Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[RKMBrown]

By definition, hetero sex would not be pleasurable for a homosexual. If it is, then his sexual orientation is a choice.

You're getting close. Not sure why the light bulb is still out. What makes you think a BJ from a woman would not feel good to a homosexual man? More importantly, why do you think breeding has to be pleasurable?

 

[Boss]

Genetic or choice? How about, it's a little bit of both? Like Mary, I don't do the link thing often, and I don't know that it's possible to have a debate and not express your opinion. However, I will try to observe the remaining rules and anything I say can be easily confirmed with research.

All human sexuality is behavioral. Behaviors occur because of all sorts of influences and motivations. Some of these might be directly or indirectly genetic. When we talk about "gay" or "straight" we are talking about behavior, not genetics. Behavior is a choice but it can be influenced by genetics.

With this said, let's look at "homosexual and heterosexual" in context of physiology, disconnected from the emotions of behaviors influenced by all the other stuff. All humans have some level of natural sexual attraction to same gender. In other words, we're all a little homosexual. Some people repress it or deny it, others embrace it and act upon it. Our different behaviors reflect this and that's where we get "gay" and "straight" from.

As someone who has dealt with human behaviors on a professional level, I've run across some really fucked up people. I've known a gay man who lives his life as a heterosexual with a wife and 3 kids. He is well-respected in the community, he is successful and well off, his kids are awesome and his wife is smokin' hot. You'd look at him and swear he was straight. Now the flip side-- I know a completely straight guy who is a transvestite. He has no desire to be with a man, he just likes dressing up like a woman. Behaviors are weird that way, whatever cranks your tractor, ya know?

The point being, homosexuality is more about a choice. It may be genetically influenced and it may not be. What is a 40-year-old virgin? They've never had sex, we don't know what behavior they prefer. There is no physiological test we can do to find if they are gay. We need to know what kind of behavior stimulates them sexually and they may not want us to know.

 

[sealybobo]

How so? What medical advances?

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If they had children, they were heterosexual if only for a short period. If they can choose to be hetero or were in fact, hetero, it follows that homosexuality is a choice or a conditioned reaction to external stimulus.

You have no proof that they were heterosexual at any time. They don't choose to be hetero, they pretend to be to keep from being demeaned, hated, ostracized by people that don't know any better.

He may be gay because of you????

What is that supposed to mean? You need to read the rules of the OP, if you are trying to be insulting, the OP should tell you that it is not allowed. Of course, if you can't prove your point, perhaps that is your only recourse.

For Christ's sake! If they bred they had heterosexual sex. What the fuck is so hard to grasp?
That is supposed to mean exactly what is means.
Sorry TK. Stupid people frustrate me.

I'll let that one pass.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How so? What medical advances?

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

They don't. I'm merely saying that without those workarounds, they would be unable to breed with each other.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How so? What medical advances?

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

Because being left handed does not provide an impediment to the species ability to reproduce. Non sequitur.

Besides, here's the problem, with the methods we use today (the ones I mentioned earlier), homosexuals can propagate themselves; otherwise without them, through natural selection that gene would be bred out of the species entirely.

There's no need to be snide, alright?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Gay man walks up to woman, and says wanna have sex?

See, that's the problem I'm having with your argument. The whole idea of homosexuality is a sexual attraction to the same gender. So, why is he having sex with a woman? That would completely contradict his being a homosexual, because he would have also made a choice to have sex with a woman.

Such a convoluted state of affairs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You say gayness is a flaw in the human genome. Please provide support. Your opinion is not evidence.

Google Gregor Mendel, and his laws of genetic inheritance. It is a mutation of a normal gene.

Okay:

With all species there is a dominant gene and recessive gene. Certain proclivities unique to the genetic makeup of each individual in a species. It is rarer to encounter a recessive gene in a species naturally, now with h.sapiens it would be natural to assume that homosexuality is a recessive trait given how little there are compared to the rest of the human population:

Of 238,574,670 adult Americans (as of 2012), there are 9,083,558 of those who are homosexual, that comes out to roughly 3.8 percent of the entire adult population (the number varies from 2 (using then entire US population) and 3.8% (using just the adult population). That leaves roughly an estimated 229,400,000 of those who are heterosexual.

So, just by population statistics, you can see the "gene" which causes homosexuality would be an inferior gene in the species, or a flaw.

More evidence:

Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic

If it were a natural genetic non impediment, you'd think the gene would be more prevalent than it is, but it isn't. There's a reason for that. It is a flaw, an unintended mutation of the genetic structure which determines sexual proclivities. All mammals are driven to reproduce, all with the opposite gender. There can be no propagation of a species if a mammal, any mammal (humans included) is driven to reproduce with the same sex. It is genetically incompatible with the primary genetic make up of a species.

You cannot merge two X chromosomes or two Y chromosomes, you cannot fertilize one egg with another, nor can one sperm fertilize another sperm. Homosexuality is therefore not a natural part of the human genome.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If they had children, they were heterosexual if only for a short period. If they can choose to be hetero or were in fact, hetero, it follows that homosexuality is a choice or a conditioned reaction to external stimulus.

You have no proof that they were heterosexual at any time. They don't choose to be hetero, they pretend to be to keep from being demeaned, hated, ostracized by people that don't know any better.

He may be gay because of you????

What is that supposed to mean? You need to read the rules of the OP, if you are trying to be insulting, the OP should tell you that it is not allowed. Of course, if you can't prove your point, perhaps that is your only recourse.

For Christ's sake! If they bred they had heterosexual sex. What the fuck is so hard to grasp?
That is supposed to mean exactly what is means.
Sorry TK. Stupid people frustrate me.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that homosexuals can and do participate in heterosexual sex for the purpose of breeding?

Because it would in fact mean they are NOT homosexual.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gay man walks up to woman, and says wanna have sex?

See, that's the problem I'm having with your argument. The whole idea of homosexuality is a sexual attraction to the same gender. So, why is he having sex with a woman? That would completely contradict his being a homosexual, because he would have also made a choice to have sex with a woman.

Such a convoluted state of affairs.

Hmmmmm. You really do seem to be struggling here. Allow me to help.

Everyone who has consensual sex makes a choice to do so. That is not the same thing as "choosing" ones sexual preference.

If you made a choice to have sex with a man today, would that make you a homosexual? Is that something that you feel you are physically capable of? If not.....why?

I believe that you are so heavily invested in this topic for a reason. I wonder if you'd care to share that reason with us.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Animals don't act on emotion? Please provide support for this irrational statement.

Darwin's Origin of Species, Chapter VII

1. Instincts are not acquired (i.e. learned) via experience.

2. On the contrary, instincts can be performed by individuals who have never learned how to perform them, nor experienced the same set of stimuli before in their lives.

3. In particular, instinctive behaviors can be elicited from animals that have been raised in isolation since birth (or since hatching, as often the animals being tested were birds).

4. Instincts are stereotyped. That is, they are performed in very much the same way every time, both by the same individual at different times and by most of the members of a given species (i.e. they can be referred to as pan-specific behaviors).

5. Furthermore (and in contrast with many human behaviors), instinctive behaviors do not seem to require judgment or reason on the part of the individuals performing them.

6. By implication, this means that instincts are essentially unconscious; that is, they are not the result of conscious deliberation or intentions.

By that merit, animals rarely act on emotion, since what we perceive as emotion is driven by instinct. Therefore my statement is in no way irrational.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Animals don't act on emotion? Please provide support for this irrational statement.

Darwin's Origin of Species, Chapter VII

1. Instincts are not acquired (i.e. learned) via experience.

2. On the contrary, instincts can be performed by individuals who have never learned how to perform them, nor experienced the same set of stimuli before in their lives.

3. In particular, instinctive behaviors can be elicited from animals that have been raised in isolation since birth (or since hatching, as often the animals being tested were birds).

4. Instincts are stereotyped. That is, they are performed in very much the same way every time, both by the same individual at different times and by most of the members of a given species (i.e. they can be referred to as pan-specific behaviors).

5. Furthermore (and in contrast with many human behaviors), instinctive behaviors do not seem to require judgment or reason on the part of the individuals performing them.

6. By implication, this means that instincts are essentially unconscious; that is, they are not the result of conscious deliberation or intentions.

By that merit, animals rarely act on emotion, since what we perceive as emotion is driven by instinct. Therefore my statement is in no way irrational.

What you just posted does not support the assertion that animals don't act on emotion. Please find some other evidence.

 

[RKMBrown]

You say gayness is a flaw in the human genome. Please provide support. Your opinion is not evidence.

Google Gregor Mendel, and his laws of genetic inheritance. It is a mutation of a normal gene.

Okay:

With all species there is a dominant gene and recessive gene. Certain proclivities unique to the genetic makeup of each individual in a species. It is rarer to encounter a recessive gene in a species naturally, now with h.sapiens it would be natural to assume that homosexuality is a recessive trait given how little there are compared to the rest of the human population:

Of 238,574,670 adult Americans (as of 2012), there are 9,083,558 of those who are homosexual, that comes out to roughly 3.8 percent of the entire adult population (the number varies from 2 (using then entire US population) and 3.8% (using just the adult population). That leaves roughly an estimated 229,400,000 of those who are heterosexual.

So, just by population statistics, you can see the "gene" which causes homosexuality would be an inferior gene in the species, or a flaw.

More evidence:

Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are - The Atlantic

If it were a natural genetic non impediment, you'd think the gene would be more prevalent than it is, but it isn't. There's a reason for that. It is a flaw, an unintended mutation of the genetic structure which determines sexual proclivities. All mammals are driven to reproduce, all with the opposite gender. There can be no propagation of a species if a mammal, any mammal (humans included) is driven to reproduce with the same sex. It is genetically incompatible with the primary genetic make up of a species.

You cannot merge two X chromosomes or two Y chromosomes, you cannot fertilize one egg with another, nor can one sperm fertilize another sperm. Homosexuality is therefore not a natural part of the human genome.

I already showed you that homosexuality is exhibited by ALL animals. Then you say no it's not. And you think because you have some population % that says you are wrong, that you have somehow proved it is not? Huh?

 

[RKMBrown]

If they had children, they were heterosexual if only for a short period. If they can choose to be hetero or were in fact, hetero, it follows that homosexuality is a choice or a conditioned reaction to external stimulus.

You have no proof that they were heterosexual at any time. They don't choose to be hetero, they pretend to be to keep from being demeaned, hated, ostracized by people that don't know any better.

He may be gay because of you????

What is that supposed to mean? You need to read the rules of the OP, if you are trying to be insulting, the OP should tell you that it is not allowed. Of course, if you can't prove your point, perhaps that is your only recourse.

For Christ's sake! If they bred they had heterosexual sex. What the fuck is so hard to grasp?
That is supposed to mean exactly what is means.
Sorry TK. Stupid people frustrate me.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that homosexuals can and do participate in heterosexual sex for the purpose of breeding?

Because it would in fact mean they are NOT homosexual.

Huh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

IOW your biased opinion that gayness is a flaw, leads you to find opinions in facts that are not supported. What the facts are in the quote from LeVay is that in the animal kingdom gay acts are common among heterosexual animals, and exclusively homosexual animals are a "rarity" in the animal kingdom.

"What the facts are" is argument ad verecundiam.

What is homosexual behavior as seen by humans in heterosexual animals is actually instinctual behavior. Such homosexual behaviors enhance their reproductive capabilities but does not suggest a proclivity to mate with the same gender. Displays of dominance, for example, or a male dog mounting another, these kinds of acts are tailored to be a part of a hierarchical structure and do not play a part in reproduction.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If they had children, they were heterosexual if only for a short period. If they can choose to be hetero or were in fact, hetero, it follows that homosexuality is a choice or a conditioned reaction to external stimulus.

You have no proof that they were heterosexual at any time. They don't choose to be hetero, they pretend to be to keep from being demeaned, hated, ostracized by people that don't know any better.

He may be gay because of you????

What is that supposed to mean? You need to read the rules of the OP, if you are trying to be insulting, the OP should tell you that it is not allowed. Of course, if you can't prove your point, perhaps that is your only recourse.

For Christ's sake! If they bred they had heterosexual sex. What the fuck is so hard to grasp?
That is supposed to mean exactly what is means.
Sorry TK. Stupid people frustrate me.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that homosexuals can and do participate in heterosexual sex for the purpose of breeding?

Because it would in fact mean they are NOT homosexual.

Huh?

If homosexuals participate in heterosexual sex, there is reason to assume they are in fact not homosexual.

 

[RKMBrown]

IOW your biased opinion that gayness is a flaw, leads you to find opinions in facts that are not supported. What the facts are in the quote from LeVay is that in the animal kingdom gay acts are common among heterosexual animals, and exclusively homosexual animals are a "rarity" in the animal kingdom.

"What the facts are" is argument ad verecundiam.

What is homosexual behavior as seen by humans in heterosexual animals is actually instinctual behavior. Such homosexual behaviors enhance their reproductive capabilities but does not suggest a proclivity to mate with the same gender. Displays of dominance, for example, or a male dog mounting another, these kinds of acts are tailored to be a part of a hierarchical structure and do not play a part in reproduction.

I was merely pointing our the differences between the guys opinions and what he stated as facts.

As to the non reproduction behavior in animals, that is correct. Nor does homosexual behavior in humans produce offspring. Thus your argument is reductio ad absurdum.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have no proof that they were heterosexual at any time. They don't choose to be hetero, they pretend to be to keep from being demeaned, hated, ostracized by people that don't know any better.

What is that supposed to mean? You need to read the rules of the OP, if you are trying to be insulting, the OP should tell you that it is not allowed. Of course, if you can't prove your point, perhaps that is your only recourse.

For Christ's sake! If they bred they had heterosexual sex. What the fuck is so hard to grasp?
That is supposed to mean exactly what is means.
Sorry TK. Stupid people frustrate me.

What is so hard to understand about the fact that homosexuals can and do participate in heterosexual sex for the purpose of breeding?

Because it would in fact mean they are NOT homosexual.

Huh?

If homosexuals participate in heterosexual sex, there is reason to assume they are in fact not homosexual.

Point?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I already showed you that homosexuality is exhibited by ALL animals.

That's not the issue. Displaying homosexual behavior does not mean the animal is homosexual.

"If there is a gay-gene that has spread to a sizable part of the population, it probably was having some effect other than homosexual inclination in the environment in which it spread."

Robert Wright (1994), The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are, p. 385

It stands to reason, once again, that homosexuality isn't a viable means of reproduction in other species of mammals and it does not suggest a genetic or instinctual proclivity of the individual to mate with the same gender of its species.

IOW your biased opinion that gayness is a flaw, leads you to find opinions in facts that are not supported. What the facts are in the quote from LeVay is that in the animal kingdom gay acts are common among heterosexual animals, and exclusively homosexual animals are a "rarity" in the animal kingdom.

"What the facts are" is argument ad verecundiam.

What is homosexual behavior as seen by humans in heterosexual animals is actually instinctual behavior. Such homosexual behaviors enhance their reproductive capabilities but does not suggest a proclivity to mate with the same gender. Displays of dominance, for example, or a male dog mounting another, these kinds of acts are tailored to be a part of a hierarchical structure and do not play a part in reproduction.

I was merely pointing our the differences between the guys opinions and what he stated as facts.

As to the non reproduction behavior in animals, that is correct. Nor does homosexual behavior in humans produce offspring. Thus your argument is reductio ad absurdum.

Precisely my point. Therefore, you cannot justify human homosexuality with the behavior exhibited by other animals. While gay men and lesbian women have all the things needed to reproduce, those reproductive abilities are geared to the opposite sex, not the same sex. Humans by design are heterosexual. Thusly it is a flaw.

This also goes on to prove the point that homosexuality is not conducive to reproduction in the human species, further proving that it is a genetic anomaly.

Referring to my argument as reductio ad absurdum is in turn argumentum ad hominem (or circumstantial ad hominem).

 

[TemplarKormac]

Opinions are opinions,

Precisely. So, what made you cite Bagemihl? It was his opinion, and therefore an opinion you felt supported your argument. But, as are the rules of the OP, you must substantiate an opinion with facts and evidence. You cannot support your opinion with another opinion.

the writer is merely pointing out sources and desires for a better world model than the current one. Which I assume is what you are doing with this OP.

No. The motive is plain. I am merely challenging the participants to prove their case on whether homosexuality is genetic in nature or the result of a choice. I am not asking for ways we can better the world through the understanding of homosexuality, my question relies on empirical scientific evidence, not a philosophy.