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

[Boss]

Displaying homosexual behavior does not mean the animal is homosexual.

That's all it can mean. Homosexuality is a behavior. All sexuality is behavioral.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Yes, homosexuality is not conducive to reproduction in any species. However it is conducive to ensuring the survival of the species. Having non competing males available to defend against predators and non reproducing females to care for orphans are positive survival traits.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Displaying homosexual behavior does not mean the animal is homosexual.

That's all it can mean. Homosexuality is a behavior. All sexuality is behavioral.

Subtle. But this assertion requires substance.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic. If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

As I pointed out... he cited facts, and stated opinions. I cited the facts, you cited the opinions. Yet here you are questioning my citations. Dude...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

 

[RKMBrown]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

 

[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.

As I pointed out he cited facts, and stated opinions. I cited the facts, you cited the opinions. Yet here you are questioning my citations. Dude...

You cited dictionary definitions and opinions. Not once did you cite anything resembling a study, Bagemihls, "study" was nothing more than a rhetorical premise. I however cited at least 10+ studies related to the matter. My hope was that people would Google those studies and figure it out for themselves.

Once again, here are the studies I cited:

Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Hamer, 1993; Hu et al, 1995; McGuire, 1995; Mcknight, 1997; Sanders et al. 1998; Bailey et al., 1999; Rice et al. in 1999; McKnight & Malcolm, 2000; Hershberger, 2001; Bearman & Brückner, 2002; Mustanski et al. 2005; Långström, et al 2010

I even posted a link to the OMIM website for more investigatory research.

These studies could not conclude that homosexuality was genetic. There is a clear and defined genetic basis for heterosexuality, however.

 

[TemplarKormac]

and provided irrefutable evidence

Argument of false declaration. You suggested I was biased, but this statement suggests bias all on its own.

 

[RKMBrown]

and provided irrefutable evidence

Argument of false declaration. You suggested I was biased, but this statement suggests bias all on its own.

Huh? DO YOU DENY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN ANIMALS? Why don't you just argue that the sun never rises?

 

[RKMBrown]

NVM putting you on ignore.

 

[Ravi]

People simply want to be happy and love whoever they want to love. What else matters if there is consent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

NVM putting you on ignore.

Aren't you overreacting just a bit? I guess this amounts to a concession.

I'm sorry you didn't like my premise, but you didn't state your case effectively. Moreover, I refrained from pointing out numerous times the your argument was emotionally based. The fact you became angry only confirmed that fact. I engaged you respectfully the entire time but in turn received this response.

Fine. Take care.

Now, anyone else is free to address the topic as set forth within the parameters of the thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

and provided irrefutable evidence

Argument of false declaration. You suggested I was biased, but this statement suggests bias all on its own.

Huh? DO YOU DENY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN ANIMALS? Why don't you just argue that the sun never rises?

Oh brother. I know for a fact there is homosexual behavior in animals. But you seem to think it means the animals are homosexual. I've already explained why this assertion is untrue. Just because the moon shines doesn't make it the sun.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

And likewise if people tried to pass equal rights laws giving "extra protections to left handed
people" as an orientation, others would argue such laws are not necessary to add or change.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Having non competing males available to defend against predators and non reproducing females to care for orphans are positive survival traits.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice, it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

As a manner of practice among the human species it does. Without the use of surrogacy or IVF, homosexuals would be unable to have children by themselves.

With all due respect, emily, I have a feeling my argument has or was blown out of context. I never once said it endangered natural reproduction, I made it clear that as it pertains to the homosexual segment of h.sapiens that natural reproduction was impossible without the above mentioned techniques.

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.

It is. But I thought it would be challenging to delve into the origins, not just the behavior.

That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.

Interesting. I agree, it is mainly a choice.

Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual.

Forgive me for being overly literal (or perhaps dense), but if nobody had to have sex, the human species would become extinct, would it not? Perhaps you could clarify?

If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

Respectfully, government has no place regulating the sexual activities of anyone.

 

[emilynghiem]

Respectfully, government has no place regulating the sexual activities of anyone.

Yes ^ This is what I mean. We can better reach agreement by enforcing this ^
If we start and stick with this common principle, then nobody's comments should be
taken out of context as trying to sway public perception one way or another by "validating or rejecting through govt"

If we agree to keep it out of public policy period,
then we have more freedom to share and respect beliefs
and this is not seen as a threat to one person's rights more than anothers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the causes, I believe the answers will come from studying
spiritual karma and stages of spiritual growth over generations. Then all the science can
be included in that broader framework, but if it is limited to just what we can theorize in this lifetime,
it may not cover all the spiritual causes and factors.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes ^ This is what I mean. We can better reach agreement by enforcing this ^
If we start and stick with this common principle, then nobody's comments should be
taken out of context to try to sway public perception one way or another by "validating or rejecting through govt"

That is something I can live with.