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

[Divine Wind]

No I'm talking about paying one of "the girls" to let them bang them. Ever see the longest yard? The sistas

Me neither, hence the link.

 

[sealybobo]

Google "logic"
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

What do you care what they call it? I just snicker and put marriage in quotes and go on with my life.

I care about words. They mean something and should not be used improperly to promote agenda to create an effect.
Take "hate" for example. Hate is an extremely strong negative emotion, but Liberals will say I "hate" Mexicans because I want to protect our borders. That I "hate" gay people because I don't want them to redefine the word "marriage".
I hate no one, least of all people I have never met.

Anything new on the genetic issue or is it time to ditch this so called debate?

As for "marriage" you might as well get over it and suck it up.

The best thing I got out of this thread is that it doesn't matter if a gay chooses to be gay or is born that way. Either way that's who they are and want to be and that's OK. It's actually good. Healthy. Just don't get aids

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If we were "wired" for sexual preference there would be a gene that controlled such.


Jesus, why do liberals hate science?

1) Why? There's no straight gene. Did you choose to be straight or were you born that way? did you make a conscious decision to like pussy or cock? If so, when did you make that decision? Was it at a certain age or do you wrestle with it daily? Most people like myself are born straight, although that preference doesn't really come out until puberty.

2) Ask them. Why do you hate science?

LOL this tired old argument again. i didn't choose to have two arms either, but I do have two arms. Now if a person was born with 3 arms, and said "hey I was born this way" I would have to agree and we could almost certainly find the genetic defect that caused them to be born with 3 arms without having to prove that I was born with two arms.

Yalls argument boils down to "being homosexual is a genetic defect" that's cool, I just happen to believe it's a choice.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yalls argument boils down to "being homosexual is a genetic defect" that's cool, I just happen to believe it's a choice.

A more correct, and nicer, way of putting it is "genetic anomaly".

Again, for the ignorant, non-science believers, etc; there is a difference between sexual preference and sexual behavior. Behavior is a choice, preference is not. It's innate.

Furthermore, it appears the most ardent homophobes are probably latent homosexuals acting out their self-loathing.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? - PubMed - NCBI
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

 

[sealybobo]

If we were "wired" for sexual preference there would be a gene that controlled such.


Jesus, why do liberals hate science?

1) Why? There's no straight gene. Did you choose to be straight or were you born that way? did you make a conscious decision to like pussy or cock? If so, when did you make that decision? Was it at a certain age or do you wrestle with it daily? Most people like myself are born straight, although that preference doesn't really come out until puberty.

2) Ask them. Why do you hate science?

LOL this tired old argument again. i didn't choose to have two arms either, but I do have two arms. Now if a person was born with 3 arms, and said "hey I was born this way" I would have to agree and we could almost certainly find the genetic defect that caused them to be born with 3 arms without having to prove that I was born with two arms.

Yalls argument boils down to "being homosexual is a genetic defect" that's cool, I just happen to believe it's a choice.

Funny you say that because you would think the gay gene would have gone extinct because they don't typically pass on their genes.

But then again it's straight parents who give birth to gay kids.

So you think like a mother who's son goes to prison, a mother and father should look at their gay child and ask what they did wrong?

What do gay kids parents do wrong? So you could never have a gay kid?

 

[Divine Wind]

Funny you say that because you would think the gay gene would have gone extinct because they don't typically pass on their genes.....

Scroll up. There is no gay gene just like there is no straight gene yet not one straight person here claims they chose to be straight. Why?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, Homosexuality Absolutely is A Choice Yes, Homosexuality Absolutely is A Choice | john pavlovitz



To all of my Christian brothers and sisters who insist that homosexuality is a choice, I need to break down and finally admit something: I agree with you.I believe that it absolutely is a choice too, only not in the way that you may have meant

Now, before we go on, I want to be clear about something. While this excellent piece is directed at Christians, everything said here applies equally to anyone who ignorantly claims that homosexuality is a choice. I continue with selected excerpts:

Christian, when you make the blanket statement that homosexuality is a sin, what you’re really doing without realizing it is reducing all LGBT people down to a sex act; as if that alone defines sexuality. You’re denying any emotional component in their lives; any capacity to feel real love or show genuine affection toward someone else. In a gross oversimplification, you’re labeling a complex, fully formed human being as merely a performer of intercourse

Consider this:

You know that in your own life, the physical act of sex isn’t the totality of your sexuality; that it is also about affection and companionship and the desire to love and be loved. It’s about who you are drawn to and attracted to and compelled to be close to.

In your own story, you experienced those things firsthand before you ever thought about or experienced the act of intercourse. In those moments when you first began to understand your own sexual identity, it snuck up on you and surprised you. There was likely no internal battle, no great wrestling, no real conscious choice to be made.

It was not a decision that you came to, but a realization.

Is something beginning to dawn on you? I hope so, but if not, here is more:

Christian, you probably recall this in your own story of sexual identity and self discovery don’t you? You simply felt naturally and quite involuntarily, the impulses you felt.

By following those impulses, you were making a choice, too. You were choosing to be authentic and true to your heart and mind’s leading. You were choosing to agree with the truth about how you loved. The alternative would never have been an option.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that LGBT people are operating any differently?

It just gets better! Anyone who can’t relate to this and see how stupid it is to claim that homosexuality is a choice is a hopeless empty shell of a human being

It’s rather careless to treat the gay community as if they are choosing their path of orientation, because what you’re implying when you do so, is that they are naturally wired to be straight but are making the conscious decision to act in direct opposition to this. You are charging them with the most profound emotional treason.

Does that line of thinking work at all if you superimpose it onto your own life? That would mean that you could just as easily be gay as straight; that you could, with enough cajoling and suggestion and support and prayer—choose to be attracted to, desiring of, and aroused by someone of the same sex.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If we were "wired" for sexual preference there would be a gene that controlled such.


Jesus, why do liberals hate science?

1) Why? There's no straight gene. Did you choose to be straight or were you born that way? did you make a conscious decision to like pussy or cock? If so, when did you make that decision? Was it at a certain age or do you wrestle with it daily? Most people like myself are born straight, although that preference doesn't really come out until puberty.

2) Ask them. Why do you hate science?

LOL this tired old argument again. i didn't choose to have two arms either, but I do have two arms. Now if a person was born with 3 arms, and said "hey I was born this way" I would have to agree and we could almost certainly find the genetic defect that caused them to be born with 3 arms without having to prove that I was born with two arms.

Yalls argument boils down to "being homosexual is a genetic defect" that's cool, I just happen to believe it's a choice.

I find it fascinating that you and others who are whining and blathering about how people choose to be homosexuals - on a thread that designed to be a debate based on facts - that you do nothing more than post your opinions that you that you present as fact, while not citing a single, scientific source!! NOT ONE! try to absorb this........

Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture Selected Excerpts

Homosexuality: Nature Or Nurture | AllPsych

What is perhaps even more ridiculous is that fact that -despite everything that has been presented here so far ( which you probably have not read because you are not really interested in learning anything) you continue to frame the question in terms of "genetic vs. choice" when the scientific community is focused on "nature (biology) vs nurture ( environment) and is not even considering "choice" in any serious way

The current debate is whether or not homosexuality is a result of nature: a person’s environment and surroundings, or of his biology and genetics. The debate endures because both sides have the ability to create a scientific environment to support their cause. For example, biological theorists may argue that a monkey and human child, reared in the same setting, will develop with vastly different outcomes, while social theorists may argue that monozygotic twins, one reared normally and the other raised in seclusion for 18 years, will also develop with vastly different results, but different even more from the first scenario [4].

Although the APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that “…it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience”[1], social theorists argue that an individual’s upbringing can directly influence this [sexual orientation].

Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument. Experiments in biological research date back as far as the late 1930’s, beginning with the pioneering research of Alfred Kinsey (for the University of Indiana) on human sexuality

You see sparky, this is how you present an argument in a debate. There is much more information in the article if you are interested enough - and can overcome you're fear of your beliefes challenged, but my guess is you will not even click on the link.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Prove your case. Is religion genetic or a choice? If it is a choice,- as it clearly is for some such as those who adopt a religion later in life- what are the implications for freedom of religion in law and public policy?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If we were "wired" for sexual preference there would be a gene that controlled such.


Jesus, why do liberals hate science?

1) Why? There's no straight gene. Did you choose to be straight or were you born that way? did you make a conscious decision to like pussy or cock? If so, when did you make that decision? Was it at a certain age or do you wrestle with it daily? Most people like myself are born straight, although that preference doesn't really come out until puberty.

2) Ask them. Why do you hate science?

LOL this tired old argument again. i didn't choose to have two arms either, but I do have two arms. Now if a person was born with 3 arms, and said "hey I was born this way" I would have to agree and we could almost certainly find the genetic defect that caused them to be born with 3 arms without having to prove that I was born with two arms.

Yalls argument boils down to "being homosexual is a genetic defect" that's cool, I just happen to believe it's a choice.

I find it fascinating that you and others who are whining and blathering about how people choose to be homosexuals - on a thread that designed to be a debate based on facts - that you do nothing more than post your opinions that you that you present as fact, while not citing a single, scientific source!! NOT ONE! try to absorb this........

Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture Selected Excerpts

Homosexuality: Nature Or Nurture | AllPsych

What is perhaps even more ridiculous is that fact that -despite everything that has been presented here so far ( which you probably have not read because you are not really interested in learning anything) you continue to frame the question in terms of "genetic vs. choice" when the scientific community is focused on "nature (biology) vs nurture ( environment) and is not even considering "choice" in any serious way

The current debate is whether or not homosexuality is a result of nature: a person’s environment and surroundings, or of his biology and genetics. The debate endures because both sides have the ability to create a scientific environment to support their cause. For example, biological theorists may argue that a monkey and human child, reared in the same setting, will develop with vastly different outcomes, while social theorists may argue that monozygotic twins, one reared normally and the other raised in seclusion for 18 years, will also develop with vastly different results, but different even more from the first scenario [4].

Although the APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that “…it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience”[1], social theorists argue that an individual’s upbringing can directly influence this [sexual orientation].

Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument. Experiments in biological research date back as far as the late 1930’s, beginning with the pioneering research of Alfred Kinsey (for the University of Indiana) on human sexuality

You see sparky, this is how you present an argument in a debate. There is much more information in the article if you are interested enough - and can overcome you're fear of your beliefes challenged, but my guess is you will not even click on the link.

No response? Apparently we're done here. I accept you capitulation.

 

[Divine Wind]

...What is perhaps even more ridiculous is that fact that -despite everything that has been presented here so far ( which you probably have not read because you are not really interested in learning anything) you continue to frame the question in terms of "genetic vs. choice" when the scientific community is focused on "nature (biology) vs nurture ( environment) and is not even considering "choice" in any serious way...

A small correction: "choice" would come under nurture/environment. The homophobic theory being two gay men raise a baby boy and that baby grows into a gay man. You and I appear agreed it doesn't work that way. Odds are, about 98%, that the boy will be straight since sexual preference is innate.

 

[sealybobo]

...What is perhaps even more ridiculous is that fact that -despite everything that has been presented here so far ( which you probably have not read because you are not really interested in learning anything) you continue to frame the question in terms of "genetic vs. choice" when the scientific community is focused on "nature (biology) vs nurture ( environment) and is not even considering "choice" in any serious way...

A small correction: "choice" would come under nurture/environment. The homophobic theory being two gay men raise a baby boy and that baby grows into a gay man. You and I appear agreed it doesn't work that way. Odds are, about 98%, that the boy will be straight since sexual preference is innate.

Not worrying what his parents would think that boy might be more prone to banging some tranny at a drunkin college party one day but ultimately he either likes women or he doesn't.

I wonder, if it weren't looked on negatively by society, how many straight guys would let a gay guy give them head.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...What is perhaps even more ridiculous is that fact that -despite everything that has been presented here so far ( which you probably have not read because you are not really interested in learning anything) you continue to frame the question in terms of "genetic vs. choice" when the scientific community is focused on "nature (biology) vs nurture ( environment) and is not even considering "choice" in any serious way...

A small correction: "choice" would come under nurture/environment. The homophobic theory being two gay men raise a baby boy and that baby grows into a gay man. You and I appear agreed it doesn't work that way. Odds are, about 98%, that the boy will be straight since sexual preference is innate.

I don't know. I think that the way they use "choice" is as though it were a conscious decision vs, something that is shaped by the environment. However, maybe you're right. It would explain what I have regarded as the idiotic "genetic OR choice" as the only options.

 

[sealybobo]

...What is perhaps even more ridiculous is that fact that -despite everything that has been presented here so far ( which you probably have not read because you are not really interested in learning anything) you continue to frame the question in terms of "genetic vs. choice" when the scientific community is focused on "nature (biology) vs nurture ( environment) and is not even considering "choice" in any serious way...

A small correction: "choice" would come under nurture/environment. The homophobic theory being two gay men raise a baby boy and that baby grows into a gay man. You and I appear agreed it doesn't work that way. Odds are, about 98%, that the boy will be straight since sexual preference is innate.

I don't know. I think that the way they use "choice" is as though it were a conscious decision vs, something that is shaped by the environment. However, maybe you're right. It would explain what I have regarded as the idiotic "genetic OR choice" as the only options.

So are you a genius or idiot? Only two choices. Good point

 

[Boss]

In my humble opinion, the only way you can claim homosexuality is genetic and not a choice is to say that homosexuality is unlike any other sexual proclivity and those who are homosexual have no control over their sexual desires. I don't believe that is true.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In my humble opinion, the only way you can claim homosexuality is genetic and not a choice is to say that homosexuality is unlike any other sexual proclivity and those who are homosexual have no control over their sexual desires. I don't believe that is true.

Homosexuality is unlike any other sexual proclivity. All people have preferences as to HOW they engage in sex and what sexual activities they like. Homosexuals differ in WHO they wish to have sex with based on attraction to those of the same gender.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

...What is perhaps even more ridiculous is that fact that -despite everything that has been presented here so far ( which you probably have not read because you are not really interested in learning anything) you continue to frame the question in terms of "genetic vs. choice" when the scientific community is focused on "nature (biology) vs nurture ( environment) and is not even considering "choice" in any serious way...

A small correction: "choice" would come under nurture/environment. The homophobic theory being two gay men raise a baby boy and that baby grows into a gay man. You and I appear agreed it doesn't work that way. Odds are, about 98%, that the boy will be straight since sexual preference is innate.

I don't know. I think that the way they use "choice" is as though it were a conscious decision vs, something that is shaped by the environment. However, maybe you're right. It would explain what I have regarded as the idiotic "genetic OR choice" as the only options.

So are you a genius or idiot? Only two choices. Good point

Maybe Fair and Balanced (LOL) can shed some light on it, be he seems to have fled the thread, as has the perpetrator of the OP. Anyone seen him since then??

 

[Boss]

Homosexuality is unlike any other sexual proclivity. All people have preferences as to HOW they engage in sex and what sexual activities they like. Homosexuals differ in WHO they wish to have sex with based on attraction to those of the same gender.

So do necrophiliacs and zoophiles. Yet, they can control their sexual urges.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Homosexuality is unlike any other sexual proclivity. All people have preferences as to HOW they engage in sex and what sexual activities they like. Homosexuals differ in WHO they wish to have sex with based on attraction to those of the same gender.

So do necrophiliacs and zoophiles. Yet, they can control their sexual urges.

I'm not talking about "sexual urges" I'm talking about sexual and romantic attractions.

You're saying that homosexuals are less able to "control sexual urges' ? I have to wonder how you know that, and for that matter, how you know that necrophiles and zoophiles CAN control their urges.

Necrophilia and zoophilia are mental illness as is pedophilia. They are not about same gender attraction. Those references are just a nonsensical red herring

 

[Boss]

I'm not talking about "sexual urges" I'm talking about sexual and romantic attractions.

You're saying that homosexuals are less able to "control sexual urges' ? I have to wonder how you know that, and for that matter, how you know that necrophiles and zoophiles CAN control their urges.

Necrophilia and zoophilia are mental illness as is pedophilia. They are not about same gender attraction. Those references are just a nonsensical red herring

Well because that is the way homosexuality is presented. They can't help it, they are "born" that way! We are expected to accept the homosexual has no control whatsoever over his/her sexual desires... unlike a myriad of other sexual proclivities. Every other kind of "pervert" can restrain themselves and not act on their sexual impulses but a homosexual simply doesn't have that choice.

Necrophilia and zoophilia are the exact same "sexual attraction" as homosexuality. It is what someone is sexually attracted to and they can't do a thing about.... it's what cranks their tractors. It's just that we've accepted that taboo as "normalized" in society and it has become accepted that, somehow, they have no control over it whatsoever... they have to fuck the same gender... can't help themselves.... just how they are. We don't accept that behavior with pedophiles or any other deviancy, only homosexuality.