Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have two nephews as different as night and day even though they were raised by the same parents. So I know you are born who you are. Otherwise they'd be much more alike.Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.How do those things excise homosexuality?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
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.
Who made that rule? Are you absolutely positive that no gay male has ever tried to have sex with a woman to see if he may just be confused? Post some links backing up that statement, because I don't believe that you can absolutely say that gay men will never have sex with a woman. There is no way on earth that anyone could ever prove that, it's just something that you envision.
Where do you come up with such stringent ideas? You have no control over whether a gay male will have sex with a woman for whatever reason.
I don't know if it is genetic or whether their orientation happens due to some extraneous cause during their formation in the womb (like an illness to the mother - measles) or an intake of some medicine by the mother, but apparently there was enough belief that it is genetic that caused the FDA to come up with rules against homosexual males donating sperm.
NEW YORK — To the dismay of gay-rights activists, the Food and Drug Administration is about to implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor.
FDA set to ban gay men as sperm donors - Health - Men s health NBC News
They've figured out how to eliminate or lower the probability of a fetus getting breast cancer. It has to do with the father and mothers genes mixing. So they can identify the gene and get rid of it. Pretty cool? Would I do that if my kid had a high chance of being gay? Would I eliminate the gay gene? As much as I love gay people I would. Wouldnt want my kid being gay although I would love them if they turned out to be gay.I never claimed that. What I said was gay men don't breed with lesbian women.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.
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.
Ernie
You are assuming that gays give birth to gays which is simply untrue.
Those of you who believe gays do not or cannot reproduce and that would inevitably result in their own extinction are completely ignoring the fact that your own opinion means homosexuality should have occurred in the first place.
Simply put, it is heterosexuals who produce homosexuals.
And the procreation case often used against gays could also be used against us straights. Not all straight married couples have kids. Therefore, using Ernie's logic, any straight people who have not produced children cannot really be straight, right?
Oh, what a slippery slope...
Should straights who produce gay children be punished?
If it were possible to identify homosexuality in utero, would homophobes want those fetuses aborted?
I'm beginning to believe that too. The jury is still out. Or it may be a combination. Or every human is different so one person might be 1% gay and one might be 99% gay. How gay is it if you put your Wang in a glory hole and dont know who's on the other side?Yes, but as you said ... behavior can also be based, at least in part on genetics. So it's not black and white as to whether the behavior is instinctive or learned.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.
And historically this is what often happened, for women less by choice, by men in order to produce heirs/children to support them.
How gay is it if you put your Wang in a glory hole and dont know who's on the other side?
I'm beginning to believe that too. The jury is still out. Or it may be a combination. Or every human is different so one person might be 1% gay and one might be 99% gay. How gay is it if you put your Wang in a glory hole and dont know who's on the other side?Yes, but as you said ... behavior can also be based, at least in part on genetics. So it's not black and white as to whether the behavior is instinctive or learned.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.
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.
My Answer: I choose both.
What historically often happened? What are you saying? That it was the guys who were usually the gays in the marriage? I wonder. Women are much more open to trying it. And how many guys say dont get married unless you want to stop having sex. I can't imagine ever not wanting to at least use my fingers on a woman to get her off. Or give her a 1 hour massage. So why are so many wives dry after a guy puts a ring on her finger? Im just saying.Huh?What is so hard to understand about the fact that homosexuals can and do participate in heterosexual sex for the purpose of breeding?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.
Because it would in fact mean they are NOT homosexual.
If homosexuals participate in heterosexual sex, there is reason to assume they are in fact not homosexual.
No it really isn't.
Men and women are both capable of having sex with partners that they are not really attracted to- alcohol can help with that.
And historically this is what often happened, for women less by choice, by men in order to produce heirs/children to support them.
They've figured out how to eliminate or lower the probability of a fetus getting breast cancer. It has to do with the father and mothers genes mixing. So they can identify the gene and get rid of it. Pretty cool? Would I do that if my kid had a high chance of being gay? Would I eliminate the gay gene? As much as I love gay people I would. Wouldnt want my kid being gay although I would love them if they turned out to be gay.I never claimed that. What I said was gay men don't breed with lesbian women.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.
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.
Ernie
You are assuming that gays give birth to gays which is simply untrue.
Those of you who believe gays do not or cannot reproduce and that would inevitably result in their own extinction are completely ignoring the fact that your own opinion means homosexuality should have occurred in the first place.
Simply put, it is heterosexuals who produce homosexuals.
And the procreation case often used against gays could also be used against us straights. Not all straight married couples have kids. Therefore, using Ernie's logic, any straight people who have not produced children cannot really be straight, right?
Oh, what a slippery slope...
Should straights who produce gay children be punished?
If it were possible to identify homosexuality in utero, would homophobes want those fetuses aborted?
And historically this is what often happened, for women less by choice, by men in order to produce heirs/children to support them.
Then from this premise I am forced to conclude that if they can make a choice to mate with the opposite sex AND someone they don't particularly like (or plaster themselves with vodka beforehand), then becoming a homosexual may also be a choice. Behavior is a choice in and of itself. Acknowledging the need for continuance of a family line further acknowledges the heterosexual side of the human species.
To me there is a lot of common sense and contradictions all at once...
I guess I choose not to want butt sex with men. Easy choice though.My Answer: I choose both.
Why is that?
What historically often happened? What are you saying? That it was the guys who were usually the gays in the marriage? I wonder. Women are much more open to trying it. And how many guys say dont get married unless you want to stop having sex. I can't imagine ever not wanting to at least use my fingers on a woman to get her off. Or give her a 1 hour massage. So why are so many wives dry after a guy puts a ring on her finger? Im just saying.Huh?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.
If homosexuals participate in heterosexual sex, there is reason to assume they are in fact not homosexual.
No it really isn't.
Men and women are both capable of having sex with partners that they are not really attracted to- alcohol can help with that.
And historically this is what often happened, for women less by choice, by men in order to produce heirs/children to support them.
I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that attraction is a choice- and homosexuality is first and foremost about attraction.
I guess I choose not to want butt sex with men. Easy choice though.My Answer: I choose both.
Why is that?
I wish it was a choice to have a buddy or ten that would come blow you on a Monday night just for fun. Lol
I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that attraction is a choice- and homosexuality is first and foremost about attraction.
I respectfully must disagree. If a homosexual is able to ignore his/her attraction to the same sex in order to mate with the opposite sex, then that screams "choice" to me.
I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that attraction is a choice- and homosexuality is first and foremost about attraction.
I respectfully must disagree. If a homosexual is able to ignore his/her attraction to the same sex in order to mate with the opposite sex, then that screams "choice" to me.
Well then we shall just respectfully disagree.
My Answer: I choose both.
Why is that?
You'd have to be nuts to put your nuts in a hole.How gay is it if you put your Wang in a glory hole and dont know who's on the other side?
Pretty foolish. What if it gets stuck?
You'd have to be nuts to put your nuts in a hole.How gay is it if you put your Wang in a glory hole and dont know who's on the other side?
Pretty foolish. What if it gets stuck?
