to point out that even if genes only contribute partially, there is still no choice involved.


as far as bisexuality, perhaps what I said will clue you in to the fact (not that you're alone in your opinions) that sexuality can't be conformed to categories, and exists on a spectrum. Bisexuality is an obvious clue to this (being somewhere close to the center of the heterosexual-homosexual spectrum). However, instead of taking this as a clue that our current categorizing is flawed, people are trying to jam it into a third category. This obviously confuses and confounds people who view sexuality as an either/or dichotomy.

Lord Infamous
May 12th, 2009, 07:14 PM
It's not proven, but that doesn't mean it's false either.

Right. But still, it hasn't surfaced. When it does, I'll stop believing that homosexuality is sometimes a choice. :afro:




Sorry, I had to reply. Just because a basketball player retires, it doesn't mean he is now a bad basketball player. There is a difference between what is innate to you and what you do.

Mmmmm..I'm gonna have to disagree. There will be a time when Kobe loses his game. There will be a time when Shaq loses his game. There will be time when Dewayne Wade loses his game. When that happens they won't be good anymore. Now one could say that they'll still have the passion, but passion without ability won't get you anywhere. And ability's what will be gone when they lose their game. And when the ability's gone, the player's gone.



It depends on if you determine ones sexuality by their acts or their desires.

I guess both could determine one's sexuality but I'm gonna have to say that acts determine it more so than desires. I say that because there's people who will NEVER act out their desires no matter how strong they are.

And for the record, I've always believed that bisexual people aren't bisexual. They're just abnormally horny and will do anything and anybody.

AliceLiddell
May 12th, 2009, 07:33 PM
Right. But still, it hasn't surfaced. When it does, I'll stop believing that homosexuality is sometimes a choice. :afro:

You know, the process of inheriting traits was still there long before we discovered genes, dna, or even cells.



Mmmmm..I'm gonna have to disagree. There will be a time when Kobe loses his game. There will be a time when Shaq loses his game. There will be time when Dewayne Wade loses his game. When that happens they won't be good anymore. Now one could say that they'll still have the passion, but passion without ability won't get you anywhere. And ability's what will be gone when they lose their game. And when the ability's gone, the player's gone.

Strawman. You missed my point entirely.



I guess both could determine one's sexuality but I'm gonna have to say that acts determine it more so than desires. I say that because there's people who will NEVER act out their desires no matter how strong they are.

Fair enough.



And for the record, I've always believed that bisexual people aren't bisexual. They're just abnormally horny and will do anything and anybody.
Actually, your previous statement contradicts this claim. If ones sexuality can only be determined by their acts, than people who have sex with people of both sexes are by definition bisexual.

Lord Infamous
May 12th, 2009, 07:46 PM
You know, the process of inheriting traits was still there long before we discovered genes, dna, or even cells.

Support.



Strawman. You missed my point entirely.

Help me understand it then.



Fair enough.

Word.



Actually, your previous statement contradicts this claim. If ones sexuality can only be determined by their acts, than people who have sex with people of both sexes are by definition bisexual.

Right but I did say I guess both could determine them. It's just that it's my opinion that it's acts more so than desires. And again this whole bisexual thing is just too complex for me, LOL that may seem odd..but I don't know man. Here's how I look at it. Some people are sexual freaks. Sometimes a sexual freak is a person who'll do anything in bed with their partner only. Then sometimes you'll have a sexual freak who'll practically do anything and anybody. It's almost as if there's no preference and they'll just literally lay down with anybody that looks good. Basically anybody that comes their way that arouses them sexually, they're gonna go after em. It could be man, woman, robot, alien. They just don't care.

We've all met people like that in our lives. :grin:

AliceLiddell
May 13th, 2009, 11:41 AM
Support.

You want me to provide support that traits are inherited genetically, and were so even before we discovered DNA?



Help me understand it then.

I said, "Just because a basketball player retires, it doesn't mean he is now a bad basketball player. There is a difference between what is innate to you and what you do."

I didn't say that retired basketball players are always bad basketball players or that they could never get worse.

The point is that a person can have inner tendencies which they tend to repress, but that does not mean they don't have those inner tendencies.

Lord Infamous
May 13th, 2009, 12:14 PM
You want me to provide support that traits are inherited genetically, and were so even before we discovered DNA?

Ah n/m. I had misunderstood what you said.




The point is that a person can have inner tendencies which they tend to repress, but that does not mean they don't have those inner tendencies.



Ok. That makes sense.

loveandpeace
August 19th, 2009, 10:27 PM
I've heard much discussion about the following italics:

Homosexuality could become a dominant gene, and perhaps even the future of human evolution.

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard.
I would also like to say...
In the roman empire, they believed that true love ONLY existed between two men.


Evolution has played not part in homosexuality for a several of reasons.


1. For homosexuality to "spread," it must first become a passable genetic trait. Currently, homosexuality isn't a verified genetic trait. Until there is a scientific cause of homosexuality, we cannot predict its future play on the human race.


This fact makes a homosexual human evolution very slim. Evolution would effectively cease to exist, and selective breeding would be in affect human race.

As for the evolution, (this is my specialty) homosexuality cannot be occuring through evolution. Homos have been around since the dawn of man kind. Evolution only has 4 main forces.
1) Gene Drift
2) Natural Selection
3) Mutation
4) Gene Flow

Evolution can ONLY occur over generations, it does not develop through a person. For example. If someone were to grow a hand, that would not be called evolution, BUT if that hand were to be also on their offspring you would call that evolution. Because it is from the following generation.

So I agree with you, Homosexuality cannot be evolutionary based.


Also I agree that it is not a decision people have.

The Hawk
September 27th, 2009, 07:17 PM
Being new to debating, I hope I have placed this thread in the appropriate category.

To begin,

1. Homosexuality isn't a choice.
2. You are a much better debater than I.
3. I'll do my best to state clear ideas, not large, abstract post containing confusing, and multiple meaning words.


I've heard much discussion about the following italics:

Homosexuality could become a dominant gene, and perhaps even the future of human evolution.

My first conclusion is that homosexuality is not a choice.
(Evidence should be apparent.)

1. Some penguins will mate with the same sex for life.
2. Homosexuality is found in over 1500 different animal species (many of them not smart enough to decide sexual preference for themselves.)


Evolution has played not part in homosexuality for a several of reasons.


1. For homosexuality to "spread," it must first become a passable genetic trait. Currently, homosexuality isn't a verified genetic trait. Until there is a scientific cause of homosexuality, we cannot predict its future play on the human race.

2. Because of modern human technology, humans could continue to flourish even if no reproductive sex took place. "Test Tube Babies" would be a way of life.

Without this technology though, homosexuality would never become dominate in nature. Homosexual species without the mental capability to consider reproducing with the opposite sex for the sake of their species would fade out of existence.

This fact makes a homosexual human evolution very slim. Evolution would effectively cease to exist, and selective breeding would be in affect human race.


Homosexuality is not a trait controlled by evolution.

1. If homosexuality were controlled by evolution, then 1500 animals would not exhibit the trait. An animal with very little intelligence does what its body tells it to do. If it has urges to mate with the same sex, then it will, and will not produce any offspring, therefore eliminating the trait.

2. Homosexuals who choose to produce offspring do not have more homosexual children than people who are not homosexual. This means that there is no genetic code being passed on. Without genetic traits, evolution does not take place.


Homosexuality is a "birth defect."
I hate using "birth defect," but honestly, that is all I can describe it as.

From what I see, homosexuality is an error in genetic transferring.

Down Syndrome: 21 chromosomes
Excessive anger and aggression: Extra y-chromosome


I do not know what the defect is, but from what I see it is the most plausible explanation.


Nit-pick this post please.
I am a newbie, and my ideas are not logical or reasonable!:cry:
Junk science on the liberal media that is controlled by gay lobby.Homosex is a choice and sometimes mental disorder.Dr.Paul Cameron was right on his true research on gay lives.

Just Me
September 27th, 2009, 07:19 PM
Junk science on the liberal media that is controlled by gay lobby.Homosex is a choice and sometimes mental disorder.Dr.Paul Cameron was right on his true research on gay lives.

I challenge you to support this with.. I don't know.. actual support?:shocked:

LWatts
October 27th, 2009, 11:34 AM
I don't believe you are born Homosexual/bisexual. some have argued that its natural because it happens frequently in the animal kingdom, but we are not going around sniffing each other butts or licking our own to clean them are we, therefore that theory shouldn't be considered. Also found from research in the animal kingdom one could conclude that due to frustrations homosexual and or bisexual actions are taken to ease tension, so out of lack of options that action is taken. Its like a human who is tense sexually but doesn't have a mate goes to masturbation. Therefore if animals as most do not had opposable thumbs they would indeed masturbate, but due to the lack thereof, you get my point. To conclude, It is a choice.

Allocutus
October 27th, 2009, 01:58 PM
I don't believe you are born Homosexual/bisexual. some have argued that its natural because it happens frequently in the animal kingdom, but we are not going around sniffing each other butts or licking our own to clean them are we, therefore that theory shouldn't be considered. Also found from research in the animal kingdom one could conclude that due to frustrations homosexual and or bisexual actions are taken to ease tension, so out of lack of options that action is taken. Its like a human who is tense sexually but doesn't have a mate goes to masturbation. Therefore if animals as most do not had opposable thumbs they would indeed masturbate, but due to the lack thereof, you get my point. To conclude, It is a choice.

Whether or not we are BORN homosexual/bisexual doesn't even really matter. Even if we're not, that doesn't entail the conclusion that homosexuality is a choice. And it isn't a choice. Homosexuality is most commonly defined as a sexual preference based on sexual or romantic attraction for members of the same sex. Generally, people don't choose who they are sexually attracted to. Either someone tickles your fancy or they just don't.

The fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, while true, does not act as support for a case here. However, this is not due to the fact that we don't go around sniffing each other's butts. The fact is, some people do like to sniff other people's butts. There are all kinds of people out there. That said, the fact that something may be natural for a non-human animal doesn't make it more likely to be natural for a human animal. Otherwise, I could claim that it's natural for a woman to give birth to a child and leave it to fend for itself. Why not? Many animals do just that. Or we could say that it's natural for a woman to decapitate her sexual partner after copulation (some insects and spiders do that). And sure, there might be some women who might find the idea appealing.

The above is a slight digression because I believe that homosexuality is very much natural. It's a sexual urge. I assert that ANY urge is actually natural. And yes, that includes the urge to decapitate your partner. Why wouldn't it be natural? If you feel a need to do something then obviously it must be in your nature to feel that need.

LWatts
October 27th, 2009, 02:26 PM
So by you saying that any urge we have therefore makes that action natural. I have to disagree. But first let me say that I do agree with some of your points. Yes there are some odd people who like to sniff each others butts, and yes animals actions, interactions, and behaviors shouldn't be used when determining Human's. That was point i was going for as well. But in you saying that homosexuality is based on an urge, then people who get angry have an urge to kill. Or drivers with road rage have an urge to go faster, or drive more crazy. So does that make their urge right? I believe we have come to a difference in Natural and Right. Also things that come natural in a human are successful to the existence of the race. With Homosexuality there is no reproduction there for what about it is natural.

Allocutus
October 27th, 2009, 02:47 PM
So by you saying that any urge we have therefore makes that action natural. I have to disagree. But first let me say that I do agree with some of your points. Yes there are some odd people who like to sniff each others butts, and yes animals actions, interactions, and behaviors shouldn't be used when determining Human's. That was point i was going for as well. But in you saying that homosexuality is based on an urge, then people who get angry have an urge to kill. Or drivers with road rage have an urge to go faster, or drive more crazy. So does that make their urge right? I believe we have come to a difference in Natural and Right. Also things that come natural in a human are successful to the existence of the race. With Homosexuality there is no reproduction there for what about it is natural.

But why would you say that killing is unnatural?

As for the point about reproduction, if you are correct then it must be unnatural for a human being not to have children (pardon the triple negative here). But is that so? Why?

LWatts
October 27th, 2009, 02:59 PM
But why would you say that killing is unnatural?

As for the point about reproduction, if you are correct then it must be unnatural for a human being not to have children (pardon the triple negative here). But is that so? Why?

Okay true true killing is natural as is death, without killing and death we would all starve unless your a vegan then thats a whole different chapter. How did you get that i was saying that having children is unatural? My point was that it isnt possible for a Man and Man couple to reproduce naturally without outside help from a doner or adoption. Same with a female couple. If they dropped two men on a deserted Island they would as a race cease to exist. And vise versa with a female couple.

Allocutus
October 27th, 2009, 03:02 PM
Okay true true killing is natural as is death, without killing and death we would all starve unless your a vegan then thats a whole different chapter. How did you get that i was saying that having children is unatural? My point was that it isnt possible for a Man and Man couple to reproduce naturally without outside help from a doner or adoption. Same with a female couple. If they dropped two men on a deserted Island they would as a race cease to exist. And vise versa with a female couple.

I didn't say that you're saying that having children is unnatural. That was that triple negative :(

I was saying the opposite. I was saying that it seems that, according to your argument, it's unnatural NOT TO have children.

LWatts
October 27th, 2009, 03:06 PM
But why would you say that killing is unnatural?

As for the point about reproduction, if you are correct then it must be unnatural for a human being not to have children (pardon the triple negative here). But is that so? Why?

my appologies i thought you were implying that I said that i was refering to it being unatural to have children. Yes it is Natural for a male and female to be together and have children. why is that so, lets see let me think about it. What do you think? do you have a proposition with your question?

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

It is as you say not unnatural for Man and Woman to not have children. That is why God made man and Woman to fill and inhabit the earth. If not then we would not serve a basic pupose. Survival is done through reproduction. Now one could argue that homosexuality is a means of population control. Wouldnt you think?

Allocutus
October 27th, 2009, 03:08 PM
my appologies i thought you were implying that I said that i was refering to it being unatural to have children. Yes it is Natural for a male and female to be together and have children. why is that so, lets see let me think about it. What do you think? do you have a proposition with your question?

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ----------

It is as you say not unnatural for Man and Woman to not have children. That is why God made man and Woman to fill and inhabit the earth. If not then we would not serve a basic pupose. Survival is done through reproduction. Now one could argue that homosexuality is a means of population control. Wouldnt you think?

Well I don't believe that God made a man and a woman.

But that's really beside the point here. We're discussing what is or isn't natural.

If you say it's natural for a man and a woman to have children then a couple who decide not to have children must be acting unnaturally. Equally, marrying a woman who is infertile must also be unnatural as you are never going to have children. Right?

Sigfried
October 27th, 2009, 03:10 PM
I believe we have come to a difference in Natural and Right.

Indeed. I think the problem is you were not in your first post. You argued against it being natural. Allo showed that by most definitions of natural it is. So really your contention is that it is morally wrong, not that it is unnatural since we have established many natural feelings and urges are not considered morally right.



Also things that come natural in a human are successful to the existence of the race.

Not at all.

Consider the appendix. Natural to all humans but not at all needed for our successful existence, indeed while it does us no good, it poses us all some risk of death.

Natural is not always beneficial.

Consider our urges to violence. In some situations they can lead to our destruction, while in other, only slightly different situations they can lead to great success and prosperity. It is the same urge, always natural but whether it leads to good or ill largely depends on the circumstances.

Again, natural is not always beneficial.



With Homosexuality there is no reproduction there for what about it is natural.

Kissing does not have reproductive value. So what? There are near countless sex acts that have no reproductive effect. That does not make them unnatural or immoral.

Homosexuality has been part of the human condition as long as recorded history. And it is part of the animal kingdom as noted. Yet all these species have survived and thrived. So.. it doesn't seem to be a real harm to survival even if it is not an obvious aid.

But could it be advantageous? Could tightly bonded non child bearing males be a benefit to a society? Would then not make exceptionally dedicated workers or soldiers with no child obligations? Could they not go on long journeys without female company and maintain high moral and a sense of social bonding? Perhaps there is survival advantage to having a certain segment of the population be attracted in such a way the precludes children. I'm not claiming it is true, only that it is possible.

What we know is that Homosexuality seems to affect a very reliable percentage of the population, so it is no danger of "spreading" or endangering reproduction in any way. We also know from history that past efforts to suppress it have been entirely unsuccessful. Even the Nazi effort to simply kill all gay people had almost no effect as the next generation had its fair share of gay people.

Personally my feeling is that it is a primarily biological phenomenon, although not directly a genetic one. It is not an active choice people make other than they choose to act on the feeling or not. Those that don't are generally miserable, those that do are only unhappy because people treat them with disdain.

Ahh, got to go.... I'm not rambling anyhow.

LWatts
October 27th, 2009, 03:18 PM
Well I don't believe that God made a man and a woman.

But that's really beside the point here. We're discussing what is or isn't natural.

If you say it's natural for a man and a woman to have children then a couple who decide not to have children must be acting unnaturally. Equally, marrying a woman who is infertile must also be unnatural as you are never going to have children. Right?

Yes I would have to agree that they would be acting unnaturally but as a side note it depends on the circumstance as well. As my Wife has just brought to my attention in the 40's and 50's society was very family oriented, woman got married to bear children. Now a'days society is more Career oriented, with women being more involved in the workplace we have infact or in a way changed what is Natural. What is Natural now wasnt the same as 50 years ago. But as to your argument yes in a way if a Man with no children willingly marries a woman who by know means can bear children he has agreed to end his lineage from him. therfore killing is line and yes I would have to say is unnatural. wouldnt you agree?

Allocutus
October 27th, 2009, 03:24 PM
Yes I would have to agree that they would be acting unnaturally but as a side note it depends on the circumstance as well. As my Wife has just brought to my attention in the 40's and 50's society was very family oriented, woman got married to bear children. Now a'days society is more Career oriented, with women being more involved in the workplace we have infact or in a way changed what is Natural. What is Natural now wasnt the same as 50 years ago. But as to your argument yes in a way if a Man with no children willingly marries a woman who by know means can bear children he has agreed to end his lineage from him. therfore killing is line and yes I would have to say is unnatural. wouldnt you agree?

It's true that in the 40's and 50's society was more family-oriented. And that has changed. Equally, society's views of homosexuality have changed. If we say that social standards affect what is or isn't natural then homosexuality has, by that argument alone, become natural.

That said, I don't know if I agree with your wife's analysis. Even in the 1950's there were people who were not family-oriented. And yes, there were also homosexuals back then. And there were people who didn't like milk. For those people, it was natural not to like milk. It was their nature not to like milk.

I wouldn't agree that "killing" your line is unnatural. Humans are one of millions of species of living things. And by far the majority (in excess of 99%, I understand) of all species have become extinct. It's very natural for an entire species to die out, let alone for a single line.

And if I don't feel an urge or a need to reproduce then how can it be unnatural for me not to reproduce? Wouldn't it be more unnatural if I were to consciously make a decision to conform to someone else's expectations and reproduce despite my lack of any drive towards reproducing?

LWatts
October 28th, 2009, 09:00 AM
And if I don't feel an urge or a need to reproduce then how can it be unnatural for me not to reproduce? Wouldn't it be more unnatural if I were to consciously make a decision to conform to someone else's expectations and reproduce despite my lack of any drive towards reproducing?

But out of the worlds population how many don't reproduce. Then again lets examine reproduce. For most we have the urge to have intercourse. The act of such is also the catalyst to reproduction. correct?

mican333
October 28th, 2009, 09:47 AM
But out of the worlds population how many don't reproduce.

If you are implying that if a minority does not do what the majority does then the minority is "unnatural", you are incorrect.

As an example, it's perfectly natural for people to be born left-handed. The fact that most people are right-handed does not mean that it's unnatural for those who are left-handed to be left-handed.

And it's also natural for some people to not reproduce. If everyone didn't reproduce we'd have a problem but clearly those who don't reproduce are in the minority and there's plenty of people reproducing (perhaps too many) so the human race is not having a problem with certain people not reproducing.

LWatts
October 28th, 2009, 12:13 PM
And it's also natural for some people to not reproduce. If everyone didn't reproduce we'd have a problem but clearly those who don't reproduce are in the minority and there's plenty of people reproducing (perhaps too many) so the human race is not having a problem with certain people not reproducing.

As I agree with you that their are people that don't reproduce i would have to say on the contrary it isn't natural.

I believe natural in this case means normal, as in the way things are supposed to be. In this case i suppose we are referring to the original and or natural design of a woman; as a whole, not individual. Woman as a whole had in her intial make up ovaries, and uterus. Man and or Male's have testes, and the other half of what is required in a chromosomal fashion to crate a child therefore I would argue that yes it is natural per our design for woman to reproduce.

Normally woman who don't reproduce have either chosen this for a reason, or it is detrimental to there health, life, or well being, or in some cases its a birth defect. Would you concur?

mican333
October 28th, 2009, 01:35 PM
As I agree with you that their are people that don't reproduce i would have to say on the contrary it isn't natural.

I believe natural in this case means normal, as in the way things are supposed to be. In this case i suppose we are referring to the original and or natural design of a woman; as a whole, not individual. Woman as a whole had in her intial make up ovaries, and uterus. Man and or Male's have testes, and the other half of what is required in a chromosomal fashion to crate a child therefore I would argue that yes it is natural per our design for woman to reproduce.

I agree it's natural for our design for a woman to have working ovaries and be capable of reproduction.

But I see no good argument supporting that it's natural for every single woman to reproduce. Obviously whether a woman reproduces is based on more than whether she is capable of childbirth. There is, and I'm sure always has been a wide variation on how many children any particular woman has. Some women have a couple (that seems to be the average in our society), some have over a dozen, and some have none at all. And since this variation is ever-present in the human species, I would call it natural, and therefore it is natural for some women to not have children just as it's natural for some women to have way more children than the norm.

Allocutus
October 28th, 2009, 03:14 PM
I agree it's natural for our design for a woman to have working ovaries and be capable of reproduction.


Only if we say that a woman by definition has to have such organs. Otherwise, I would contest a claim that it's natural. If a female (assuming that we can still call this individual female) is conceived without working ovaries, does that make this individual an unnatural human? It's not in this individual's nature to have these working organs.

While I do see your reference to the woman "as a whole and not as an individual", I don't think we can make such distinctions. They would amount in effect to a claim of what a woman is SUPPOSED TO BE and therefore imply that there exists some authority that can dictate what a woman should be.

mican333
October 28th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Only if we say that a woman by definition has to have such organs. Otherwise, I would contest a claim that it's natural.

If a person is born without all of the organs that a person usually has, regardless of what organ is missing, that would be known as a birth defect and would likewise fall way outside of the "norm".

Generally, the female design is to have working ovaries and be capable of child birth. A female without ovaries is still female (I would say the genitalia is really what determines the gender), but she does not conform to the typical design of a female.



While I do see your reference to the woman "as a whole and not as an individual", I don't think we can make such distinctions. They would amount in effect to a claim of what a woman is SUPPOSED TO BE and therefore imply that there exists some authority that can dictate what a woman should be.

When I refer to women as a whole, I mean that it's only necessary that women in general (and therefore not any one specific individual) need to procreate. If one in particular does not procreate, it doesn't matter as others will so the role of women in general will do their part to continue the species.

So given the whole, any particular woman not procreating is still a woman and is behaving naturally as within the whole of women and procreation there likewise is a wide range of how much procreation occurs and therefore some women will procreate a lot more than average and some will procreate a lot less than average so all instances fall within the range of "natural".

Allocutus
October 28th, 2009, 10:56 PM
If a person is born without all of the organs that a person usually has, regardless of what organ is missing, that would be known as a birth defect and would likewise fall way outside of the "norm".

Generally, the female design is to have working ovaries and be capable of child birth. A female without ovaries is still female (I would say the genitalia is really what determines the gender), but she does not conform to the typical design of a female.


Right. So she would not be a typical female (if she has no ovaries at all she might not be a female at all). If you could show that a female's role is to reproduce then we could even say that this particular individual doesn't conform with the usual "design". But that doesn't mean that she's unnatural, does it? Her nature is such that she doesn't have functioning ovaries.





When I refer to women as a whole, I mean that it's only necessary that women in general (and therefore not any one specific individual) need to procreate. If one in particular does not procreate, it doesn't matter as others will so the role of women in general will do their part to continue the species.


I don't even know if we can say that women in general NEED to procreate. Most women do tend to have a drive towards procreation.



So given the whole, any particular woman not procreating is still a woman and is behaving naturally as within the whole of women and procreation there likewise is a wide range of how much procreation occurs and therefore some women will procreate a lot more than average and some will procreate a lot less than average so all instances fall within the range of "natural".

Sure, that seems to be the way things are. We've observed this. It's natural that some women want to procreate while others don't. It's also natural that one in every n (some number which I don't know but which does exist) women is incapable of procreating. It's equally natural that one in x women is attracted towards other women and not towards men. It's natural for her and it's natural for the species. That's just how we are.

Tarja
October 28th, 2009, 11:41 PM
Okay true true killing is natural as is death, without killing and death we would all starve unless your a vegan then thats a whole different chapter. How did you get that i was saying that having children is unatural? My point was that it isnt possible for a Man and Man couple to reproduce naturally without outside help from a doner or adoption. Same with a female couple. If they dropped two men on a deserted Island they would as a race cease to exist. And vise versa with a female couple.

If you dropped an infertile man and an infertile woman on a deserted island the human race would die out. You would have the exact same results as if you dropped two people of the same sex on that island.

And speaking of infertile couples...I am sure you aware that they cannot reproduce naturay without outside help either, so I am not sure what this does to your argument now.

---------- Post added at 10:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------


But as to your argument yes in a way if a Man with no children willingly marries a woman who by know means can bear children he has agreed to end his lineage from him. therfore killing is line and yes I would have to say is unnatural. wouldnt you agree?

So should older women be prevented from marrying because they cant have kids? An 80 year old man can still father a child but an 80 year old woman cannot. So if you are saying that itd be unnatural for a man to marry a woman knowing she cant have kids, isn't this kind of sexist considering men can still father children at the grand old age of 100 but women usually dont have children past the age of 50?

LWatts
October 29th, 2009, 06:00 AM
If you dropped an infertile man and an infertile woman on a deserted island the human race would die out. You would have the exact same results as if you dropped two people of the same sex on that island.

And speaking of infertile couples...I am sure you aware that they cannot reproduce naturay without outside help either, so I am not sure what this does to your argument now.


If you dropped an infertile man and an infertile woman on a deserted island then you would be wasting time, money, an a plane or helicopter or what ever other resources you used to do so. That would be rather dumb to do so. I believe we all know to start something e.g. a human existence on a deserted island, then you would want to ensure they are both capable to reproduce.

This does nothing to my argument.




So should older women be prevented from marrying because they cant have kids? An 80 year old man can still father a child but an 80 year old woman cannot. So if you are saying that itd be unnatural for a man to marry a woman knowing she cant have kids, isn't this kind of sexist considering men can still father children at the grand old age of 100 but women usually dont have children past the age of 50?

Again your thought is starting off bad. If they have already reproduced then they have naturally done, in one aspect of it, there purpose in life. So with the above thought again your setting yourself up for failure. If you were going to burn down a forest you wouldn't wait till it was pouring rain, you would wait until conditions were prime, dry, hot weather, with a s light breeze.

mican333
October 29th, 2009, 07:29 AM
Right. So she would not be a typical female (if she has no ovaries at all she might not be a female at all). If you could show that a female's role is to reproduce then we could even say that this particular individual doesn't conform with the usual "design". But that doesn't mean that she's unnatural, does it? Her nature is such that she doesn't have functioning ovaries.

I suppose it's why she doesn't have functioning ovaries. For instance, if she didn't because she's the offspring of someone who was exposed to a nuclear blast and suffered radiation poisoning, then I would say she has a unnatural condition.

But if it's just because of a random mutation and such mutations always happen to a small percentage of the population, then I would say her condition is natural.



I don't even know if we can say that women in general NEED to procreate. Most women do tend to have a drive towards procreation.

If no women procreate the human race dies off. So I would say that women in general do NEED to procreate, but there's no individual woman that needs to procreate.

LWatts
October 29th, 2009, 08:25 AM
I believe we have gone off topic at this point, from homosexuality; natural or not? To is procreation natural. Partially my fault, sure to an extent, but in an effort to get back on track.

No i don't believe homosexuality in a human is natural (disregarding animal factors, limiting the spectrum from all species, to human species.) Again with a post i had presented previously. There simply isn't a purpose for homosexuality in a human, besides providing happiness.

If you believe happiness and feeling good are all there is to life then yes i suppose homosexuality would be beneficial as it makes some people "feel good"

But if you believe like I that a, not all or the only, main purpose in life is to recreate within our own species then you would agree that a couple who has largely the non ability to do so serves no purpose. I'll go ahead and say, yes i understand that is a woman who isn't physically able to, and so forth, or if she is to old, or others scenario's alike is isn't and or shouldn't be factors in this equation. No we should kill them off cause they can no longer reproduce, and no I'm not saying a woman who cannot doesn't deserve to be married and happy, and or doesn't serve a purpose in life. They just serve a different purpose.

On the other hand in today's society I don't believe that its necessarily matters in a large society that we have for people to be homosexual, natural or not, simply because the human race isn't in a threat of existence. If anything we are overpopulated. Killing everything else to make room for us.

So one would be able to argue that due a vast availability of options homosexuality is present. But i still stand by it is morally wrong.

mican333
October 29th, 2009, 08:46 AM
But if you believe like I that a main purpose in life is to recreate within our own species then you would agree that a couple who has largely the non ability to do so serves no purpose.

What one's "main purpose" is in life is a matter of opinion so that statement is not based in fact but opinion.

I'm over forty and the number of time's I've procreated can be counted on one hand. So I've apparently spent most of my life not fulfilling my "main purpose". No, humans have many purposes in life beyond making more humans. And if it so happened that I never procreated, my life would still have great purpose.

And the notion that homosexuality fulfill no purpose in human existence is a mere assumption. Just because you cannot see a purpose doesn't mean there is not one.

While procreation (in general) is important, the view that that's what we are suppose to be doing all of the time is a falsity. Clearly if we did nothing but procreate, we would suffer severe overpopulation problems in no time and would probably go extinct so the uniform position that procreation is always what we should be doing is not correct. Much of the time, it's important that many of us do not procreate so not procreating is likewise important.

And perhaps that is why a certain percentage of the population are not disposed to procreate - it is a mechanism to limit procreation and therefore guard against overpopulation. And I'm not forwarding this from nowhere - experiments have been done with rats showing that the more dense the population the increase in the rate of homosexuality which results in population growth slowing. So as I said, just because you are unaware of a purpose for homosexuality does not mean there is not one.

LWatts
October 29th, 2009, 08:59 AM
What one's "main purpose" is in life is a matter of opinion so that statement is not based in fact but opinion.

I'm over forty and the number of time's I've procreated can be counted on one hand. So I've apparently spent most of my life not fulfilling my "main purpose". No, humans have many purposes in life beyond making more humans. And if it so happened that I never procreated, my life would still have great purpose.

Read my post, I stated "a main purpose, not the only" a purpose of many. So in fact you did serve one purpose and continued to live your life fulfilling the rest


And the notion that homosexuality fulfill no purpose in human existence is a mere assumption. Just because you cannot see a purpose doesn't mean there is not one.

I do believe I stated that, as well as my reasoning for non-purpose.
Purpose: happiness with partner
Non-purpose: no furtherance of existence, and to me a moral issue


While procreation (in general) is important, the view that that's what we are suppose to be doing all of the time is a falsity. Clearly if we did nothing but procreate, we would suffer severe overpopulation problems in no time and would probably go extinct so the uniform position that procreation is always what we should be doing is not correct. Much of the time, it's important that many of us do not procreate so not procreating is likewise important.

I don't believe you understood my post as I touched on this as well.

mican333
October 29th, 2009, 10:21 AM
Read my post, I stated "a main purpose, not the only" a purpose of many. So in fact you did serve one purpose and continued to live your life fulfilling the rest

But who's to say what my "main purpose" is? I mean isn't what you are forwarding nothing more than an opinion?



I do believe I stated that, as well as my reasoning for non-purpose.
Purpose: happiness with partner
Non-purpose: no furtherance of existence, and to me a moral issue

But again, who's to say that bonding with another human (which likewise seems to be an innate want within humans) is not a "main purpose"? Again, you seem to be offering not a fact or logic-based argument, but a personal opinion on the matter.



And as this was ignored, I will re-post it here:

(perhaps homosexuality) is a mechanism to limit procreation and therefore guard against overpopulation. And I'm not forwarding this from nowhere - experiments have been done with rats showing that the more dense the population the increase in the rate of homosexuality which results in population growth slowing. So as I said, just because you are unaware of a purpose for homosexuality does not mean there is not one.

Tarja
October 29th, 2009, 07:37 PM
If you dropped an infertile man and an infertile woman on a deserted island then you would be wasting time, money, an a plane or helicopter or what ever other resources you used to do so. That would be rather dumb to do so. I believe we all know to start something e.g. a human existence on a deserted island, then you would want to ensure they are both capable to reproduce.

This does nothing to my argument.

You are the one who brought up dumping two men or two women on an island, remember? You'd be wasting your time then and you'd be wasting your time here. Just wanting to remind you that as soon as you argue about gay people being unable to procreate, your argument goes out the window simply because not all straights can procreate, either. So not being able to have children is a bad argument.


Again your thought is starting off bad. If they have already reproduced then they have naturally done, in one aspect of it, there purpose in life. So with the above thought again your setting yourself up for failure. If you were going to burn down a forest you wouldn't wait till it was pouring rain, you would wait until conditions were prime, dry, hot weather, with a s light breeze.

Okay, so if the woman hasn't had kids and she's, say, 50 years old she shouldnt get married because she hasn't done what was required of her?

LWatts
November 2nd, 2009, 07:22 AM
You are the one who brought up dumping two men or two women on an island, remember? You'd be wasting your time then and you'd be wasting your time here. Just wanting to remind you that as soon as you argue about gay people being unable to procreate, your argument goes out the window simply because not all straights can procreate, either. So not being able to have children is a bad argument.



Okay, so if the woman hasn't had kids and she's, say, 50 years old she shouldnt get married because she hasn't done what was required of her?

Ma'am,
I have answered this question a couple posts up.

Talthas
November 2nd, 2009, 08:25 AM
Ok.. I haven't seen this particular theory advanced, and it makes the most sense to me, so I'm going to put it forward:

People who say that homosexuality has a biological cause are right. So are people that say it's not a genetic thing. A genetic trait could not have persisted in the population, since the majority of homosexuals do not procreate (artificial means, which are a very recent invention - and therefore couldn't have had a role in evolution - excepted).

That said, I believe that homosexuality is the result of an imbalance of gonadotropic hormones in utero. A mother carrying a male fetus undergoes an extraordinarily difficult time in her life, releasing cortisol, which negates androgens... or a mother carrying a female fetus for some reason has a deficiency of estrogen or aromatase (which creates estrogen from testosterone (which women also make), or makes an excess of testosterone. In either case, the genetically normal fetus would be exposed to inappropriate stimulants for sexual development. Since the genetics are programmed to make the body develop a certain way, this would largely leave no physical trace. However, neural development is a much more delicate process which we don't know all the details of. It's entirely possible that the synaptic structure of men and women - which *are* different - are influenced in their development by the appropriate sex hormone in utero.

As evidence, I cite the following studies:

This one shows how boys are more likely to be born gay if they have more older brothers. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5120004.stm)


This one shows that homosexual and heterosexual males have different patterns of brain activation during sexual stimulation. (http://www.ajnr.org/cgi/content/full/29/10/1890)

There is another study that was cited in an article by the BBC about a year ago that showed that homosexual men and straight women had much more similar brain activity patterns, as did heterosexual men and homosexual women. I can't find it right now, unfortunately.

My point is that there's *got* to be some reason for it, and the best one I can come up with is an imbalance of sex hormones in utero. Any thoughts?

Mister X
November 19th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Homosexuality is genetic, it's pretty common sense really. I like women because I am physically and emotionally attracted to them. It's the same way for homosexuals, only the same gender.

I highly doubt that homosexuality will become a dominant gene, however, because mankind has existed for how long? And we have yet to see the population be homosexuals.

Locallegend
December 3rd, 2009, 12:31 AM
how isnt it a choice?

Is there any scientific evidence or even personal experience to support that sexual preference is a choice? If it is a choice, i don't remember when I made mine. I'm very attracted to women, especially redheads; even more if they have some tattoos. I believe the tattoos being attractive is a choice because of my lifestyle and that they connect the girl to the same lifestyle, which is always attractive to another in some way. The red hair though? No idea when that started. Perhaps I made a subliminal choice when meeting a redhead that I had a profound attraction to and that has since transferred into something I like and look for. Maybe it's from when I was young and watched "The Fifth Element". Who knows? Now why I like women? I cannot remember when girls became attractive to me or why. I've always been flirty with girls and slightly standoffish to boys. The only thing I could wager is that it was from watching my parents relationship as an infant and thinking that a man and a women was natural. For that to be true then the majority or children raised by homosexuals would have to end up gay, right? The idea of it being genetic scares me though..That's just one step towards finding out nothing in my life is under my control.

Watch it turn out to be the first direction you turn your head at birth or if you became gay because you didn't see a fish in the first 19.75 days of being alive! :grin:

arthurcamara
January 19th, 2010, 05:52 PM
People who say that homosexuality has a biological cause are right. So are people that say it's not a genetic thing. A genetic trait could not have persisted in the population, since the majority of homosexuals do not procreate.


Talthas certainly got a point: genetic trait could not have persisted in the population and hormonal imbalance could be the main reason for homossexuality rather than genes. MAY BE. However, we may not be talking about a hypothetical type of gene 'hetero' vs. 'homo', which would state one's sexual orientation directly. A combination of different genes leading to variations of hormonal production, mutation and (why not) non-dominant genes should also be considered.

Ty Boyd
January 19th, 2010, 08:10 PM
OK! Think of the ugliest person of your sexual preference you know. If the whole world looked like that person, you would probably be the opposite sexual preference or asexual. As for the genetic trait thing, I think there might be certain genetic personality traits that could influence someone to be homosexual, such as over curiosity (maybe, just kinda throwing that out there). But the traits would be good for other things. Lastly, there is no way that sexual preference is chosen. Thats like saying that you can chose whether or not to like brocoli. I never chose to be straight.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 PM ----------

Why do gay guys have high pitched voices so often? I think it might be because they try to atract masculine gay guys. There is always a manly man and a girly man, right? I might be wrong.

arthurcamara
January 20th, 2010, 03:56 AM
Theres no such thing. nobody chooses to be gay or straight, white or black, blue or brown eyed.
But also I do not understand why some guys have high pitched voices. would that be genetic also? It's kinda hard to affirm that. I mean, i can easily see that sexual orientation is genetic or, at the most, caused by hormanal imbalance, but I cannot find genetic related reasons for a feminine atittute, once people simply reproduce each other's gestures and each other's talk WHILE they grow up and therefore act like they do throughout adult life. This is an intriguing question but honestly I dont have a solid opinion about it.

FELIX LAETVS
April 14th, 2010, 06:11 AM
Well let me just say that I am gay.

Now, onto the idea that it is a choice. I have "tried" it with women. It just cannot be altered. I am speaking purely from my personal experience when I say: it cannot be a choice. If it were, I would have been straight by now.

It has to be in some way genetic (most probably a combination of certain genes), otherwise it would be a choice of some sort of choice.

I would say I personally believe it to have an evolutionary value, so as to maintain population numbers. I mean we, as humans after all, are heavily overpopulating the planet and our survival seems to be quite unnatural. So if nature does not control our numbers...we destroy nature. That would be disastrous.

Sigfried
April 14th, 2010, 09:41 AM
I would say I personally believe it to have an evolutionary value, so as to maintain population numbers. I mean we, as humans after all, are heavily overpopulating the planet and our survival seems to be quite unnatural. So if nature does not control our numbers...we destroy nature. That would be disastrous.

I doubt that as I don't think it has a significant impact on population. If you could show that homosexuality is linked to nutritional problems or some such, then you might be able to make a plausible case that when resources are scarce nature shuts down sexual reproduction via homosexuality. Also natural selection would be expected to eradicate homosexuality since it is strongly selected against.

I tend to think its likely it is simply variance in the rather complicated set of genetics that go into sexuality. Males and females share the same core genetics in many areas and some of those are sexual. The possibility of there being many variations of its expression is pretty high. Same goes for trans gendered and so on. There isn't as simple a binary boy/girl in our brains and bodies as we might like to think. There is a graduation in many directions.

Some would denigrate homosexuality calling it an aberration, but nature thrives on aberration, it requires it. Societies should have a place for homosexual behavior. It does not pose a danger to heterosexuals that they didn't already pose to themselves. I maintain that most folks that seem homophobic are either entirely ignorant of what homosexual people are like, or they are themselves homosexual but are desperately fighting against it.

It is interesting the passion it raises. Among the evangelicals it is in their top 3 priorities, and for me its one of the issues that raises the greatest ire at those who persecute it.

mican333
April 14th, 2010, 09:49 AM
I doubt that as I don't think it has a significant impact on population. If you could show that homosexuality is linked to nutritional problems or some such, then you might be able to make a plausible case that when resources are scarce nature shuts down sexual reproduction via homosexuality.

I can't prove anything but I've come across information that suggests that the rate of homosexuality is linked to population density.

For one, a friend of mine said he did experiments with rat populations and found that increased density of population increases the rate of homosexuality amongst rats.

And I recall reading years ago that stress in the mother is a factor that increases the chances of having a homosexual child.

If both of these pieces of data were to be accepted, it would definitely point to homosexuality being something that slows population growth when it gets too dense (overpopulation would increase stress amongst people).

I admit I can't prove this theory but the notion that homosexuality is something that slows population growth when needed is not unfounded.

Boris
April 18th, 2010, 11:38 AM
Everyone who believes that sexual preference is a conscious choice is clearly bisexual.

Consider:
1.To say that everyone can choose which sex to be attracted to is to say, by definition, that everyone is bisexual.
2.Any person who claims the above is surely not excluding themselves. What sense would it make for one to think that everyone in the world except oneself was born with this ability to choose their sexual preference? On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for anyone who is bisexual to assume that everyone else is the same way. It is only those who are heterosexual or homosexual who realize that this is not true. As a heterosexual male, I could no more easily choose to be sexually attracted to a man than I could choose to be sexually attracted to road kill.

I am always amused by someone who goes on a talk show or news show and claims that sexual preference is a choice, as they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are unintentionally announcing to the world that they are bisexual.

snackboy
April 18th, 2010, 04:52 PM
If both of these pieces of data were to be accepted, it would definitely point to homosexuality being something that slows population growth when it gets too dense (overpopulation would increase stress amongst people).
Interesting...perhaps a natural defense to overpopulation? That would make entirely too much sense - a species protects itself from overpopulation and exhaustion of resources by breeding an increased number of homosexuals, which would in turn reduce birthrates.

CliveStaples
April 18th, 2010, 05:40 PM
Everyone who believes that sexual preference is a conscious choice is clearly bisexual.

Consider:
1.To say that everyone can choose which sex to be attracted to is to say, by definition, that everyone is bisexual.
2.Any person who claims the above is surely not excluding themselves. What sense would it make for one to think that everyone in the world except oneself was born with this ability to choose their sexual preference? On the other hand, it makes perfect sense for anyone who is bisexual to assume that everyone else is the same way. It is only those who are heterosexual or homosexual who realize that this is not true. As a heterosexual male, I could no more easily choose to be sexually attracted to a man than I could choose to be sexually attracted to road kill.

I am always amused by someone who goes on a talk show or news show and claims that sexual preference is a choice, as they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are unintentionally announcing to the world that they are bisexual.

[1] gives an incorrect definition of bisexual. A bisexual person finds persons from both sexes attractive.

If sexual orientation is a choice, you can essentially choose which sex you are attracted to. You are bisexual if and only if you choose both sexes.

By analogy, you can choose to put on white socks or black socks. Or you can put on one black sock and one white sock. Just because you have the choice to put on one black sock and one white sock doesn't mean that everyone wears one black sock and one white sock.

Boris
April 18th, 2010, 06:40 PM
[1] gives an incorrect definition of bisexual. A bisexual person finds persons from both sexes attractive.

If sexual orientation is a choice, you can essentially choose which sex you are attracted to. You are bisexual if and only if you choose both sexes.

I don't know where you get your definitions, but a quick dictionary search on Google turned up plenty of support for my definition that a bisexual is someone who is attracted to both sexes. Regardless, this is merely semantics - You can call the quality of being attracted to both sexes any word that you want to invent, and my logic still holds true.




By analogy, you can choose to put on white socks or black socks. Or you can put on one black sock and one white sock. Just because you have the choice to put on one black sock and one white sock doesn't mean that everyone wears one black sock and one white sock.

This analogy is silly and irrelevant - I never claimed that everyone should wear bi -colored socks, nor that everyone should be bisexual. Besides, comparing choice of sock color to choice of sexual preference is absolutely ludicrous to anyone who is repulsed by the idea of having sex with someone who is the opposite gender than the one they are attracted to (in other words, to anyone who isn't attracted to both sexes). No one has ever been repulsed by sock colors - my road kill analogy was more appropriate. Try again.

CliveStaples
April 18th, 2010, 07:00 PM
I don't know where you get your definitions, but a quick dictionary search on Google turned up plenty of support for my definition that a bisexual is someone who is attracted to both sexes. Regardless, this is merely semantics - You can call the quality of being attracted to both sexes any word that you want to invent, and my logic still holds true.

This is exactly my point: a bisexual person is attracted to both sexes. A person who does not choose to be attracted to both sexes is therefore not bisexual.


This analogy is silly and irrelevant - I never claimed that everyone should wear bi -colored socks, nor that everyone should be bisexual. Besides, comparing choice of sock color to choice of sexual preference is absolutely ludicrous to anyone who is repulsed by the idea of having sex with someone who is the opposite gender than the one they are attracted to (in other words, to anyone who isn't attracted to both sexes). No one has ever been repulsed by sock colors - my road kill analogy was more appropriate. Try again.

My analogy was to the "sexual orientation is a choice" argument, not to your ideas about sexual orientation.

You had claimed that people who believe sexual orientation is a choice must necessarily conclude that everyone is bisexual, i.e. that everyone is attracted to both sexes.

But under the "sexual orientation is a choice" theory, I can choose to be attracted to women and not to men. Therefore, I can choose not to be bisexual.

Boris
April 18th, 2010, 09:56 PM
This is exactly my point: a bisexual person is attracted to both sexes. A person who does not choose to be attracted to both sexes is therefore not bisexual.

Their behavior is not bisexual, but the attraction has not changed. Once again, it is irrelevant to the argument whether you label it bisexual. The pertinent fact is that an attraction to both sexes exists, thus enabling a choice to be made. Those who are exclusively attracted to one sex never have that choice.



But under the "sexual orientation is a choice" theory, I can choose to be attracted to women and not to men. Therefore, I can choose not to be bisexual.

I am having some difficulty understanding what you are arguing. I agree that those who are bisexual can certainly choose to be sexually active with only one sex. I'm still not clear on how any of your statements refute my argument in any way.

Allow me to outline the argument another way and you can tell me if and where you disagree:
A) Bisexuals exist and (by definition) are attracted to both sexes
B) Homosexuals and Heterosexuals exist and (by definition) are exclusively attracted to one sex
C) Virtually everyone is a member of either A or B
D) A is self-evident to members of the A group
E) B is self-evident to members of the B groups
E) Anyone who disagrees with A must not be a member of that group
F) Anyone who disagrees with B must not be a member of either of those groups

This last one (F) is the scenario I described in my earlier post. For one to claim that sexual preference is a conscious choice for everyone is the same thing as saying that everyone is A, because if anyone were B, they wouldn't have a choice because they would only have one preference to choose from. But B is self-evident to all members of B. Therefore, anyone making that claim must be a member of A.

CliveStaples
April 21st, 2010, 12:55 AM
Their behavior is not bisexual, but the attraction has not changed. Once again, it is irrelevant to the argument whether you label it bisexual. The pertinent fact is that an attraction to both sexes exists, thus enabling a choice to be made. Those who are exclusively attracted to one sex never have that choice.

Now you are asserting that before a choice is made, an attraction exists to both sexes.

Is that necessarily an assumption that Choice Theory proponents must make?

Even if it were, it would only show that everyone was bisexual at some point, not that everyone is bisexual.


I am having some difficulty understanding what you are arguing. I agree that those who are bisexual can certainly choose to be sexually active with only one sex. I'm still not clear on how any of your statements refute my argument in any way.

Allow me to outline the argument another way and you can tell me if and where you disagree:
A) Bisexuals exist and (by definition) are attracted to both sexes
B) Homosexuals and Heterosexuals exist and (by definition) are exclusively attracted to one sex
C) Virtually everyone is a member of either A or B
D) A is self-evident to members of the A group
E) B is self-evident to members of the B groups
E) Anyone who disagrees with A must not be a member of that group
F) Anyone who disagrees with B must not be a member of either of those groups

This last one (F) is the scenario I described in my earlier post. For one to claim that sexual preference is a conscious choice for everyone is the same thing as saying that everyone is A, because if anyone were B, they wouldn't have a choice because they would only have one preference to choose from. But B is self-evident to all members of B. Therefore, anyone making that claim must be a member of A.

I view the Choice Theory as the following:

Call A the set of people attracted to females.
Call B the set of people attracted to males.

Males in A are called "heterosexual," as are women in B.
Males in B are called "homosexual," as are women in A.
Both males and females who are in A AND B are called "bisexual."

The Theory of Choice then claims that each person can determine which set(s) they belong in.

Thus, they are bisexual if and only if they choose to be in both A and B. Anyone who chooses simply to be in A (or B) is by definition not bisexual.

So not everyone needs to be bisexual.

Boris
April 21st, 2010, 01:05 PM
Now you are asserting that before a choice is made, an attraction exists to both sexes.

Is that necessarily an assumption that Choice Theory proponents must make?

Even if it were, it would only show that everyone was bisexual at some point, not that everyone is bisexual.

It appears that you are confusing sexual preference with sexual activity. The argument over choice always centers around preference, not activity.

I don't think there is any disagreement that whether to engage in a sexual activity with any gender could be a choice (although males might encounter certain mechanical limitations).

However, my side of the argument is based on the self-evident truth that preference is not a matter of choice, unless both choices are equally appealing to the chooser.

By analogy, suppose you were to offer me two options for dinner: steak or dog poop. I could certainly choose to eat the dog poop, although I would not enjoy it and it would probably make me very sick. However, I could not choose to prefer to eat the dog poop. This analogy is valid for me, as a heterosexual, because it presents a choice between something I enjoy very much and something I find repulsive.

For someone who is bisexual, however, a more appropriate analogy would be like offering them a choice between steak and lobster, assuming those are two foods they find equally appealing. Sure, they could choose to eat only steak all the time, or only lobster, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the capacity to enjoy both.

This is why it is difficult for anyone who is bisexual to comprehend why gender preference is not a choice. From their perspective, it is merely a neutral decision between two things that are enjoyable. They don't realize that for those who are not bisexual, the lobster becomes dog poop.



The Theory of Choice then claims that each person can determine which set(s) they belong in..

Understood. But this is only true for those who are bisexual (have the capacity to enjoy sex with both genders). So, again, to claim that every person can make this choice, is to claim that everyone is bisexual.

bluepinaple
November 20th, 2010, 12:59 PM
I completely disagree with everything you say.

There is no gay gene. Until they find one there is no proof what so ever that being a homosexual is in our genetics.

Secondly, Animals are animals comparing animal behaviour to human behaviour is completely absurd. How can you compare the two when we are so blatantly diffrent from begiuns in every single way... we are more complex than pengiuns.

Homosexuality is just down to a deep down emotional need for male affermation. It is a dissorder...but it can be changed and it is not genetic.

You will agree that your feelings change, yes?
When you ask a homosexual about being a homosexual he will say, i FEEL attracted to men, it is completely emotional. My point is he FEELS it...you will agree that feelings change? people change? therefor why can't men and women over time if they wanted to also change and grow to appreaciate the opposit sex in ways they never emagined and lead the heterosexual life they always wanted?

Why are homosexuals so fixated on proving it is genetic and in born and that it cannot be changed, when its clear its just an emotional need trying to be met sexually. This can be rectified and homosexuals CAN become heterosexuals.

You may believe that it cannot be changed because you can't seem to break free and have made peace with it. But the truth is anyone can break free and become heterosexual, just because some homosexuals say it cannot be done, doesen't mean it cannot be done.

I could give you a million examples of people saying you cannot do this or that, because they are jealous. If i can't do it then you certainly can't is the homosexual way of thinking.

Rant over.

Spartacus
November 21st, 2010, 12:51 PM
SOme of the latest research shows:

1.) Many people living the gay lifestyle are not exactly gay. They are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

2.) Some gays are truly gay in that they are not at all attracted to members of the opposite sex.

3.) New research shows that hormonal levels in pregnant women can be the cause for truly homosexual men.

Embedding has been disabled but this BBC special on the subject is fascinating...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sJnpEc2fZA

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------


Why are homosexuals so fixated on proving it is genetic and in born and that it cannot be changed, when its clear its just an emotional need trying to be met sexually

Because if it can be shown that homosexuality is genetic -- legally it makes homosexuals a special class of people and supports civlil liberties arguments. .



This can be rectified and homosexuals CAN become heterosexuals.

Some yes. Most Perhaps -- but all?

Research at Northwestern University where self-identified homosexuals undergo a brain scan while being shown pictures of male and femal subjects shows that some homosexuals are "100% gay" they have absolutely no sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Can it be changed with re-conditioning? perhaps...but I think you'll find the BBC special I linked above interesting....it includes cases of twins, one gay, the other straight and also looks at current scientific research.

According to the research cited in this documentary -- the cause for truly homosexuak men is probably based on hormonal levels during pregnancy and how that affected the wiring of the brain.

Another interesting correlations and probable cause is the percentage of homosexual men who have more than one older brother. Why and how? That's not clear yet. It could be a naturally biological way of controlling and/or limiting the level of hostility in a society in a population, as most gay men have feminine tendencies.

Evidence seems to show that whatever "makes someone gay" probably happens in the womb.

bluepinaple
November 22nd, 2010, 10:50 AM
The fact that you had to think about whether you were gay or straight kinda proves that you are bisexual. 'Real' straight people never have to choose because it's something you always know.

Thats a load of rubbish, i cant believe you even said that. right so just because he thought about it for a while PROVES that he is bisexual? i mean where on earth do you get this theory from?

If i use this example with anything else it would sound totally rediculous. such as i once thought about killing somone now makes me a murderer? believe it or not its exactly what your saying. and if every guy or girl who thought about being with someone of the same sex at some point in thier life was tagged as bisexual then i think we'd have a heck of alot of bisexuals on our hands!!!!

thinking something does not prove ANYTHING.

plus sexuality is not fixed, its fluid, its changeable. If you want to be heterosexual enough then make decisions towards that path and you'll eventually be able to look at a women in a compltely diffrent way appreciate what heterosexual men see in women.
its possible to think about things with out being bisexual, man like what, huh? *_*

Spartacus
November 22nd, 2010, 10:57 AM
plus sexuality is not fixed, its fluid, its changeable. If you want to be heterosexual enough then make decisions towards that path and you'll eventually be able to look at a women in a compltely diffrent way appreciate what heterosexual men see in women.


Given what takes place in prisons all over the world -- where heterosexual men go in and change their sexual behavior to that of homosexuals -- and upon release revert back to heterosexuality, I am inclined to agree.

bluepinaple
November 22nd, 2010, 11:02 AM
Im pleased that iv found someone who at least believes that it is possible for homosexuals to become heterosexuals. the problem is i believe that there is no exeption as to what guy can and cannot change. I mean why would there be? after all we all have freedom of will and a choice, therfore if a man wants to reject those feelings and become a heterosexual he can!

Yes some men are more sensetive, they are more artistic, they may think deeper and longer about life than other men...but thats just the beauty of how diffrent we are individually not our sexual orientation.

As i stated before, homosexuality is a distorted view on sex. Homosexual men use sex as a way of getting the male love and or attention that they so crave.

through puberty thier feelings have turned sexual but deep dopwn they just want love from a male source. its all emotional, its all personal and sensetive, hence why homosexuals get very defensive about thier views on the subject, because its such a personal part of themselves. They also let it define who they are, thier sexuality and sexual behaviour is hightend and used alot more than heterosexuals.

i would even go as far to say as they are trapped in a way of thinking that they at the start at least did not want and over the years have given up trying to change,. but of course the public still doesent accept thier way of thinking and they feel rejected. showing that there is a genetic gene validates them and makes thier sexual ways "acceptable"






SOme of the latest research shows:

1.) Many people living the gay lifestyle are not exactly gay. They are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

2.) Some gays are truly gay in that they are not at all attracted to members of the opposite sex.

3.) New research shows that hormonal levels in pregnant women can be the cause for truly homosexual men.

Embedding has been disabled but this BBC special on the subject is fascinating...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sJnpEc2fZA

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------



Because if it can be shown that homosexuality is genetic -- legally it makes homosexuals a special class of people and supports civlil liberties arguments. .




Some yes. Most Perhaps -- but all?

Research at Northwestern University where self-identified homosexuals undergo a brain scan while being shown pictures of male and femal subjects shows that some homosexuals are "100% gay" they have absolutely no sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Can it be changed with re-conditioning? perhaps...but I think you'll find the BBC special I linked above interesting....it includes cases of twins, one gay, the other straight and also looks at current scientific research.

According to the research cited in this documentary -- the cause for truly homosexuak men is probably based on hormonal levels during pregnancy and how that affected the wiring of the brain.

Another interesting correlations and probable cause is the percentage of homosexual men who have more than one older brother. Why and how? That's not clear yet. It could be a naturally biological way of controlling and/or limiting the level of hostility in a society in a population, as most gay men have feminine tendencies.

Evidence seems to show that whatever "makes someone gay" probably happens in the womb.

mican333
November 22nd, 2010, 11:47 AM
Thats a load of rubbish, i cant believe you even said that. right so just because he thought about it for a while PROVES that he is bisexual? i mean where on earth do you get this theory from?

I wouldn't say that just thinking about sex with the same gender while being attracted to the opposite gender makes you bisexual but if you are sexually attracted to both genders, you are a bisexual.


If i use this example with anything else it would sound totally rediculous. such as i once thought about killing somone now makes me a murderer?

Well, I was interested in having sex with someone of the opposite sex years before I actually had sex with a female. So I wasn't a heterosexual prior to having sex with a female?



and if every guy or girl who thought about being with someone of the same sex at some point in thier life was tagged as bisexual then i think we'd have a heck of alot of bisexuals on our hands!!!!

Well, just thinking about it doesn't quite qualify IMO. But if one sincerely has a sexual attraction to both genders, then they are bisexual.




plus sexuality is not fixed, its fluid, its changeable. If you want to be heterosexual enough then make decisions towards that path and you'll eventually be able to look at a women in a compltely diffrent way appreciate what heterosexual men see in women.

If you are saying that a gay man will lose his attraction to men by thinking about women enough, I'd like to see some scientific evidence of this because all valid evidence that I'm aware of does not back up that assertion.

And no going to sites that have a vested interest in reparative therapy. I'm talking about unbiased scientific information.

bluepinaple
November 22nd, 2010, 12:25 PM
If you are saying that a gay man will lose his attraction to men by thinking about women enough, I'd like to see some scientific evidence of this because all valid evidence that I'm aware of does not back up that assertion.

And no going to sites that have a vested interest in reparative therapy. I'm talking about unbiased scientific information.[/QUOTE]


I just cannot accept that wether a man likes it or not he is born into that sexuality and it is concrete and cannot change, i also dont understand what is so wrong with that way of thinking? why are you so against it being possible?

if a man no longer wants to be gay and wants out, then he is free to do so, no one says it will be easy or he will have to go through alot of hard times.

where is the proof that it is not possible to change? there is none. so my theory on the subject that it is possible is as valid and plausible as yours.

also being gay is like bieng in a cage, no one wants to be gay! no one! saying you will always be gay is like a death sentence to alot of people.
its saying you have no choice, its saying you'll never have kids the natural way and many other things that as a man you would naturally want.

could it be that homosexuals havent been able to change and so just like a bully is jealous, when they find out there is a way out, instead of being happy and helping people out, they say its impossible and/or you where never gay in the first place.


i find that when it comes to people saying " i may be gay" gays are only too happy to accept and say thats good come join. on the other hand if a gay person says i want out, most other gays will reject them and say something along the lines of " your rejecting your true self, who you are and who you are ment to be".
its easy to come into it, but when it comes to wanting no change, the vast majority will say NO YOU CANT!

There is an imabalance, its unfair on people who don't want to be gay.

mican333
November 23rd, 2010, 07:09 AM
I just cannot accept that wether a man likes it or not he is born into that sexuality and it is concrete and cannot change, i also dont understand what is so wrong with that way of thinking? why are you so against it being possible?

Because all evidence that I'm aware says it is not.



if a man no longer wants to be gay and wants out, then he is free to do so, no one says it will be easy or he will have to go through alot of hard times.

And scientific evidence points to it not even being possible.



where is the proof that it is not possible to change? there is none. so my theory on the subject that it is possible is as valid and plausible as yours.

Well, in a debate it comes down to who can better support their position with evidence. From the American Psychological Association:

"Is sexual orientation a choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

So I have provided actual evidence that sexual orientation is immutable.





also being gay is like bieng in a cage, no one wants to be gay! no one!

Most of the gay people I know seem to be alright with it. The thing they primarily don't like is people giving them crap about being gay but that requires the anti-gay people to change to remedy that.





could it be that homosexuals havent been able to change and so just like a bully is jealous, when they find out there is a way out, instead of being happy and helping people out, they say its impossible and/or you where never gay in the first place.

No. Let me ask you. Do you think you could possibly lose your attraction to the same gender? I don't mean just abstain from sex but actually never get aroused by a sexually enticing member of the opposite sex? I'm sure any honest and in-touch straight person would admit it's impossible for him/her to not be attracted to the opposite sex. So why wouldn't it be any different for gays?





i find that when it comes to people saying " i may be gay" gays are only too happy to accept and say thats good come join. on the other hand if a gay person says i want out, most other gays will reject them and say something along the lines of " your rejecting your true self, who you are and who you are ment to be".
its easy to come into it, but when it comes to wanting no change, the vast majority will say NO YOU CANT!

Really? Got any evidence for this? It really sounds like you're just pulling it from the air.

bluepinaple
November 24th, 2010, 06:53 AM
If there was pure and hard factually scientific evidence then why are there so many people still debating, its quite clear and true that it is yet to be proven that there is a gay gene. so this means that untill they find this ellusive gay gene they cannot prove that it is genetic, hence proving that it is in brown hence disproving that it can be changed.

As far as the site you sent, its all opinions, i cannot prove that it is not genetic, but you cannot prjove that it is, hence why this is such a strongly debated subject.

http://www.ha-fs.org/ this is the name of a site for homosexuals who want to change. If you go on stories, you'll find the stories of ex-homosexuals and lesbians who led very strong homosexual lifestyle and who tell the story of why they wanted out, and how they are now heterosexual. if it is homosexuality is unchangable then these people simply do not exist. For the fact that they have changed proves that it can be done, hence living proff, what more oculd you want?











Because all evidence that I'm aware says it is not. - There is no evidence its a thoery, an opinion, based on no hard evidence!








Well, in a debate it comes down to who can better support their position with evidence. From the American Psychological Association:

"Is sexual orientation a choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can therapy change sexual orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

So I have provided actual evidence that sexual orientation is immutable. -

I also have prodiced you with a website with actual evidence - ex homosexuals who have now become heterosexuals.






Most of the gay people I know seem to be alright with it. The thing they primarily don't like is people giving them crap about being gay but that requires the anti-gay people to change to remedy that.

Thats fine, if they are happy as they are good for them. My point is many homosexuals are not. You will also find that your friends will say they have no choice. well they do! The fact that they have accpeted had nothing to do with wether they are happy like that or not, its purely based on the fact that they believe thier feelings can never change.
as far as i know the mind is a very complex thing. what is there to say that your mind cannot come to see something in a diffrent light?





No. Let me ask you. Do you think you could possibly lose your attraction to the same gender? I don't mean just abstain from sex but actually never get aroused by a sexually enticing member of the opposite sex? I'm sure any honest and in-touch straight person would admit it's impossible for him/her to not be attracted to the opposite sex. So why wouldn't it be any different for gays?


Yes, i do believe that feelings for the same genter can change. I believe that they can grow just as you can grow to love someone the more you learn about them. That we are human beings and that our choices affect our decisions and the more we make a decision towards a certain way of life ( no matter how homosexual we may be at the start ) the more we become the decisions we make.

If my wife cheats on me and leaves me for my best friend. i have a choice..grow my bitterness or deal with it and move on.

If for what ever reason i have homosexual thoughts, i can my right of chouce, decide to deal with them and lead a heterosexual lifestyle.



Really? Got any evidence for this? It really sounds like you're just pulling it from the air. - could honestly say the same thing about your theory seeing as there is no proof.

---------- Post added at 06:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:46 AM ----------

If there was pure and hard factually scientific evidence then why are there so many people still debating, its quite clear and true that it is yet to be proven that there is a gay gene. so this means that untill they find this ellusive gay gene they cannot prove that it is genetic, hence proving that it is in brown hence disproving that it can be changed.

As far as the site you sent, its all opinions, i cannot prove that it is not genetic, but you cannot prove that it is, hence why this is such a strongly debated subject.

below you will find a site, click on stories and you will find the stories of homosexuals and lesbians who chose to leave that way of life and become heterosexual. If it is impossible to change then they do not exist, and they clearly do. Hard evidence for you.

http://www.ha-fs.org/

I also have provided you with a website with actual evidence - ex homosexuals who have now become heterosexuals.


Thats fine, if they are happy as they are good for them. My point is many homosexuals are not. You will also find that your friends will say they have no choice. well they do! The fact that they have accpted had nothing to do with wether they are happy like that or not, its purely based on the fact that they believe thier feelings can never change.
as far as i know the mind is a very complex thing. what is there to say that your mind cannot come to see something in a diffrent light?


Yes, i do believe that feelings for the same genter can change. I believe that they can grow just as you can grow to love someone the more you learn about them. That we are human beings and that our choices affect our decisions and the more we make a decision towards a certain way of life ( no matter how homosexual we may be at the start ) the more we become the decisions we make.

If my wife cheats on me and leaves me for my best friend. i have a choice..grow my bitterness or deal with it and move on.

If for what ever reason i have homosexual thoughts, i can by right of choice, decide to deal with them and lead a heterosexual lifestyle.

mican333
November 24th, 2010, 07:36 AM
below you will find a site, click on stories and you will find the stories of homosexuals and lesbians who chose to leave that way of life and become heterosexual. If it is impossible to change then they do not exist, and they clearly do. Hard evidence for you.

No, it's not. That is a RELIGIOUS SITE with what can be assumed is an anti-homosexual bias based on scripture, not science.

You might notice that my evidence comes from a professional psychiatric organization as opposed to a group with a clear pro-gay bias (like something with "LGBT" or "pink triangle" in the name). I will only provide, and accept, unbiased scientific or psychiatric evidence as "hard evidence".

And there's been plenty of stories about "ex-gays" being caught engaging in homosexual situations, even guys who run these kinds of groups. Telling everyone, even yourself, that you're not gay anymore doesn't mean you aren't.

"John Paulk, the ex-gay leader recently confronted in a Washington, D.C. gay bar, has been removed as board chair of Exodus North America, the nation's most prominent ex-gay organization. "

http://www.skeptictank.org/gen1/gen00472.htm


If there was pure and hard factually scientific evidence then why are there so many people still debating

That's a question, not an argument.

But a likely answer is that some people have an innate anti-homosexual bias which would be undermined if they were to accept that sexual orientation is an in-born trait, like skin color. So to justify their prejudice, they must ignore or somehow refute the evidence that sexual orientation is in-born.



its quite clear and true that it is yet to be proven that there is a gay gene.

It is also true that just because something hasn't been found, it does not mean it doesn't exist.

It's likewise true that in-born traits are not necessarily purely genetic.

So this argument does not adequately support the notion that sexual orientation is not in-born.



As far as the site you sent, its all opinions

No, it's not. It's an unbiased professional psychiatric site who's position is based on research.

I can provide numerous more psychiatric and scientific sites providing further evidence that sexual orientation is in-born, but until you provide actual counter-evidence, there's no need for me to do it.

1 to 0 is still a win.




i cannot prove that it is not genetic, but you cannot prove that it is, hence why this is such a strongly debated subject.

I agree that neither side has been proven but ONE side has most, if not all, of the evidence supporting it and therefore it makes sense to agree with that side over the other.

"Proven" is 100% certainty.

I think the evidence supporting the notion that orientation is in-born is more like 75% and the evidence supporting the opposite conclusion is about 0%.

So it just makes sense to, short of completely withholding any judgment on the issue, to take the side where the evidence tends to fall.




The fact that they have accpted had nothing to do with wether they are happy like that or not, its purely based on the fact that they believe thier feelings can never change.
as far as i know the mind is a very complex thing. what is there to say that your mind cannot come to see something in a diffrent light?

You can see things in a different light. But you can't change immutable characteristics about yourself. I can see homosexuality and heterosexuality in all kinds of different lights and change my opinion about them, but I can't change the fact that I'm a heterosexual.




If my wife cheats on me and leaves me for my best friend. i have a choice..grow my bitterness or deal with it and move on.

If for what ever reason i have homosexual thoughts, i can by right of choice, decide to deal with them and lead a heterosexual lifestyle.

Sure. But you can't change the fact that you have homosexual thoughts. And assuming you have those thoughts because you have attraction to the same gender then you are, by definition, homosexual or bisexual regardless of how you act or don't act on your thoughts.

It's my attraction to females and lack of attraction to males that makes me heterosexual, not my actions. Even if I had sex with a man, it would still be a fact that I am not attracted to men and therefore a heterosexual.

bluepinaple
November 24th, 2010, 10:05 AM
I took a look at the link with the page that you sent me by the american phycological assosiation.

To be honest they just answerd questions such as: " is it a choice" and "can it be changed through therapy". Your so called "scientific answers" from this site are extremely biast and against any other theory. and i quote:

"No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

This emplies alot of biast things, such as that relgious groups and familly coerce the homosexual to do so. The answer given above is just a mimic of what you are telling me. Proof from phycologists who by the answer above are biast against religion.
As for religion, there is no proof that God doesent exist so the argument is as plausible as your phycologists. they havent come up with proof, they've come up on this site at least with answers, but no proof. The web page justgave me answers which you agree with. no proof.

as far as im concerned religion hasen't been proven to be untrue so it is as plausible as your theory regardless of percentages which once again are also debatable.


http://www.narth.com/docs/study.html- Heres a doctor who will give you evidence that it changeable.


I quote from you "there's been plenty of stories about "ex-gays" being caught engaging in homosexual situations, even guys who run these kinds of groups. Telling everyone, even yourself, that you're not gay anymore doesn't mean you aren't.
I could say the same thing, "there have been plenty of stories telling people that they are gay and it cannot change, doesen't mean that its true.


Innate anti-homosexual bias? so to justify thier prejudice they maintian that homosuality is a choice?
OK, i have no prejudice towards homosexuals. just because i do not accept that it is not a choice and that it can be changed does not mean that i have prejudice.

Secondly i could respond by saying that Homosexuals say they have no choice to justify ever having to change. if they can prove that it is genetic, then they can justify themselves, therfore gain acceptance from the world. And i know for a fact that the fast majority of the world Does not accept homosexual behaviour.

Yes i agree, if something hasen't been found it does not mean it does not exist.
But the people on my site where gay and lead gay lifestyles, they made changes and got help. some of them are married and happy. How do you explain that? are you going to invalidate the people on the site who say they where gay and now are no longer?

http://cfsh.net/3.html - Take a look at the statistics of homosexual men as a whole, these are unbaist suveys which show the physical damage and over all traits found in the homosexual community. It is proof.














I agree that neither side has been proven but ONE side has most, if not all, of the evidence supporting it and therefore it makes sense to agree with that side over the other.

"Proven" is 100% certainty.

I think the evidence supporting the notion that orientation is in-born is more like 75% and the evidence supporting the opposite conclusion is about 0%.

So it just makes sense to, short of completely withholding any judgment on the issue, to take the side where the evidence tends to fall.


Your full feelings for a women did not develop over night. they developed over time. from a young age to an adult they became sexual.

It is not impossible to say that due to a persons personality they are more prone to homosexuality. You had no sexual preference as a child, but it grew.
When puberty hit, that is when you had sexual feelings for women. until then your sexual feelings where 0.

It is not impossible to say that a boy who suddenly hit puberty and was more prone due to his sexuality found men more attractive than women. it is also entirely probable, that the child may have been sexually abuse ( which twists the view of sex ) not had a fatherfigure ( in need of a close male in his life ) or felt diffrent from other boys ( anything from learning problems, mooving alot) over all enferiority form the male group can contribute to homosexuality.

as a child and young boy your feelings are vulnerable your thoughts and attitudes are only growing. this is the time when all of the components come into play and give people the sexual orientation that they have today. so all sorts of factors affect the young child and young adolescent.

Whats to say that as the young boy finds he does not want these sexual feelings, that he could not get help in finding out the causes of his youth ( or if his youth was fine ) starting a new process ( one which wasent fully able to grow) of appreciating women and all they have to offer, falling in love and leading a happy heterosexual lifestyle?

mican333
November 24th, 2010, 01:17 PM
To be honest they just answerd questions such as: " is it a choice" and "can it be changed through therapy". Your so called "scientific answers" from this site are extremely biast and against any other theory.

That is not a valid rebuttal. There is nothing wrong with having a bias towards one's own findings if it is based on valid research.

Your rebuttal, if applied to other theories, would be like complaining about those who accept the the earth is round having a bias against the theory that the earth is flat.



This emplies alot of biast things, such as that relgious groups and familly coerce the homosexual to do so.

It's not bias if that's what actually happens.




The answer given above is just a mimic of what you are telling me. Proof from phycologists who by the answer above are biast against religion.

No, it is not bias to point out the reality of a situation. If some religious people are coercing homosexuals into therapy, then saying as much is being factual, not biased.



As for religion, there is no proof that God doesent exist so the argument is as plausible as your phycologists. they havent come up with proof, they've come up on this site at least with answers, but no proof. The web page justgave me answers which you agree with. no proof.

It is not proof. It is EVIDENCE.

I have shown that a professional psychological organization has determined that sexual orientation is not changeable. That, according to ODN rules, counts as support for my assertion.

So I have provided valid support for my side of the argument.

as far as im concerned religion hasen't been proven to be untrue so it is as plausible as your theory regardless of percentages which once again are also debatable.




http://www.narth.com/docs/study.html- Heres a doctor who will give you evidence that it changeable.

I'm not going to respond to you giving me a link and telling me to go find evidence that will support your position. If there is something on that site that you feel backs up your argument, cut and paste it into your response.

And besides, sites PROMOTING reversion therapy aren't going to be unbiased on whether it works or not. It's like expecting Ford to be unbiased on Ford automobiles.

Show me a purely scientific site that says reversion therapy works, and I'll consider that valid evidence.




I could say the same thing, "there have been plenty of stories telling people that they are gay and it cannot change, doesen't mean that its true.

I didn't say "it doesn't mean it's true." I've given evidence that the leader of an anti-gay therapy group was found in a gay bar. If such therapy really worked, then those who have it would not be in gay bars.




Innate anti-homosexual bias? so to justify thier prejudice they maintian that homosuality is a choice?
OK, i have no prejudice towards homosexuals. just because i do not accept that it is not a choice and that it can be changed does not mean that i have prejudice.

Of course. I'm just explaining why at least some people continue to argue that homosexuality is a choice despite the preponderance of evidence that it's not a choice.



Secondly i could respond by saying that Homosexuals say they have no choice to justify ever having to change. if they can prove that it is genetic, then they can justify themselves, therfore gain acceptance from the world.

That's off-topic. You asked why people are still debating if the evidence points to sexual orientation being in-born. I've explained why.




And i know for a fact that the fast majority of the world Does not accept homosexual behaviour.

Right. They are using prejudice against gays to influence their perspective of the facts. That's what I'm saying.



Yes i agree, if something hasen't been found it does not mean it does not exist.
But the people on my site where gay and lead gay lifestyles, they made changes and got help. some of them are married and happy. How do you explain that? are you going to invalidate the people on the site who say they where gay and now are no longer?

I'm not going to take the site's word for it. Show me an UNBIASED scientific site that backs up your assertion and I'll consider taking it seriously.



http://cfsh.net/3.html - Take a look at the statistics of homosexual men as a whole, these are unbaist suveys which show the physical damage and over all traits found in the homosexual community. It is proof.

That site is not unbiased. It has a clear right-wing bias. From the site:

"These constitute damning evidence of the phenomenal growth and success of political liberalism and extreme moral relativism in penetrating and colonizing our culture. "



it is also entirely probable, that the child may have been sexually abuse ( which twists the view of sex ) not had a fatherfigure ( in need of a close male in his life ) or felt diffrent from other boys ( anything from learning problems, mooving alot) over all enferiority form the male group can contribute to homosexuality.

If that was true, then such variables would have been identified by now. There would be statistical evidence boys who, say, lacked a father figure would be more likely to grow up to homosexual.

But no such statistical evidence exists (and not for lack of looking for it) and therefore that theory is pretty much proven to be false.



as a child and young boy your feelings are vulnerable your thoughts and attitudes are only growing. this is the time when all of the components come into play and give people the sexual orientation that they have today. so all sorts of factors affect the young child and young adolescent.

And again, if there were components that caused a boy to become gay when he got older, we'd know what they are. All you need to do is ask gay men a bunch of questions about experiences growing up and then find the things that occurred to them but generally didn't happen to boys who became straight and then you would find our what experiences leads to homosexuality.

But guess what? No one is able to find these components so why should one seriously consider that they exist?





Whats to say that as the young boy finds he does not want these sexual feelings, that he could not get help in finding out the causes of his youth ( or if his youth was fine ) starting a new process ( one which wasent fully able to grow) of appreciating women and all they have to offer, falling in love and leading a happy heterosexual lifestyle?

Because the available evidence consistently points to sexual orientation being immutable.

I might be happier if I were a cat but the fact is I'm a human and someone offering to help me try to become a cat probably isn't going to be doing me any good.

Just Me
November 27th, 2010, 03:10 PM
Thats a load of rubbish, i cant believe you even said that. right so just because he thought about it for a while PROVES that he is bisexual? i mean where on earth do you get this theory from?
Is it? If you were asked would you have to think about it? Thinking about shows that there are some attraction for both there..


plus sexuality is not fixed, its fluid, its changeable. If you want to be heterosexual enough then make decisions towards that path and you'll eventually be able to look at a women in a compltely diffrent way appreciate what heterosexual men see in women.
its possible to think about things with out being bisexual, man like what, huh? *_*
Got any support for this? Could YOU make decisions towards being homosexual and be able to look at the same sex and appreciate what homosexual men/women see in the same sex? If it is changeable for homosexuals then it is changeable for heterosexuals.

Homosexual BEHAVIOR does not necessarily make one homosexual. Just as Heterosexual BEHAVIOR does not necessarily make one heterosexual.

mrharris
May 19th, 2011, 08:31 PM
Homosexuality begins as a thought and is manifested through one's intent to act on that thought or to suppress the thought. I do not believe it is any type of genetic disorder either; psychologists and scientists have yet to find any trace of a so-called "gay gene."

Let's look at how the world around us works . . . life is sustained through the process of reproduction (which requires a male and a female). Whether you are devoutly Christian, or die-hard atheist, we can agree that life forms (humans and/or animals, etc.) would cease to exist without the process of reproduction. Being that this is the case, I assert that homosexuality is simply a choice. If a heterosexual individual occasionally has homosexual thoughts and does not act upon those thoughts, he/she is not gay. Similarly, if one has thoughts of killing someone but decides not to act on those thoughts, he/she is not a murderer . . . period.

CliveStaples
May 19th, 2011, 10:26 PM
Homosexuality begins as a thought and is manifested through one's intent to act on that thought or to suppress the thought. I do not believe it is any type of genetic disorder either; psychologists and scientists have yet to find any trace of a so-called "gay gene."

Let's look at how the world around us works . . . life is sustained through the process of reproduction (which requires a male and a female). Whether you are devoutly Christian, or die-hard atheist, we can agree that life forms (humans and/or animals, etc.) would cease to exist without the process of reproduction. Being that this is the case, I assert that homosexuality is simply a choice. If a heterosexual individual occasionally has homosexual thoughts and does not act upon those thoughts, he/she is not gay. Similarly, if one has thoughts of killing someone but decides not to act on those thoughts, he/she is not a murderer . . . period.

Is a person who occasionally has heterosexual thoughts and does not act upon them not a heterosexual? Wouldn't that mean that anyone who practices abstinence or celibacy isn't heterosexual?

I think the words "homosexual" and "heterosexual" aren't used to describe conduct, like "murderer" does.

mican333
May 20th, 2011, 06:54 AM
Homosexuality begins as a thought and is manifested through one's intent to act on that thought or to suppress the thought. I do not believe it is any type of genetic disorder either; psychologists and scientists have yet to find any trace of a so-called "gay gene."

But then genes aren't the only possible in-born determiner of sexual orientation. There are numerous other things that can effect the unborn while forming. The fact is scientific evidence, while not conclusive, fall heavily on the side of sexual orientation being determined before birth.

One example is the fact that gays and straights actually have differences in brain structure. Another is that they've found that sons who have numerous older brothers are more likely to be gay (apparently a woman is more likely to produce a gay son after she's given birth to multiple boys), which is the case with one of my uncles (fourth son, I think).


Let's look at how the world around us works . . . life is sustained through the process of reproduction (which requires a male and a female). Whether you are devoutly Christian, or die-hard atheist, we can agree that life forms (humans and/or animals, etc.) would cease to exist without the process of reproduction.

But species continuing to exist does not require that every single member of the species reproduce, so a species can have homosexuals as a minority of their population and still endure.

In fact, one theory on homosexuality is that it's a natural means to decrease breeding when overpopulation becomes a problem so perhaps its a natural thing that helps a species survive. And that makes a lot of sense from a Darwinistic point of view. A species that has the means to reduce reproduction when overpopulation is a problem is more likely to continue surviving.




If a heterosexual individual occasionally has homosexual thoughts and does not act upon those thoughts, he/she is not gay.

I think the term for that is "bi-curious". But the fact is there are people that are purely homosexual and no interest in the opposite sex whatsoever. I doubt that's a choice one can make. I know you can decide to abstain from heterosexual sex but you can abstain from having any desire for the opposite sex? Of course not.



Similarly, if one has thoughts of killing someone but decides not to act on those thoughts, he/she is not a murderer . . . period.

Buy that logic, I wasn't a heterosexual until I lost my virginity.

A murderer is defined by one's actions. Sexual orientation is not defined by action but by what gender(s) one has a sexual interest in.

Just Me
May 20th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Homosexuality begins as a thought and is manifested through one's intent to act on that thought or to suppress the thought.
Are you saying that heterosexuality begins as a thought and is manifested through one's intent to act on that thought or to suppress the thought?



I do not believe it is any type of genetic disorder either; psychologists and scientists have yet to find any trace of a so-called "gay gene."
Because scientists have YET, (with YET being the key word here) to find a 'gay - gene' does not by any means mean one does not exist. Also, there does not have to be a gay-gene in order for sexuality to be innate.


Let's look at how the world around us works . . . life is sustained through the process of reproduction (which requires a male and a female). Whether you are devoutly Christian, or die-hard atheist, we can agree that life forms (humans and/or animals, etc.) would cease to exist without the process of reproduction.
And the heterosexuals who can not or does not waant to procreate means what?



Being that this is the case, I assert that homosexuality is simply a choice.
So by that logic, that would mean that heterosexuals who can not reproduce, are not actually heterosexual then correct? Or even heterosexuals who choices not to reproduce would not actually be heterosexual then correct?


If a heterosexual individual occasionally has homosexual thoughts and does not act upon those thoughts, he/she is not gay.
So you are saying that everyone's heterosexual by default?


Similarly, if one has thoughts of killing someone but decides not to act on those thoughts, he/she is not a murderer . . . period.

Murder and sexuality are not even close to being in the same category. In order to be a murderer you have to act on that. You can still be heterosexual, bi-sexual, or even homosexual and not have to act on it. Sexuality is not as simple as just having thoughts. Sexuality is about attraction.

Sexual orientation refers to the direction of a person's romantic and sexual attractions.
* Straight (heterosexual) people are primarily attracted to someone of the opposite gender. For example women who are attracted to men.
* Lesbians (gay women) are women attracted to other women.
* Gay men or homosexuals are men attracted to other men.
* Bisexual people can be attracted to someone of the same gender or someone of a different gender.
* Asexuals are not romantically or sexually attracted to other people, though they may still enjoy close and intimate relationships.

Notice that not the first orientation listed said anything about "thoughts".

"Thought" generally refers to any mental or intellectual activity involving an individual's subjective consciousness. It can refer either to the act of thinking or the resulting ideas or arrangements of ideas.
Thoughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought)

Definition of ATTRACTION
1
a : the act, process, or power of attracting b : personal charm
2
: the action or power of drawing forth a response : an attractive quality
3
: a force acting mutually between particles of matter, tending to draw them together, and resisting their separation
4
: something that attracts or is intended to attract people by appealing to their desires and tastes <coming attractions>
Attraction definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attraction)

superiorarsena
May 23rd, 2011, 07:30 AM
But species continuing to exist does not require that every single member of the species reproduce, so a species can have homosexuals as a minority of their population and still endure.

In fact, one theory on homosexuality is that it's a natural means to decrease breeding when overpopulation becomes a problem so perhaps its a natural thing that helps a species survive. And that makes a lot of sense from a Darwinistic point of view. A species that has the means to reduce reproduction when overpopulation is a problem is more likely to continue surviving.

That's an interesting idea and it makes a lot of sense. Especially with the idea that homosexuality occurs after multiple males being born beforehand. It could be a response to the large amount of offspring combined with the lack of need for another reproducing male, as there are already multiple with very similar genes.

CliveStaples
May 23rd, 2011, 07:41 AM
That's an interesting idea and it makes a lot of sense. Especially with the idea that homosexuality occurs after multiple males being born beforehand. It could be a response to the large amount of offspring combined with the lack of need for another reproducing male, as there are already multiple with very similar genes.

In that case, isn't there an argument (similar to the one against incest) to be made against homosexuals reproducing?

superiorarsena
May 23rd, 2011, 07:53 AM
In that case, isn't there an argument (similar to the one against incest) to be made against homosexuals reproducing?

I would assume that since most homosexuals don't reproduce anyways, then it wouldn't be much of a problem.

mican333
May 23rd, 2011, 08:03 AM
That's an interesting idea and it makes a lot of sense. Especially with the idea that homosexuality occurs after multiple males being born beforehand. It could be a response to the large amount of offspring combined with the lack of need for another reproducing male, as there are already multiple with very similar genes.

It's been shown that a family with numerous male offspring, odds are greater that one of the younger brothers (third-born, forth-born) is more likely to be gay than the average person. That even bears out in my Father's family - his fourth-born brother is gay. The article I read (in wikipedia I think) says that it's theorized that after numerous sons, the mother may produce more female hormones which will make the male child gay (I may not be using the correct terms but I'm sure you get the idea).

And likewise perhaps stressing the pregnant woman increases the likelihood of homosexual offspring and of course overpopulation is going to increase the stress on everyone and since breeding less when there's overpopulation helps a species survive, a very simple explanation for homosexuality is that it is a trait that exists because of natural selection. Those populations that had that method of limiting population growth when needed were more likely to survive.

Prince Lemon
June 21st, 2011, 08:39 PM
Homosexuality is never was genetic.Only this perverted Left tried to create this junk science in order to push this filthy gay agenda down to American people throats by claiming that people get born as gays due to genes.In fact people become gays by the sinful lusts of their desires that later becames as a heavy sex addiction as well as alcohol and drugs.Somethimes homosexuality is a part of a schizophrenic disorder caused by traumas in childhood like child molestation or a child rape.

JohnLocke
June 22nd, 2011, 12:01 AM
Homosexuality is never was genetic.Only this perverted Left tried to create this junk science in order to push this filthy gay agenda down to American people throats by claiming that people get born as gays due to genes.In fact people become gays by the sinful lusts of their desires that later becames as a heavy sex addiction as well as alcohol and drugs.Somethimes homosexuality is a part of a schizophrenic disorder caused by traumas in childhood like child molestation or a child rape.

This is easily one of the most biased and disparaging posts I've ever seen on ODN. How about you prove to us with some source of evidence that people become gay "by the sinful lusts of their desires" and that they develop "a heavy sex addiction" as well as a desire for "alcohol and drugs" and that it is caused by schizophrenia and child abuse.

You know you can't just say things like this without something to back your words up, especially when your remarks are so in-depth and detailed as to exactly how much of a "mental illness" homosexuality seems to be. You know gay people can be very normal, right? Saying that any demographic of people consists of lusty schizophrenic addicts isn't something you state lightly.

Prince Lemon
June 22nd, 2011, 06:18 AM
This is easily one of the most biased and disparaging posts I've ever seen on ODN. How about you prove to us with some source of evidence that people become gay "by the sinful lusts of their desires" and that they develop "a heavy sex addiction" as well as a desire for "alcohol and drugs" and that it is caused by schizophrenia and child abuse.

You know you can't just say things like this without something to back your words up, especially when your remarks are so in-depth and detailed as to exactly how much of a "mental illness" homosexuality seems to be. You know gay people can be very normal, right? Saying that any demographic of people consists of lusty schizophrenic addicts isn't something you state lightly.Homosex is always abnormal as it was stated from the very beginning.Sometimes it is a part of a mental disorder,but mostly it is a lusty desire that step by step becomes a systematic addiction.

JohnLocke
June 22nd, 2011, 09:56 AM
Homosex is always abnormal as it was stated from the very beginning.Sometimes it is a part of a mental disorder,but mostly it is a lusty desire that step by step becomes a systematic addiction.

Prove what you are saying! You are aware that we can't simply take your words as fact because you say them, particularly when they are so blatant. Please give me viable evidence that shows that homosexuality is "a lusty desire that step by step becomes a systematic addiction" or "part of a mental disorder". These are heavy accusations you are putting forward, and as such you must support them.

Please don't just respond to this post in the exact same way as you have responded to my previous. Give evidence for your beliefs this time.

Prince Lemon
June 22nd, 2011, 10:37 AM
Prove what you are saying! You are aware that we can't simply take your words as fact because you say them, particularly when they are so blatant. Please give me viable evidence that shows that homosexuality is "a lusty desire that step by step becomes a systematic addiction" or "part of a mental disorder". These are heavy accusations you are putting forward, and as such you must support them.

Please don't just respond to this post in the exact same way as you have responded to my previous. Give evidence for your beliefs this time.I believe you need to look at Dr.Paul Cameron study where he did his true research proving the lives of GLBT people.Plus another psychologist like Dr.Judith Reisman,and Dr.James Dobson,founder of Focus On The Family.

JohnLocke
June 22nd, 2011, 12:18 PM
I believe you need to look at Dr.Paul Cameron study where he did his true research proving the lives of GLBT people.Plus another psychologist like Dr.Judith Reisman,and Dr.James Dobson,founder of Focus On The Family.

First off, it would be much more convenient if you actually supplied your "research" and explained it as opposed to just saying people's names. The point of citing your research is to specifically say what the research told you, not to force everyone else to go look up the same thing you did. You could have at least given a link.

If you actually researched him, you would find that Dr. Paul Cameron has been expelled from the American Psychological Association (APA) for his "weak methodology and misrepresentation of research regarding sexuality", was condemned by the American Sociological Association (ASA) in 1986 for his "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research", and the Canadian Psychological Association disassociated itself from him in 1996, stating that his research was biased and flawed. His "research group", the Family Research Institute, is a clearly biased organization, seeing as it wants to find that homosexuality is bad, which clearly is not objective research.

Dr.Judith Reisman has a Ph.D in Communication Studies, not Psychology. Thus, she is not a psychologist. She also places blame for the Nazi Movement in Germany on Homosexual groups (let it be known that homosexuals were among those targeted for extermination in the Holocaust). She also is listed as claiming that modern youth groups for gays "resemble the Hitler Youth". Thus, "Dr." Reisman seems to be just another person that hates homosexuality but has no real research to prove her beliefs, and so just chooses to associate it with Nazism due to its evil connotation. Also, I haven't the slightest idea why you cite her, as I cannot find a single source claiming that she associates homosexuality with mental illness or sex addiction. She associates it with pornography (couldn't tell you why, lots of straight people love their pornography...), masturbation (again, lots of straight people do that), and Nazism.

Dr. James Dobson, while a licensed psychologist in the state of California with a Ph.D in child development, is a Biblical Fundamentalist. He has stated himself that he "takes the Bible quite literally". Dobson has been quoted in saying that "Homosexuals deeply resent being told that they selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual excitement or some other motive" in order to imply the guilt of the homosexuals in being gay purely for sexual pleasure. However, one may clearly note that if I were to walk up to you one day and tell you that you are who you are only because you have a fervent desire for sexual pleasure, you'd most likely "deeply resent" that as well.

The only major sociological studies that Dobson is known for are studies that purport to "prove" that "children do best when they are raised with a mother and a father who are committed to each other" as opposed to gay parents. These studies have long been denounced as misrepresented, as it has been pointed out by Sociologist Judith Stacy that "[a]ll of those studies that Dobson is referring to are studies that did not include gay or lesbian parents as part of the research base." Obviously, it makes no sense to "compare" two groups of people when one of the groups isn't even actually researched.

Prince Lemon, with no offense intended, I think you just Google searched for names of people who believe something close to what you do. Have you read any of their studies? I don't believe you are at all qualified to tell us whether or not anyone's research is "true" or "proves" anything if you haven't read it yourself.

ladykrimson
April 21st, 2012, 08:01 AM
Being new to debating, I hope I have placed this thread in the appropriate category.

To begin,

1. Homosexuality isn't a choice.
2. You are a much better debater than I.
3. I'll do my best to state clear ideas, not large, abstract post containing confusing, and multiple meaning words.


I've heard much discussion about the following italics:

Homosexuality could become a dominant gene, and perhaps even the future of human evolution.

My first conclusion is that homosexuality is not a choice.
(Evidence should be apparent.)

1. Some penguins will mate with the same sex for life.
2. Homosexuality is found in over 1500 different animal species (many of them not smart enough to decide sexual preference for themselves.)


Evolution has played not part in homosexuality for a several of reasons.


1. For homosexuality to "spread," it must first become a passable genetic trait. Currently, homosexuality isn't a verified genetic trait. Until there is a scientific cause of homosexuality, we cannot predict its future play on the human race.

2. Because of modern human technology, humans could continue to flourish even if no reproductive sex took place. "Test Tube Babies" would be a way of life.

Without this technology though, homosexuality would never become dominate in nature. Homosexual species without the mental capability to consider reproducing with the opposite sex for the sake of their species would fade out of existence.

This fact makes a homosexual human evolution very slim. Evolution would effectively cease to exist, and selective breeding would be in affect human race.


Homosexuality is not a trait controlled by evolution.

1. If homosexuality were controlled by evolution, then 1500 animals would not exhibit the trait. An animal with very little intelligence does what its body tells it to do. If it has urges to mate with the same sex, then it will, and will not produce any offspring, therefore eliminating the trait.

2. Homosexuals who choose to produce offspring do not have more homosexual children than people who are not homosexual. This means that there is no genetic code being passed on. Without genetic traits, evolution does not take place.


Homosexuality is a "birth defect."
I hate using "birth defect," but honestly, that is all I can describe it as.

From what I see, homosexuality is an error in genetic transferring.

Down Syndrome: 21 chromosomes
Excessive anger and aggression: Extra y-chromosome


I do not know what the defect is, but from what I see it is the most plausible explanation.


Nit-pick this post please.
I am a newbie, and my ideas are not logical or reasonable!:cry:

Firstly, I need to clarify one thing so that there is no confusion at all:

When I type the word, homosexual, I am referring to an individual who is attracted to members of the same gender as their own. I am not referring to the act of sexual intercourse.

With that said:

Try looking at homosexuality in a different way. Peoples' likes and dislikes are discovered and not chosen. For instance, I adore cheesecake. I never chose to like the taste of it, but once I took a bite, I discovered that I loved it. Here is another example. How many parents love the goofy faces babies make when getting their first taste of certain foods? These babies are not choosing to like or dislike their foods; they are discovering which ones they like or dislike.

It is the same with attraction to people. You do not choose your attractions; you discover them. If you do not believe that, then I have a challenge for you:

To all you heterosexual people: How easy would it be for you to choose to be attracted to members of the same gender?

If you feel you "were" gay, but because it went against your morals and beliefs, you changed your orientation, I have this to say:

You did not change your orientation; you are simply denying your desires. That is fine. If you feel you must, then that is your choice, but the fact remains that you are still attracted to the same gender. One can make a choice not to fulfill his or her urges, but one cannot make a choice to be physically attracted to someone.

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------

Oh, and as for being a birth defect, the dictionary defines the word, defect, as an impairment, a disadvantage, or a handicap. Homosexuality does not impair a person physically, nor does it deprive a person of health. Homosexuality does not prevent participation in normal activities (a homosexual can, if he or she chooses, have sex with someone of the opposite gender). Therefore, it is not a birth defect.

channa
July 1st, 2012, 09:06 AM
Homosexuality like many other human behaviours is not a choice. People do not have control over to whom to get attracted. But to be gay is a choice people make, that is to embrace homosexuality as a life style.

But the "choice" factor is valid for other human behaviours as well. Such as pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia, BDSM and other sexual behaviours. I do not want to call these deviations since its discriminating and racist. My point it "choice" factor shouldn't be used to distinguish good from bad. It depends on the right behaviour. If a homosexual person engages in a loving, caring relationship that awesome.

Besides its demeaning to say that homosexuals are so because they dont have a choice.

____________________________________________

If evolution or gene played a role homosexuals will be extinct. The recently finished human genome project concluded that there are not gene that determines a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is 99% of the time is determined by the social factors that include parents, peers, religion and even lay etc.

_____________________________________________

Animal homosexuality is a big myth. Those "gay" penguins are actually just best friends -- says the caretakers. The moment a female introduced, the so called firendship vanised. HS could occur in absence of females. Male animal could misunderstand a male for a female and could try to mount since their senses are very limited to smell. So a male that carry the scent of a female as a result of intercourse, will be misunderstood as a female.

_____________________________________

HS is not a birth defect. Orientation is not determined at birth.

mican333
July 1st, 2012, 10:59 AM
If evolution or gene played a role homosexuals will be extinct.

That assumes that homosexuality has no positive role to play in human evolution. That is not a fact by any means. If it were always, 100% of the time beneficial for a population to breed at maximum capacity, you might have a point. But since that is not the case, your point is invalid.


IThe recently finished human genome project concluded that there are not gene that determines a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is 99% of the time is determined by the social factors that include parents, peers, religion and even lay etc.

First off, not every in-born trait has a specific gene associated with it.

And if you are correct that homosexuality is caused by certain external factors (as an example, a domineering mother) such factors should be easily identifiable. All you need to do is survey straight and gay men and then find the factors that gay men had in common. But such factors, to my knowledge, have never been discovered. If you are forwarding that external circumstances are the primary cause of homosexuality then please tell me what they are and how they were discovered.



Animal homosexuality is a big myth. Those "gay" penguins are actually just best friends -- says the caretakers. The moment a female introduced, the so called firendship vanised.

Wrong.

"When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Central-Park-Zoo-s-gay-penguins-ignite-debate-2825165.php

You were likely referring to a situation that did happen but those weren't the only "gay" penguins out there so your statement is not universally true. There are exclusively same-sex penguin couples.
-------------------

And how about the fact that gay mean actually tend to have different brain structures than straight men? I have to assume that brain structure is an in-born trait.

"Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men."

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html

SharmaK
July 1st, 2012, 02:40 PM
Besides its demeaning to say that homosexuals are so because they dont have a choice.


At what point in your life did you decide to become a heterosexual? From personal experience I have been heterosexual all the way. That's how it usually works.

Someguy
July 2nd, 2012, 12:04 AM
Honestly, I dont see why people care about others sexual preference. I am a straight, Conservate, Christian and I dont give a damn if you, or anyone, bangs guys, girls, or both. What you do in your bedroom is none of my business and I should not be able to use the power of government to regulate your ability to enjoy life with willing partners in whatever pretext you choose. (as long as the partner is of the age of consent) Liberty and freedom are concepts that are not compatible with regulating behavior that is willing engaged in between two consenting adults.

I think this anti-gay position that the Republican Party holds is the worst and most harmful one they have. I imagine that there are a hell of a lot of gays and bisexuals that hate Liberalism and despise Obama that would love to vote Republican were it not for their hypocritical view points on homosexuality.

Why does it matter if Jack and Tom poke each other in the butt? Or if Sally and Sue do lesbian stuff together? How does that effect you? Get the **** over it, Republicans.

chadn737
July 2nd, 2012, 10:44 AM
Homosexuality like many other human behaviours is not a choice. People do not have control over to whom to get attracted. But to be gay is a choice people make, that is to embrace homosexuality as a life style.

I agree.


But the "choice" factor is valid for other human behaviours as well. Such as pedophilia, necrophilia, zoophilia, BDSM and other sexual behaviours. I do not want to call these deviations since its discriminating and racist.

But they are deviations. They deviate from the norm, therefore they are deviations. Certainly it is not racist to call them such because race is not a factor. Discriminatory, yes, but not all discrimination is bad. We discriminate against murderers and rapists. They are deviants from society. It is not bad to discriminate against something like pedophilia which results in harm to children.


My point it "choice" factor shouldn't be used to distinguish good from bad. It depends on the right behaviour. If a homosexual person engages in a loving, caring relationship that awesome.

I agree it all depends on the "right behavior".


Besides its demeaning to say that homosexuals are so because they dont have a choice.

Why is that demeaning?


If evolution or gene played a role homosexuals will be extinct.

Not true. Lets for a moment assume that homosexuality is entirely genetic and is an evolutionary dead end. Lets assume it is a simple single gene trait. If it is a recessive trait, then it can be maintained in a population despite the negative effects as a heterozygote. Even if it isn't, if it is in a highly mutable gene, maybe the mutation simply pops up at a very high rate. If there is any evolutionary advantage to heterozygote males/females then it will be maintained in the population. There are many plausible scenarios for a genetic basis.


The recently finished human genome project concluded that there are not gene that determines a sexual orientation.

Not true on so many levels. 1) You can't derive biological function just from sequencing. You can sometimes derive molecular function and infer biological through phylogenetics and sequence alignment, but generally you don't know biological function from sequence. 2) It requires population genetics, gene mapping, etc to determine if there is or isn't a genetic component. 3) Such studies have determined that there is a hereditary component.


Sexual orientation is 99% of the time is determined by the social factors that include parents, peers, religion and even lay etc.

False. A non-insignificant factor is genetic. A large part is unique environmental, but this is not restricted to social components. There could be other environmental components, such as the womb, birth order, chemical, etc.


Animal homosexuality is a big myth. Those "gay" penguins are actually just best friends -- says the caretakers. The moment a female introduced, the so called firendship vanised. HS could occur in absence of females. Male animal could misunderstand a male for a female and could try to mount since their senses are very limited to smell. So a male that carry the scent of a female as a result of intercourse, will be misunderstood as a female.

Animals usually have far better sense than that. Secondly, its just false. See Mican's response.


HS is not a birth defect. Orientation is not determined at birth.

Sure it can be. There are many studies that indicate that it is. Whether or not you view that as a defect is up to you, but you cannot deny the science because you don't like the outcomes.