Is homosexuality a biological construct?

[SwimExpert]

Maybe sexuality is simply more fluid than our puritanical roots allow it to be.

Well, if it's good it usually will be, anyway.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obviously it's a natural process. There have always been a percentage of people born this way and there always will be. We don't understand why that is the case, it's purpose, or through what process it develops. It exists in every culture on every continent throughout time.

Social constucts dictate the level of acceptance in a given society but never drive who becomes gay. In more open societies in different time periods, gay people go about their lives relatively unfettered by others. During these times the world has not seen a significant increase in the amount of people identifying as homosexual. More may feel free to be out and open about it but their numbers aren't growing like you would expect if homosexuality were simply a societal construct.

On the flip side, when society does not support homosexuals and even persecutes them, we see that they still exist. If it were choice, why would someone risk being stoned or thrown from a roof for it? Obviously they don't. It's just who they are by nature.

That's like saying because there have always been schizophrenics, that must mean there's nothing wrong with it.

And as it happens, social constructs often DO dictate who identifies in one way or another, just as it dictates who will act on violent or criminal impulses in many cases. In a society that actually puts a certain amount of onus on the individual to be responsible for his own actions, those who can suppress urges that go against societal mores will usually do so. In a permissive society, fewer people feel any need to restrain whatever whim crosses their mind. And believe it or not, it IS possible to convince oneself that one is gay. Not saying that's the case with all of them, but it does happen.

The law of supply and demand applies to everything about human society.

No it's not. Gay folks can no more choose who they're attracted to than you can.
Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?
Do you believe that you could be coerced into a homosexual relationship and enjoy it?

What makes you so sure I can't choose who I'm attracted to? Do you really think you HAVE to have so little control over your own mind, and merely exist in a state of helplessness before your all-powerful subconscious?

Also, did you miss the post about "who says a choice has to be conscious to be a choice"? Or were you just in such a rush to kneejerk out your favorite "Gotcha!" talking point that you couldn't be bothered?

You might want to consider that you know jack shit about me or my personal life before you rush in with your "Aha!" argument attempts. But for the record, any psychiatrist will tell you it IS completely possible to be coerced into a relationship that you would not have freely chosen and still derive some enjoyment from it. Hell, people get into toxic relationships all the time. Do you really think they're hating every second of it, and getting no pleasure from it at all? Doesn't make it any less bad for them.

I hate to break it to you but if you can decide who you're attracted to then you're probably not strait.

 

[Slade3200]

Obviously it's a natural process. There have always been a percentage of people born this way and there always will be. We don't understand why that is the case, it's purpose, or through what process it develops. It exists in every culture on every continent throughout time.

Social constucts dictate the level of acceptance in a given society but never drive who becomes gay. In more open societies in different time periods, gay people go about their lives relatively unfettered by others. During these times the world has not seen a significant increase in the amount of people identifying as homosexual. More may feel free to be out and open about it but their numbers aren't growing like you would expect if homosexuality were simply a societal construct.

On the flip side, when society does not support homosexuals and even persecutes them, we see that they still exist. If it were choice, why would someone risk being stoned or thrown from a roof for it? Obviously they don't. It's just who they are by nature.

That's like saying because there have always been schizophrenics, that must mean there's nothing wrong with it.

And as it happens, social constructs often DO dictate who identifies in one way or another, just as it dictates who will act on violent or criminal impulses in many cases. In a society that actually puts a certain amount of onus on the individual to be responsible for his own actions, those who can suppress urges that go against societal mores will usually do so. In a permissive society, fewer people feel any need to restrain whatever whim crosses their mind. And believe it or not, it IS possible to convince oneself that one is gay. Not saying that's the case with all of them, but it does happen.

The law of supply and demand applies to everything about human society.

No it's not. Gay folks can no more choose who they're attracted to than you can.
Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?
Do you believe that you could be coerced into a homosexual relationship and enjoy it?

What makes you so sure I can't choose who I'm attracted to? Do you really think you HAVE to have so little control over your own mind, and merely exist in a state of helplessness before your all-powerful subconscious?

Also, did you miss the post about "who says a choice has to be conscious to be a choice"? Or were you just in such a rush to kneejerk out your favorite "Gotcha!" talking point that you couldn't be bothered?

You might want to consider that you know jack shit about me or my personal life before you rush in with your "Aha!" argument attempts. But for the record, any psychiatrist will tell you it IS completely possible to be coerced into a relationship that you would not have freely chosen and still derive some enjoyment from it. Hell, people get into toxic relationships all the time. Do you really think they're hating every second of it, and getting no pleasure from it at all? Doesn't make it any less bad for them.

I hate to break it to you but if you can decide who you're attracted to then you're probably not strait.

You got straight people who can't stomach being gay, you got bisexual people who can go both ways, and you got gay people who can't stomach being straight. Some people are influenced by social construct and their environment, others go off of their natural instincts.

Newsflash: All human beings are different, we aren't robots running off the same program.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Obviously it's a natural process. There have always been a percentage of people born this way and there always will be. We don't understand why that is the case, it's purpose, or through what process it develops. It exists in every culture on every continent throughout time.

Social constucts dictate the level of acceptance in a given society but never drive who becomes gay. In more open societies in different time periods, gay people go about their lives relatively unfettered by others. During these times the world has not seen a significant increase in the amount of people identifying as homosexual. More may feel free to be out and open about it but their numbers aren't growing like you would expect if homosexuality were simply a societal construct.

On the flip side, when society does not support homosexuals and even persecutes them, we see that they still exist. If it were choice, why would someone risk being stoned or thrown from a roof for it? Obviously they don't. It's just who they are by nature.

That's like saying because there have always been schizophrenics, that must mean there's nothing wrong with it.

And as it happens, social constructs often DO dictate who identifies in one way or another, just as it dictates who will act on violent or criminal impulses in many cases. In a society that actually puts a certain amount of onus on the individual to be responsible for his own actions, those who can suppress urges that go against societal mores will usually do so. In a permissive society, fewer people feel any need to restrain whatever whim crosses their mind. And believe it or not, it IS possible to convince oneself that one is gay. Not saying that's the case with all of them, but it does happen.

The law of supply and demand applies to everything about human society.

No it's not. Gay folks can no more choose who they're attracted to than you can.
Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?
Do you believe that you could be coerced into a homosexual relationship and enjoy it?

What makes you so sure I can't choose who I'm attracted to? Do you really think you HAVE to have so little control over your own mind, and merely exist in a state of helplessness before your all-powerful subconscious?

Also, did you miss the post about "who says a choice has to be conscious to be a choice"? Or were you just in such a rush to kneejerk out your favorite "Gotcha!" talking point that you couldn't be bothered?

You might want to consider that you know jack shit about me or my personal life before you rush in with your "Aha!" argument attempts. But for the record, any psychiatrist will tell you it IS completely possible to be coerced into a relationship that you would not have freely chosen and still derive some enjoyment from it. Hell, people get into toxic relationships all the time. Do you really think they're hating every second of it, and getting no pleasure from it at all? Doesn't make it any less bad for them.

What does any of that have to do with who you're attracted to? Gay people have been playing it straight for centuries so of course you can make the best of a bad situation. Talk to gay people that came out later in life, after being married and having children. They will tell you that they loved their former spouses and derived pleasure from being with them. Guess what? They're still gay and always were.

Maybe sexuality is simply more fluid than our puritanical roots allow it to be.

Yeah, or maybe you're just a fucked-in-the-head pervert who's too cowardly to be at peace with it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Obviously it's a natural process. There have always been a percentage of people born this way and there always will be. We don't understand why that is the case, it's purpose, or through what process it develops. It exists in every culture on every continent throughout time.

Social constucts dictate the level of acceptance in a given society but never drive who becomes gay. In more open societies in different time periods, gay people go about their lives relatively unfettered by others. During these times the world has not seen a significant increase in the amount of people identifying as homosexual. More may feel free to be out and open about it but their numbers aren't growing like you would expect if homosexuality were simply a societal construct.

On the flip side, when society does not support homosexuals and even persecutes them, we see that they still exist. If it were choice, why would someone risk being stoned or thrown from a roof for it? Obviously they don't. It's just who they are by nature.

That's like saying because there have always been schizophrenics, that must mean there's nothing wrong with it.

And as it happens, social constructs often DO dictate who identifies in one way or another, just as it dictates who will act on violent or criminal impulses in many cases. In a society that actually puts a certain amount of onus on the individual to be responsible for his own actions, those who can suppress urges that go against societal mores will usually do so. In a permissive society, fewer people feel any need to restrain whatever whim crosses their mind. And believe it or not, it IS possible to convince oneself that one is gay. Not saying that's the case with all of them, but it does happen.

The law of supply and demand applies to everything about human society.

No it's not. Gay folks can no more choose who they're attracted to than you can.
Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?
Do you believe that you could be coerced into a homosexual relationship and enjoy it?

What makes you so sure I can't choose who I'm attracted to? Do you really think you HAVE to have so little control over your own mind, and merely exist in a state of helplessness before your all-powerful subconscious?

Also, did you miss the post about "who says a choice has to be conscious to be a choice"? Or were you just in such a rush to kneejerk out your favorite "Gotcha!" talking point that you couldn't be bothered?

You might want to consider that you know jack shit about me or my personal life before you rush in with your "Aha!" argument attempts. But for the record, any psychiatrist will tell you it IS completely possible to be coerced into a relationship that you would not have freely chosen and still derive some enjoyment from it. Hell, people get into toxic relationships all the time. Do you really think they're hating every second of it, and getting no pleasure from it at all? Doesn't make it any less bad for them.

I hate to break it to you but if you can decide who you're attracted to then you're probably not strait.

I hate to break it to you, but if you're a victim of your own subconscious, you have nothing to blame but your own ignorance and laziness. And if you don't understand what I'm saying, same problem. There's more to who you're attracted to than just a penis or a vagina, and very little of it is irrevocably hard-wired. While a biological imperative to procreate is most likely built into the software for most people (because a species that isn't compelled to reproduce is going to be an evolutionary dead-end), even that isn't true of everyone.

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to. Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

 

[Slade3200]

Obviously it's a natural process. There have always been a percentage of people born this way and there always will be. We don't understand why that is the case, it's purpose, or through what process it develops. It exists in every culture on every continent throughout time.

Social constucts dictate the level of acceptance in a given society but never drive who becomes gay. In more open societies in different time periods, gay people go about their lives relatively unfettered by others. During these times the world has not seen a significant increase in the amount of people identifying as homosexual. More may feel free to be out and open about it but their numbers aren't growing like you would expect if homosexuality were simply a societal construct.

On the flip side, when society does not support homosexuals and even persecutes them, we see that they still exist. If it were choice, why would someone risk being stoned or thrown from a roof for it? Obviously they don't. It's just who they are by nature.

That's like saying because there have always been schizophrenics, that must mean there's nothing wrong with it.

And as it happens, social constructs often DO dictate who identifies in one way or another, just as it dictates who will act on violent or criminal impulses in many cases. In a society that actually puts a certain amount of onus on the individual to be responsible for his own actions, those who can suppress urges that go against societal mores will usually do so. In a permissive society, fewer people feel any need to restrain whatever whim crosses their mind. And believe it or not, it IS possible to convince oneself that one is gay. Not saying that's the case with all of them, but it does happen.

The law of supply and demand applies to everything about human society.

No it's not. Gay folks can no more choose who they're attracted to than you can.
Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?
Do you believe that you could be coerced into a homosexual relationship and enjoy it?

What makes you so sure I can't choose who I'm attracted to? Do you really think you HAVE to have so little control over your own mind, and merely exist in a state of helplessness before your all-powerful subconscious?

Also, did you miss the post about "who says a choice has to be conscious to be a choice"? Or were you just in such a rush to kneejerk out your favorite "Gotcha!" talking point that you couldn't be bothered?

You might want to consider that you know jack shit about me or my personal life before you rush in with your "Aha!" argument attempts. But for the record, any psychiatrist will tell you it IS completely possible to be coerced into a relationship that you would not have freely chosen and still derive some enjoyment from it. Hell, people get into toxic relationships all the time. Do you really think they're hating every second of it, and getting no pleasure from it at all? Doesn't make it any less bad for them.

I hate to break it to you but if you can decide who you're attracted to then you're probably not strait.

I hate to break it to you, but if you're a victim of your own subconscious, you have nothing to blame but your own ignorance and laziness. And if you don't understand what I'm saying, same problem. There's more to who you're attracted to than just a penis or a vagina, and very little of it is irrevocably hard-wired. While a biological imperative to procreate is most likely built into the software for most people (because a species that isn't compelled to reproduce is going to be an evolutionary dead-end), even that isn't true of everyone.

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to. Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

I understand that you are saying but why does any of that matter? Two people of the same sex loving each other has no effect on Mr and Mrs Straight. All they have ever asked for is to not be treated with bigotry and discrimination. Many who are not homosexual support LGBT rights as basic human rights. What is your damage or reasoning for wanting to oppress homosexuals?

 

[Seawytch]

Obviously it's a natural process. There have always been a percentage of people born this way and there always will be. We don't understand why that is the case, it's purpose, or through what process it develops. It exists in every culture on every continent throughout time.

Social constucts dictate the level of acceptance in a given society but never drive who becomes gay. In more open societies in different time periods, gay people go about their lives relatively unfettered by others. During these times the world has not seen a significant increase in the amount of people identifying as homosexual. More may feel free to be out and open about it but their numbers aren't growing like you would expect if homosexuality were simply a societal construct.

On the flip side, when society does not support homosexuals and even persecutes them, we see that they still exist. If it were choice, why would someone risk being stoned or thrown from a roof for it? Obviously they don't. It's just who they are by nature.

That's like saying because there have always been schizophrenics, that must mean there's nothing wrong with it.

And as it happens, social constructs often DO dictate who identifies in one way or another, just as it dictates who will act on violent or criminal impulses in many cases. In a society that actually puts a certain amount of onus on the individual to be responsible for his own actions, those who can suppress urges that go against societal mores will usually do so. In a permissive society, fewer people feel any need to restrain whatever whim crosses their mind. And believe it or not, it IS possible to convince oneself that one is gay. Not saying that's the case with all of them, but it does happen.

The law of supply and demand applies to everything about human society.

No it's not. Gay folks can no more choose who they're attracted to than you can.
Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?
Do you believe that you could be coerced into a homosexual relationship and enjoy it?

What makes you so sure I can't choose who I'm attracted to? Do you really think you HAVE to have so little control over your own mind, and merely exist in a state of helplessness before your all-powerful subconscious?

Also, did you miss the post about "who says a choice has to be conscious to be a choice"? Or were you just in such a rush to kneejerk out your favorite "Gotcha!" talking point that you couldn't be bothered?

You might want to consider that you know jack shit about me or my personal life before you rush in with your "Aha!" argument attempts. But for the record, any psychiatrist will tell you it IS completely possible to be coerced into a relationship that you would not have freely chosen and still derive some enjoyment from it. Hell, people get into toxic relationships all the time. Do you really think they're hating every second of it, and getting no pleasure from it at all? Doesn't make it any less bad for them.

What does any of that have to do with who you're attracted to? Gay people have been playing it straight for centuries so of course you can make the best of a bad situation. Talk to gay people that came out later in life, after being married and having children. They will tell you that they loved their former spouses and derived pleasure from being with them. Guess what? They're still gay and always were.

Maybe sexuality is simply more fluid than our puritanical roots allow it to be.

Yeah, or maybe you're just a fucked-in-the-head pervert who's too cowardly to be at peace with it.

What in my post made you feel the need to be a see you next Tuesday? I'm quite "at peace" with my orientation, it's bigots and homophobes that need to have the come to Jesus about it, not gays.

 

[Freewill]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

 

[Seawytch]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

 

[Freewill]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

 

[Seawytch]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

Woah, look at the amatuer scientist. Are you aware, professor, that there are animals that can change their gender when the population of their species dictates it? Or animals that become sterile or more prolific as necessary? Hit the books, professor, you need to catch up.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

 

[Seawytch]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

Non sequitur much? Was that post only so you could talk and think about "fudge packing"? We aren't talking the "best friend" kind of love here, but you knew that. There is porn for what you seemingly need.

 

[Freewill]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

Woah, look at the amatuer scientist. Are you aware, professor, that there are animals that can change their gender when the population of their species dictates it? Or animals that become sterile or more prolific as necessary? Hit the books, professor, you need to catch up.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

That is nothing like being gay. They still desire the opposite sex. When did you last hear of a human NATURALLY changing their gender?

What you need to do is explain the evolutionary advantage to being gay.

 

[Freewill]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

Non sequitur much? Was that post only so you could talk and think about "fudge packing"? We aren't talking the "best friend" kind of love here, but you knew that. There is porn for what you seemingly need.

No, what I was doing is separating what you said and interjecting reality. YOU made the claim of two people loving each other as if that is what being gay is all about. It is not.

 

[Freewill]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

Non sequitur much? Was that post only so you could talk and think about "fudge packing"? We aren't talking the "best friend" kind of love here, but you knew that. There is porn for what you seemingly need.

First of all I don't care if your live for someone manifests itself in gay loving, that is up to you and yours.

But let me ask. If gayness is a product of nature and not of choice then why do we have gay pride parades?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

There's no reason for an egg laying mammal to exist either but it does.

 

[Freewill]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

There's no reason for an egg laying mammal to exist either but it does.

View attachment 80236

Your point being? that the platypus does not meet the social construct? As far as I know the platypus still reproduces.

 

[Seawytch]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

Woah, look at the amatuer scientist. Are you aware, professor, that there are animals that can change their gender when the population of their species dictates it? Or animals that become sterile or more prolific as necessary? Hit the books, professor, you need to catch up.

The Evolutionary Puzzle of Homosexuality

That is nothing like being gay. They still desire the opposite sex. When did you last hear of a human NATURALLY changing their gender?

What you need to do is explain the evolutionary advantage to being gay.

Didn't read the link did you. Back to the books professor.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Historically I believe that homosexuality was typically considered a social construct, in which any person had the potential to develop gay attractions if in the right situation (ex. prison inmates having gay relations due to isolation from women).

It seems like only in recent times has homosexuality been touted as a biological construct and an "identity" put on the same level as sex and race.

I'm wondering what exactly sparked all of this hubub; as there's definitely no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is "genetic" or that people are "born that way" despite activist claims.

The science loving left which tells us to question GW is very unscientific should realize that homosexuality goes directly against the science of evolution. There is absolutely no reason for there to be genes that cause homosexuality. The very basis of evolution dictates otherwise.

There's no reason for an egg laying mammal to exist either but it does.

View attachment 80236

Your point being? that the platypus does not meet the social construct? As far as I know the platypus still reproduces.

The point being in response to your post fool.

There is no reason for the platypus in evolution either but it exists as do homosexuals.

 

[Seawytch]

Now, that being said, even if a predisposition toward homosexuality IS genetic (and that's by no means proven in any scientific sense), that doesn't make it natural, desirable, or unchangeable, any more than alcoholism is, simply because it HAS been proven to be a genetic predisposition. And just because alcoholics can learn to buck that genetic time bomb, it is entirely possible to learn to swim against other genetic tides, should one wish to.

But being gay isn't like being an alcoholic. Two consenting adults loving each other is nothing like alcoholism or obesity. They aren't hurting anyone.

Consider, for example, the existence of people who have lived their whole lives identifying as gay who were repeatedly molested as children by adults of the same sex. Do you assume THEY were "born gay", and "have no choice but to be gay", and the molestation was simply a coincidence?

So now you're playing hypotheticals? Okay, consider the fact that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys are sexual molested in the United States. Yes, the molestation is simply a coincidence. My ex was molested by her grandfather. When grampy started diddling her (and not her two sisters and they all were only a year apart in age) she already knew she liked girls and not boys. She was a tomboy. Odd isn't it that grampa picked her of the three to rape?

Two consenting adults loving each other is not the same as being gay. A person can love their best friend but not consider packing fudge with them.

Non sequitur much? Was that post only so you could talk and think about "fudge packing"? We aren't talking the "best friend" kind of love here, but you knew that. There is porn for what you seemingly need.

First of all I don't care if your live for someone manifests itself in gay loving, that is up to you and yours.

But let me ask. If gayness is a product of nature and not of choice then why do we have gay pride parades?

My live for someone? You mean my attraction to members of the same sex? That's not a manifestation, that's sexual orientation. Mine's lesbian. I'm attracted to members of the same gender. Always have been, from my earliest memories. I didn't choose that attraction, only to act upon it.

So you can't be proud of being Irish, black, Italian, Jewish, etc? What do you think Saint Patrick's day is except "Irish Pride"? How many of these do you see on March 17th?

Don't get mad because our parades are so awesome, just have better parades.