Homosexuality - Is it a gene or a choice? - General

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;35473318]Because I know people who're both ways. I know some people who were born homosexual, I know plenty of people who were born heterosexual, and I know a few (and am) who decided their sexuality themselves.[/QUOTE] When you say you decided your sexuality, does that mean you willed yourself to find men/women attractive/unattractive?

[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;35474302]When you say you decided your sexuality, does that mean you willed yourself to find men/women attractive/unattractive?[/QUOTE] Perhaps I worded things wrong. What I mean is for some people it's set in stone at birth, for some it's decided, not consciously, but they still could've gone any way but they chose based on how people around them are. But it is still a decision for some, and I still don't see why it matters.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;35474971]Perhaps I worded things wrong. What I mean is for some people it's set in stone at birth, for some it's decided, not consciously, but they still could've gone any way but they chose based on how people around them are.[/QUOTE] So you think that depending on what environment you had grown up in, your sexual response to men and women would have been different? What makes you so sure?

It's a preference, just like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla.

[QUOTE=electric926;35473913]Maybe I just don't know better, but I honestly don't see how this is relevant to the whole gay rights issue. I personally believe it's a lifestyle choice, not a genetic fluke, but that doesn't make the gay rights movement (which I'm mostly supportive of) right or wrong. My theory is that they are trying to relate the gay rights movement to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, with black skin and homosexuality being something you are born with. I really don't see the point of the association. People have been persecuted for following different religions and serving different leaders, and those are both choices, not something you are born with. It's an unnecessary distraction from the main issue and it ultimately amounts to a pissing contest between the two sides that amounts to nothing.[/QUOTE] What is the 'main issue' then? And by the wording of your post it makes you sound as if you don't think the civil rights movement of the 60s was a good thing. If you really don't understand why there is a gay rights movement, I can only ask that you educate yourself. Try and pick up opinions and viewpoints that differ from your own. Things like adoption and marriage and visitation rights and so many other things granted to heterosexual couples might seem like trivial issues to you, but that could be because they have already been granted to you. I'm sure if you really had a discussion with one of your gay friends, you would truly see they didn't choose to be gay. They chose to accept it. [editline]7th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GamerKiwi;35475031]It's a preference, just like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla.[/QUOTE] It's a little more complicated than that, I believe.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35448806]Except that "our current knowledge" is your opinion, and multiple major organizations that study this for a living disagree with you. Logic IS science.[/QUOTE] If your implication is that we can logically prove things, then you are wrong. We can demonstrate gravity & the big ban theory, we can't demonstrate things like god. Logic may be part of science but you eventually have to demonstrate, or else your logic is just a bunch of horseshit.

What?

[QUOTE=fox '09;35475336]If your implication is that we can logically prove things, then you are wrong. We can demonstrate gravity & the big ban[B]g[/B] theory, we can't demonstrate things like god. Logic may be part of science but you eventually have to demonstrate, or else your logic is just a bunch of horseshit.[/QUOTE] Logically proving god is impossible. I'm a philosophy minor, I know this stuff. Philosophers have spent the past 4000+ years trying to logically prove the existence of god. It's not possible. And how the hell are you going to demonstrate the existence of a non-physical, infinite being? that's like trying to demonstrate the existence of unicorns.

All faggots should die.

[QUOTE=Ruzza;35426772]Choice, its been proven not to be a "gene".[/QUOTE] So when did you choose to be straight?

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35475548]What?[/QUOTE] He's saying that logic can be sound, but the underlying assumptions might not be. For example, I could argue that logically, you should mix bleach and ammonia together because that way you get the cleaning power of ammonia with the whitening power of bleach, but that is incorrect because the assumption is that these products will not react with each other, when in fact they will, to produce a very toxic gas. Similarly, if I said we should ban all drugs as making drugs illegal will stop people taking them and make society better, this is a logical argument. However it is also untrue as making drugs illegal does not stop people taking them and actually increases drug related crime. The argument is basically A -> Therefore B -> Therefore C. If A is right, and the logic is sound, then C. If A is incorrect, the logic might still be sound, but the fact that A is incorrect means C is also incorrect. You're using logical arguments but the basis of these arguments is faulty.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35474240]Why?[/QUOTE] Nurture over nature? At least that's how I view it. Plus the suggestion that you are homosexual because of a fluke of nature rubs me the wrong way. [QUOTE]There is significant difference between fighting for rights of a choice (under which the opposition can state that homosexuals can simply switch to solve the argument) and fighting for rights of an issue that cannot be changed.[/QUOTE] That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to oppress the rights of either group. [QUOTE=DanTehMan;35475157]What is the 'main issue' then?[/QUOTE] The rest of the Gay Rights movement. [QUOTE]And by the wording of your post it makes you sound as if you don't think the civil rights movement of the 60s was a good thing.[/QUOTE] Was implying racism really necessary? [QUOTE]If you really don't understand why there is a gay rights movement, I can only ask that you educate yourself. Try and pick up opinions and viewpoints that differ from your own. Things like adoption and marriage and visitation rights and so many other things granted to heterosexual couples might seem like trivial issues to you, but that could be because they have already been granted to you.[/QUOTE] Maybe I did word it wrong. Let me state again that I am [B]supportive[/B] of the Gay Rights movement and that I believe that a homosexual couple [B]should[/B] have the same rights as a heterosexual one. I just don't think that the debate over whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice has a point to it. [QUOTE]I'm sure if you really had a discussion with one of your gay friends, you would truly see they didn't choose to be gay. They chose to accept it. [/QUOTE] I never ask them because it's none of my business, but there have been people who decided to go back to being heterosexual.

[QUOTE=fox '09;35475336]If your implication is that we can logically prove things, then you are wrong. We can demonstrate gravity & the big ban theory, we can't demonstrate things like god. Logic may be part of science but you eventually have to demonstrate, or else your logic is just a bunch of horseshit.[/QUOTE] We can never fundamentally prove anything in science, but you can effectively prove things. You can effectively prove the Big Bang Theory using evidence like red shift and background cosmic radiation - we've never found a big rock saying "The Big Bang happened!", so we can't just throw up a bit of paper saying "The Big Bang Theory has been proven!", but we can use the evidence we have to show that the Big Bang Occurred. Similarly, we don't have a little machine that prints out "Macroevolution has occurred!" but we have a fossil record, phylogenetic analysis and the fact we have observed microevolution in numerous organisms to show that macroevolution has occured. We don't have a piece of paper saying "Being gay is genetic!" but the evidence, including analysis of twins raised separately, genes that occur in higher frequencies in gay individuals, apparent physiological differences, knowledge that homosexuality occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom and peer reviewed theories from experts in child psychology to suggest homosexuality has a genetic component.

[QUOTE=electric926;35476610] Plus the suggestion that you are homosexual because of a fluke of nature rubs me the wrong way. [/quote] Why is that? Why does it have to be a 'fluke' of nature even when there is evidence to support it happens completely naturally?[quote] The rest of the Gay Rights movement. [/quote]Alright, now I understand what you were trying to say.[quote] Maybe I did word it wrong. Let me state again that I am [B]supportive[/B] of the Gay Rights movement and that I believe that a homosexual couple [B]should[/B] have the same rights as a heterosexual one. I just don't think that the debate over whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice has a point to it. [/quote]You're right, this shouldn't be an argument at all. It is because of people like fundamentalist Christians who think that because it is a choice, therefore it is the wrong choice and those who have made it 'wrongly' need to be converted to the correct side. This is not the correct way of thinking. Even if they were right and it was a choice, it still wouldn't be correct. But I'm sure you'd agree with me there.[quote] I never ask them because it's none of my business, but there have been people who decided to go back to being heterosexual.[/QUOTE] Although you can convince people to act a different way, all you're doing is having them suppress their inner feelings and desires. This can lead to terrible emotional trouble and is not a healthy way to live your life.

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;35476798]Why is that? Why does it have to be a 'fluke' of nature even when there is evidence to support it happens completely naturally?[/QUOTE] Maybe I just see it the wrong way, but I feel the comparison between homosexuality and a genetic difference sounds too much like eugenics. I'm not entirely fond of the idea. I'm sure I'm wrong, but the implication is still there. [QUOTE]You're right, this shouldn't be an argument at all. It is because of people like fundamentalist Christians who think that because it is a choice, therefore it is the wrong choice and those who have made it 'wrongly' need to be converted to the correct side. Even if they were right and it was a choice, it still wouldn't be correct. But I'm sure you'd agree with me there.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. I'm a regular churchgoer, and I still call bull on that argument. [QUOTE]Although you can convince people to act a different way, all you're doing is having them suppress their inner feelings and desires. This can lead to terrible emotional trouble and is not a healthy way to live your life.[/QUOTE] Isn't acceptance of change a healthy way to live?

[QUOTE=electric926;35476939] Isn't acceptance of change a healthy way to live?[/QUOTE] That's not acceptance of change, though. Even ex-gay ministries don't claim to make people straight; they stop you being gay. Each ministry/camp has its own methods, but it usually involves shaming/aversion therapy to the point that people just suppress their natural sexual desires. So you don't switch from finding men attractive to finding women attractive; you perhaps develop a psychological link between arousal to men and pain/disgust/shame, but you're still aroused by men and unaroused by women.

[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;35477553]That's not acceptance of change, though. Even ex-gay ministries don't claim to make people straight; they stop you being gay. Each ministry/camp has its own methods, but it usually involves shaming/aversion therapy to the point that people just suppress their natural sexual desires. So you don't switch from finding men attractive to finding women attractive; you perhaps develop a psychological link between arousal to men and pain/disgust/shame, but you're still aroused by men and unaroused by women.[/QUOTE] This point cannot be overstated enough.

I feel as though there are biological links to the preference, but that there are definitely environmental factors that lead to it as well. There's no doubt in my mind that some level of biology accounts for this, whether it be a "mutation" of sorts, as in a defect, or just a situational cellular change during development. While i'm sure I'll get flamed heavily for this, I do not believe that homosexuality is a natural or healthy characteristic, as it displays many key aspects of most detrimental genetic mutations, the most apparent being the lack of ability to reproduce. I see homosexuality the same way I see, for example, Downs Syndrome (Please don't conclude that I am comparing the two on a personal level). People with Downs may be incapable of what is regarded as "normal" reproduction for whatever reason. The same goes for one of a homosexual persuasion, in that they are incapable on some level of reproduction. This is simply one of several similarities between homosexuality and various genetic abnormalities. Now, while I stated that I believed that homosexuality was genetically driven to an extent, I also mentioned the possibility that some aspects of homosexuality can be picked up from environmental factors during early childhood development. As it is 3 in the morning and I haven't slept in a while, I can not produce sufficient evidence to back up my claim, so I'll just leave it at that. Please understand that these are my own opinions on the matter. At no time during the typing of this did I ever intend to "brainwash" or persuade people into believing what I believe or offend anyone. If I did either of those things, I apologize.

[QUOTE=MrWhite;35479521]I feel as though there are biological links to the preference, but that there are definitely environmental factors that lead to it as well. There's no doubt in my mind that some level of biology accounts for this, whether it be a "mutation" of sorts, as in a defect, or just a situational cellular change during development. While i'm sure I'll get flamed heavily for this, I do not believe that homosexuality is a natural or healthy characteristic, as it displays many key aspects of most detrimental genetic mutations, the most apparent being the lack of ability to reproduce. I see homosexuality the same way I see, for example, Downs Syndrome (Please don't conclude that I am comparing the two on a personal level). People with Downs may be incapable of what is regarded as "normal" reproduction for whatever reason. The same goes for one of a homosexual persuasion, in that they are incapable on some level of reproduction. This is simply one of several similarities between homosexuality and various genetic abnormalities. Now, while I stated that I believed that homosexuality was genetically driven to an extent, I also mentioned the possibility that some aspects of homosexuality can be picked up from environmental factors during early childhood development. As it is 3 in the morning and I haven't slept in a while, I can not produce sufficient evidence to back up my claim, so I'll just leave it at that. Please understand that these are my own opinions on the matter. At no time during the typing of this did I ever intend to "brainwash" or persuade people into believing what I believe or offend anyone. If I did either of those things, I apologize.[/QUOTE] Given that homosexuality occurs in nature, it is by definition natural. But anyway. The primary difference between homosexuality and genetic disorders is that gay people are still functional. It is possible for a gay man to disguise himself as a straight man, marry a woman and have children. It is also possible for a gay man to have children via surrogacy. Being able to reproduce in our heavily overpopulated world is also not necessarily a massively desirable trait. We've got a lot of problems because us humans have been doing just that; reproducing. You wouldn't refer to a straight person who didn't want to have children as unnatural or unhealthy and it is erroneous to assume that the desire and ability to reproduce is what defines a natural or healthy characteristic. There's the [url=http://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html]gay uncle hypothesis[/url] which suggests that having gay relatives around means they don't have kids, but they look after their nieces and nephews, so even though they don't personally reproduce their relatives are more likely to survive childhood thus the genes are more likely to proliferate. This is believable behaviour; after all, female drones in a bee colony cannot reproduce as they are sterile, but work to defend the colony to further their genes. Additionally, the presence of bisexuality suggests that homosexuality is not an on/off trait. Bisexual people can reproduce if they end up with someone of the opposite gender.

I never said that homosexuality was unnatural in the sense that it is not observed in nature. I was simply trying to get across my belief that it is not a normal human characteristic, but rather a genetic "disorder" of sorts. the entire issue is a very multifaceted affair that cannot be explained with a simple paragraph or two. There are surely several conditions that can cause homosexual or bisexual behaviors, but the similarities they share with other genetic abnormalities cannot be ignored. Also, a homosexual cannot naturally reproduce. Surrogacy is not a natural occurance in the same way that radiation treatment is not a natural treatment for cancer (though I'm not at all trying to say that the two are related somehow, please don't get upset), and, while one may be physically able to reproduce, the mental aspect doesn't fall into line with normal homosexual behavior. Sure, a homosexual [I]could[/I] reproduce with the opposite sex, but that's not homosexual behavior. my avatar suits me right now. That's about the face I'm making whenever I'm posting in Mass Debate.

[QUOTE=MrWhite;35486821]I never said that homosexuality was unnatural in the sense that it is not observed in nature. I was simply trying to get across my belief that it is not a normal human characteristic, but rather a genetic "disorder" of sorts. the entire issue is a very multifaceted affair that cannot be explained with a simple paragraph or two. There are surely several conditions that can cause homosexual or bisexual behaviors,[b] but the similarities they share with other genetic abnormalities cannot be ignored.[/b] Also, a homosexual cannot naturally reproduce. Surrogacy is not a natural occurance in the same way that radiation treatment is not a natural treatment for cancer (though I'm not at all trying to say that the two are related somehow, please don't get upset), and, while one may be physically able to reproduce, the mental aspect doesn't fall into line with normal homosexual behavior. Sure, a homosexual [I]could[/I] reproduce with the opposite sex, but that's not homosexual behavior. my avatar suits me right now. That's about the face I'm making whenever I'm posting in Mass Debate.[/QUOTE] What similarities could you possibly be talking about? Homosexuality is as much of a disorder as being left handed is. I agree LGBT cannot reproduce naturally, but that is the only visible side effect I can perceive. Care to describe any others?

I flirt with Homophobes. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;35487148]I agree LGBT cannot reproduce naturally, but that is the only visible side effect I can perceive. Care to describe any others?[/QUOTE] What? A gay person can still do it with a woman and still have children. Just because they'd prefer not to, doesn't mean they can't if they put their mind to it.

[QUOTE=Levithan;35489154]What? A gay person can still do it with a woman and still have children. Just because they'd prefer not to, doesn't mean they can't if they put their mind to it.[/QUOTE] But it isn't a homosexual tendency. I could jump off a cliff and flap my arms in the air really hard in a vain attempt to fly [I]if I really wanted to[/I], but it's not a a normal human tendency.

[QUOTE=MrWhite;35489555]But it isn't a homosexual tendency. I could jump off a cliff and flap my arms in the air really hard in a vain attempt to fly [I]if I really wanted to[/I], but it's not a a normal human tendency.[/QUOTE] You didn't address my last comment.

[QUOTE=MrWhite;35486821]I never said that homosexuality was unnatural in the sense that it is not observed in nature. I was simply trying to get across my belief that it is not a normal human characteristic, but rather a genetic "disorder" of sorts. the entire issue is a very multifaceted affair that cannot be explained with a simple paragraph or two. There are surely several conditions that can cause homosexual or bisexual behaviors, but the similarities they share with other genetic abnormalities cannot be ignored. Also, a homosexual cannot naturally reproduce. Surrogacy is not a natural occurance in the same way that radiation treatment is not a natural treatment for cancer (though I'm not at all trying to say that the two are related somehow, please don't get upset), and, while one may be physically able to reproduce, the mental aspect doesn't fall into line with normal homosexual behavior. Sure, a homosexual [I]could[/I] reproduce with the opposite sex, but that's not homosexual behavior. my avatar suits me right now. That's about the face I'm making whenever I'm posting in Mass Debate.[/QUOTE] Given the current society we live in, "natural human characteristics" are pretty irrelevant. Case in point, people with vision difficulties - they can nip down to Specsavers and get some glasses, rather than being eaten by lions on the savannah. Homosexuality doesn't impact the ability of the individual to function in society. Whether or not an individual can naturally reproduce is at this point immaterial, as we are post natural. What similarities do you feel homosexuality shares with genetic disorders? [editline]9th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=MrWhite;35489555]But it isn't a homosexual tendency. I could jump off a cliff and flap my arms in the air really hard in a vain attempt to fly [I]if I really wanted to[/I], but it's not a a normal human tendency.[/QUOTE] Having sex with someone of the opposite gender due to sexual desire is not a homosexual tendency. Having sex with someone of the opposite gender that you don't find attractive specifically to impregnate/get pregnant could be a homosexual tendency. Humans are complicated social creatures and it's not uncommon for people to use sex as a bargaining tool to obtain resources - e.g. a poor woman having sex with a wealthy man she finds unattractive so she may obtain the status of a kept woman. Other primates have been observed using sex as a bargaining tool in this manner; 75% of bonobo sex is non-reproductive (bonobos being an entirely bisexual species) and some experts have observed bonobos using sex to resolve conflict. Hence, having sex with someone you find unattractive to exploit the situation/resources could be a human trait. Allegedly this sort of thing would go on in Sparta, with men taking wives specifically to have children, and the woman shaving her head and making herself look as masculine as possible on the wedding night.

[QUOTE=benzi2k7;35472131]Oh and the fact that it is incredibly (understatement) difficult to travel large distances without spending tens of thousands of years on a journey to here.[/QUOTE] You mean incredibly difficult for humans to understand at this stage in our existence. Never mind the whole UFO thing; I don't want this thread to go off-topic. In any case, my statement still stands. The majority of a person's personality, behavior, etc. is determined by who/what they were around. That's proven. I understand that there are personality disorders that are based on genes, but that doesn't mean that being homosexual is the same way (even though I do believe nature is the major cause of homosexuality). I also understand there are different stages in a child's development. For example, the social relationships stage begins at age twelve and ends at age eighteen. This could explain why people realize they are gay in this stage seeing as how you are figuring out who you are in this stage. Again, I bring up the badly raised child as an example to support my statement: It's been proven that if you are raised in an abusive environment, you have a high chance of becoming abusive yourself. This obviously isn't always the case seeing as how some abused children end up being quite successful. But those children who ended up not being abusive must have had some sort of support to keep them from becoming abusive. See how that works? Now switch that situation around with sexual orientation: If you have gay parents and were adopted at a young age, and you don't see much of society (because society is heterosexually based), and you are around your parents more than anything else, you will end up homosexual. Why? Again, because that's what the norm is to you. You've seen love in a homosexual way for the good majority of your life. Now if all these things were the exact opposite, you would not be homosexual because you have seen heterosexual love as the norm instead of homosexual love. That is, unless you were born gay due to nature and nurture wasn't involved whatsoever. Obviously, becoming homosexual in this fashion is not nearly as common seeing as how most children will observe a heterosexual society.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35509972]You mean incredibly difficult for humans to understand at this stage in our existence. Never mind the whole UFO thing; I don't want this thread to go off-topic. In any case, my statement still stands. The majority of a person's personality, behavior, etc. is determined by who/what they were around. That's proven. I understand that there are personality disorders that are based on genes, but that doesn't mean that being homosexual is the same way (even though I do believe nature is the major cause of homosexuality). I also understand there are different stages in a child's development. For example, the social relationships stage begins at age twelve and ends at age eighteen. This could explain why people realize they are gay in this stage seeing as how you are figuring out who you are in this stage. Again, I bring up the badly raised child as an example to support my statement: It's been proven that if you are raised in an abusive environment, you have a high chance of becoming abusive yourself. This obviously isn't always the case seeing as how some abused children end up being quite successful. But those children who ended up not being abusive must have had some sort of support to keep them from becoming abusive. See how that works? Now switch that situation around with sexual orientation: If you have gay parents and were adopted at a young age, and you don't see much of society (because society is heterosexually based), and you are around your parents more than anything else, you will end up homosexual. Why? Again, because that's what the norm is to you. You've seen love in a homosexual way for the good majority of your life. Now if all these things were the exact opposite, you would not be homosexual because you have seen heterosexual love as the norm instead of homosexual love. That is, unless you were born gay due to nature and nurture wasn't involved whatsoever. Obviously, becoming homosexual in this fashion is not nearly as common seeing as how most children will observe a heterosexual society.[/QUOTE] Jesus christ, are you seriously still arguing that something is "proven" after we've shown that you are in fact wrong, and that most of science disagrees with you?

[QUOTE=deaded38;35509972]You mean incredibly difficult for humans to understand at this stage in our existence. Never mind the whole UFO thing; I don't want this thread to go off-topic. In any case, my statement still stands. The majority of a person's personality, behavior, etc. is determined by who/what they were around. That's proven. I understand that there are personality disorders that are based on genes, but that doesn't mean that being homosexual is the same way (even though I do believe nature is the major cause of homosexuality). I also understand there are different stages in a child's development. For example, the social relationships stage begins at age twelve and ends at age eighteen. This could explain why people realize they are gay in this stage seeing as how you are figuring out who you are in this stage. Again, I bring up the badly raised child as an example to support my statement: It's been proven that if you are raised in an abusive environment, you have a high chance of becoming abusive yourself. This obviously isn't always the case seeing as how some abused children end up being quite successful. But those children who ended up not being abusive must have had some sort of support to keep them from becoming abusive. See how that works? Now switch that situation around with sexual orientation: If you have gay parents and were adopted at a young age, and you don't see much of society (because society is heterosexually based), and you are around your parents more than anything else, you will end up homosexual. Why? Again, because that's what the norm is to you. You've seen love in a homosexual way for the good majority of your life. Now if all these things were the exact opposite, you would not be homosexual because you have seen heterosexual love as the norm instead of homosexual love. That is, unless you were born gay due to nature and nurture wasn't involved whatsoever. Obviously, becoming homosexual in this fashion is not nearly as common seeing as how most children will observe a heterosexual society.[/QUOTE] You continue to make posts based off of nothing but personal opinion that you tout as logic and fact. I'd like to also point out that in the case of an abusive parent, you have no reason to believe that a good role model must be present in order to have a non-abusive child. [editline]10th April 2012[/editline] I'm not going to reply to any more posts like these; you have essentially said the same false statement many times over in an attempt to make us believe you through repetition.

Ask anyone who is gay if they have gay parents, and more than likely they'll say no. deaded38, I don't' see where you are going with that point of view You don't have to see homosexual things to become gay.