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

[Ernie S.]

Not a bit. How about you?

 

[skye]

I don't know what it is ..genetic or what

I am lost

sorry

no idea

I am no help

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Emily is taking this political! Breaking the rules?

Nope. As long as she leaves the political parties out of it she is fine.

 

[Boss]

These studies could not conclude that homosexuality was genetic.

Again, homosexual is behavioral. Behavioral attributes are often influenced by genetics and many other factors. That's not to say we have a homosexual gene. Everyone has a mixture of masculine and feminine genetic attributes. Those play a role in what we emotionally find stimulating, but our psyche plays a role as well. Social stigmas and taboos play a role. Self-esteem plays a role... LOTS of things factor into whether an individual decides to engage in a homosexual act.

So it is no surprise that studies can't find it to be genetic. It's behavioral.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even ms piece love and understanding Emily is a bigot.

But this however breaks the rules. I suggest you edit your post.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's behavioral.

I agree.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your question should be why do you think homosexual behavior is a bad thing, because you were told so?

That is not the premise of this thread, as a gesture of good faith, if you post a SDF thread with that very same question, I'll be able to answer within the boundaries you set forth.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

The rules are as follows:

1. No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera).
3. No anti-Gay or anti-Christian commentary.
4. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources.
5. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
6. No discussion regarding religious or non religious views of Homosexuality. Let the science (or your interpretation therein) do the talking.
7. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively reported to forum staff.
8. This thread will be governed under "Zone 1" regulations.

Emily broke your rule. She's asking me about passing laws protecting left handed people. My left handed example was a good point and she just derailed it.

You are deliberately taking the rules out of context. She is not mentioning any political party. She can however discuss policy to the effect of this thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What you are asking for though Temp... is to what's wrong with gays, is it their genetics or their choices.

What I am asking for is yours or anyone else's thoughts and or structure premises on the issue. My opinion is irrelevant at this point: I am just another participant in this thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Uh ... No one can stop someone from loving another person ... Just like no one can make another person worship or have faith in God.
Not meaning to intentionally bring religion into the equation as a determining factor ... It is just an easy way to make a simple analogy.

.

As long as it is an analogy only, you are good.

 

[TemplarKormac]

From this and countless other studies, I draw the conclusion that these behaviors are by choice, aided and pushed by genetic chemical based drives and desires, but still they are behaviors led by choice by thinking life forms.

You would be surprised that I actually agree with this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

My uncle was gay before he was murdered in 2004 when I was 16. I wanted to know him. It was always cool to find out that one has an uncle. My Dad was was hit hard enough by it. I loved him just like I did my other family. So, I am not afraid of gay people, I am simply not afraid to dig into what makes them gay. I have three friends on my facebook friends list who are gay, there was a show I watched all the way through to the last season that had a bisexual pair of young women.

I don't hate nor fear them whatsoever.

 

[Mertex]

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?

I guess he frustrates himself.....

 

[Mertex]

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

Sex doesn't have to be "pleasurable" to cause pregnancy. Ask any woman who has been raped and has gotten pregnant from it.

The fact that you fail to realize that even though it may not be what they prefer, or it may not be pleasurable, that doesn't mean it takes away their reproductive abilities.

You haven't been able to provide any links to back your belief, so I guess you don't have any.

 

[Mertex]

Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed.

I'm still waiting for you to provide some credible link where homosexuals lose their reproductive abilities when they have sex with the opposite sex. And, also, tell us how you are able to tell whether a person is being honest or dishonest, especially when you don't even know who they are.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Sex doesn't have to be "pleasurable" to cause pregnancy. Ask any woman who has been raped and has gotten pregnant from it.

The fact that you fail to realize that even though it may not be what they prefer, or it may not be pleasurable, that doesn't mean it takes away their reproductive abilities.

You haven't been able to provide any links to back your belief, so I guess you don't have any.

Of course it doesn't take away their reproductive abilities. It just makes them very rare. Even rarer for a gay and a lesbian to reproduce.

 

[Mertex]

Figuratively, daily, but they rarely get them pregnant.

You keep making comments and not providing links to support your position. I'm wondering why the OP is not taking note of that and asking you to vacate the thread?

 

[Ernie S.]

Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed.

I'm still waiting for you to provide some credible link where homosexuals lose their reproductive abilities when they have sex with the opposite sex. And, also, tell us how you are able to tell whether a person is being honest or dishonest, especially when you don't even know who they are.

I never claimed that. What I said was gay men don't breed with lesbian women.
You would need both parents to pass on a mythical gay gene to have a gay kid. Homosexual reproduction is so rare that genetic gays would become extinct in 10 or 12 generations.

 

[Mertex]

For Christ's sake! If they bred they had heterosexual sex.

This is what you said.

honest homosexuals cannot breed.

So, provide some links where "honest" homosexuals are not able to reproduce.

 

[Statistikhengst]

That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

The rules are as follows:

1. No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera).
3. No anti-Gay or anti-Christian commentary.
4. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources.
5. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
6. No discussion regarding religious or non religious views of Homosexuality. Let the science (or your interpretation therein) do the talking.
7. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively reported to forum staff.
8. This thread will be governed under "Zone 1" regulations.

Why does the OP make no distinction between homosexuality and homosexual acts?

They are not the same, you know...