Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

[Headhunter]

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If its genetic, its a defect (since life wants to reproduce). If its a choice, then the person has mental problems, because they are choosing not to reproduce, which is against nature.

I think both can be summed up as nature weeding out the weak.

So, what your saying is it is alright to discriminate against people with genetic defects?

I think you just talked yourself in a lulzy shit hole, HH.[/quote]

The original question can’t and hasn’t been answered, therefore following the model set forth by educator John Dewey (the father of the modern school system), we have to look at outcomes. In either case, genetic or choice, the outcome of homosexuality is negative for the individual (their line ends) or positive for the species, weeding out those who ought not reproduce.

[MMG]

[quote]orion wrote:
daniel_lamon wrote:
orion wrote:

Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.

Next example: The human menopause.

Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.

No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.

It is an almost uniquely human trait.

Why?

Where is the sense if they cannot procreate?

Oh my, could they store knowledge and invest resources in people that share part of their genome?

OMG , could homosexuals not do the same and, for lack of offspring , invest their resources into close relatives?

Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?

Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies, I think it is up to you to prove that homosexuals could never ever
play a positive role for this species survival that outweighs the lack of offspring.

Because if they can, it makes sense for nature to produce them at a certain percentage.

[/quote]

As i understand it, all the animals that you mentioned procreate, while having gay sex. Like bonobo’s have gay sex for fun, thats all. yes, women probably live after menopause to invest experience and knowledge in their offspring, but it makes no sense for homosexuals to invest knowledge in non-direct relatives i.e. offspring, speaking from an evolutionary perspective, while not even try to have offspring! its not up to us to prove that homosexuals “could never ever play a positive role”, but up to people to show why they exist, as they go against evolution.

[MMG]

Alright, ive just read what orion wrote again and have realised that i completely mistook what he was saying and what i wrote now makes no sense, so i apologise!

[Majin]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Secondly, there are far more bisexuals than true homosexuals-PERIOD. If 87% of all homosexuals claim to have had sex, or are currently having sex with someone of the opposite sex then they are in fact bisexuals, end of argument. Unless of course you want to make up another definition of “bisexual”.[/quote]

That’s bs and you know you can’t compare that with straights. Most gays at least tried to either be straight or pretend to be straight. It’s called “being in the closet”. Haggard and Foley are not bisexual, as much as you’d like to claim.

If most homosexuals have had sex, or are having sex with someone of the opposite sex then they are in fact bisexual. I don’t think we need to argue about that.

Read above. How many of those were out of the closet?

Well, I’m stating that I don’t know for sure how one becomes homosexual. And if the other side was honest they would be saying the same thing. However, they have not been honest. The “born that way” lie has been spread for so long that people (like you) actually believe it.

We know it’s not a choice and cannot be changed and doesn’t fit any specific upbringing criteria. So, as stated, the the most logical thing to say is that there is a natural component.

[quote]Then how can one change from homosexual to heterosexual if it is in fact genetic? And according to the best data that I could find about 30% of all who undergo therapy do in fact drop their homosexual lifestyle and in fact do not even have homosexual urges later on.

Explain that one if it’s genetic?

Hey, even if one person changed how can it be genetic. See the problem with that lie?[/quote]

I see a problem with faulty data, especially since there’s a very strong desire by many gays(again Haggard comes to mind) to be able to go back into the closet and pretend that they’re ‘cured’. And so do many political religious zealots who are involved in producing these “studies” you posted.
And the data IS faulty since these “healers” aren’t performing any scientific research to back their claims. In fact, claims is all the data there is, along with surveying that violate every principle of presenting valid information. As for actual scientists, the position is that it’s not a mental disorder, does not need to be ‘cured’ and that it’s a normal occurring phenomenon.

[quote]And who said that you are “choosing”? I think (and it’s only a guess on my part) that you are programmed through your relationships and experiences in early life to later on have homosexual desires.

And guess what?

My theory is as good if not better than the big “born that way” lie.[/quote]

Did the 1500 species of animals also get programmed in their early relationships? Your ‘theory’ is driven by religious zeal rather than search for truth.

Of course you would say that they are bogus. You’re a good example of a person who wants to believe that you are born that way, so you do. And if you are truly happy as you are then you have no desire to change and that’s that. But, many are not happy living the homosexual lifestyle and seek an alternative. And for them there is hope.

That hope is called the closet. I don’t have any beliefs, maybe they’re all just hit on the specific part of the head at a certain age… But unscientific surveys and studies driven by religious moralist politicians that are never presented for peer review or conform to any criteria of presenting a valid assessment only show that the other side is desperately trying any means necessary to force their view onto everyone else.

And in fact before the APA was hijacked by the militant left homosexuality was considered a mental disorder which was treatable. But of course that’s all been washed away with politically correct nonsense.

Before columbus the earth was considered flat. Yeah, the militant left…is it kinda like the “liberal media”?

[quote]If it is not genetics then could it be that there could have been something, or a few things go wrong in their childhood which lead to their same sex attraction?

I think so, and some other folks who have studied the issue and are not afraid of the militant homosexual response just might have an answer.[/quote]

CNN, wow it must be true…lol. Since all of this has long been refuted in this and other threads I’m not going to bother, you know the data is bunk yourself. There’s as much science there as asking 5yearolds about fine cuisine and ending up at Mickey D’s.

When they come out with a medicine for pregnant women to give birth to only straight children, will you be against it too, because it’ll go against your wonderful surveys? Nooooo, but how can all those people lie?

[Headhunter]

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
orion wrote:
daniel_lamon wrote:
orion wrote:

Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.

Next example: The human menopause.

Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.

No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.

It is an almost uniquely human trait.

Why?

Where is the sense if they cannot procreate?

Oh my, could they store knowledge and invest resources in people that share part of their genome?

OMG , could homosexuals not do the same and, for lack of offspring , invest their resources into close relatives?

Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?

Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies, I think it is up to you to prove that homosexuals could never ever
play a positive role for this species survival that outweighs the lack of offspring.

Because if they can, it makes sense for nature to produce them at a certain percentage.

The various critters that have types that aren’t able to prcreate breed in much larger numbers then the average one child per 9 month carrying phase. Also we don’t need homosexuals as a species, in fact, we would probably be better off as a species if there wasn’t homosexuals. So you’re other point is invalid. And homosexuals can reproduce if they chose too. But they chose not too which is totally different then the certain critters you refered to.
[/quote]

Logic! On the P&WI forum! OMG, what’s next??? ;D

[Lorisco]

[quote]orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:

It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…

Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.

If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?

I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).

Bisexual “true nature”? How can anything different from a procreative model (man & woman) be “true nature” as no other biological mating behavior supports survival of the species?

So unless nature is trying to make this person’s genetic line, through a genetic defect, go extent, it is not “true nature”.

So we are then left with it being a choice and changeable or being a genetic defect.

Where you go wrong is expecting nature to work as you think it does or should and calling unnatural what works differently instead of respecting nature as it actually works and calling that natural.

Riiight! Trying to make it personal again Orion and ignoring the facts?

Show me where a human gene line can be carried on in nature without male/female procreation. But since it can’t occur in nature you have no valid point.

I suggest you read up on Darwin’s natural selection.

I suggest you take into account that biology has evolved (snicker…) since Darwin.

Bees do not procreate either and yet they work and sacrifice themselves for the hive.

Why?

Because a large enough part of their genome gets passed on through their queen or the next queen to make it worth it for their genes to make thousands of not procreating bees to support one that does.

How big of a leap is it to believe that the occasional non procreating human plays a similar role in human societies?

Since homosexuality IS there must be a reason for its existence.

Either the debil made it or nature needs it.
[/quote]

Sounds like you need a course in evolutionary science. The process of natural selection is continual and requires genetic variation. Some of this variation allows the species to function better in a changing environment, and other variation does not. That is why there were a lot of species that are now extinct. So the fact that an abnormality is created in nature does not mean it is functional. And given that humans do not function collectively in terms of procreation, that fact alone, based on the current environment, would make homosexuality a non-functional variation.

But the fact is that all this is not based on biology by psychology. In other words, there is no physical reason gays cannot mate with the opposite sex and procreate. They just refuse to. That is what makes it so difficult to determine if it is nature of individual choice. Either way it still comes back to a non-functional genetic variance or an individual choice.

[Lorisco]

[quote]Majin wrote:

I see a problem with faulty data, especially since there’s a very strong desire by many gays(again Haggard comes to mind) to be able to go back into the closet and pretend that they’re ‘cured’. And so do many political religious zealots who are involved in producing these “studies” you posted.
And the data IS faulty since these “healers” aren’t performing any scientific research to back their claims. In fact, claims is all the data there is, along with surveying that violate every principle of presenting valid information. As for actual scientists, the position is that it’s not a mental disorder, does not need to be ‘cured’ and that it’s a normal occurring phenomenon.
[/quote]

How is it that only gays cannot change to be straight when straight change to be gay all the time and everyone accepts that?

Because they later say that they were really gay all along. So could someone be gay and then go straight and ALSO say “I was straight all along”?

Either no one really changes and EVERYONE is straight or gay regardless of who they have sex with, or people can a do change EITHER WAY.

[orion]

[quote]daniel_lamon wrote:
orion wrote:
daniel_lamon wrote:
orion wrote:

No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.

I thought you meant a woman’s period or menstruation cycle. The logic still states that if an individual can not reproduce then they become extinct. While Menopause does stop women form being able to reproduce later on in life Homosexuals can never reproduce on their own. Thus the two homosexuals seed or DNA does not extend on into further generations.

Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?

I have not read your other posts, but I am assuming that you mean they can reproduce at one point in life and not in another. If you mean that a species can never reproduce that species would then become extinct as there would be no off spring.

Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies.

In the example of menopause, you are correct in that they are still important and contributing members to society. Many homosexuals have contributed to many causes, but they on their own can not reproduce which goes against God’s plan

1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

or if you believe in evolution, “the process of natural selection” in that homosexuals do can not reproduce on their own and thus do not survive through successive generations.
[/quote]

And again, most bees do not procreate. They are unable to.

Yet bees do fine.

So it is entirely possible that nature plans for a certain percentage of non procreating individuals in humans too.

Since homosexuals occur naturally they cannot be against natures plan, your idea of natures plan is wrong.

[orion]

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
orion wrote:
daniel_lamon wrote:
orion wrote:

Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.

Next example: The human menopause.

Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.

No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.

It is an almost uniquely human trait.

Why?

Where is the sense if they cannot procreate?

Oh my, could they store knowledge and invest resources in people that share part of their genome?

OMG , could homosexuals not do the same and, for lack of offspring , invest their resources into close relatives?

Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?

Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies, I think it is up to you to prove that homosexuals could never ever
play a positive role for this species survival that outweighs the lack of offspring.

Because if they can, it makes sense for nature to produce them at a certain percentage.

The various critters that have types that aren’t able to prcreate breed in much larger numbers then the average one child per 9 month carrying phase. Also we don’t need homosexuals as a species, in fact, we would probably be better off as a species if there wasn’t homosexuals. So you’re other point is invalid. And homosexuals can reproduce if they chose too. But they chose not too which is totally different then the certain critters you refered to.
[/quote]

A) That such animals breed in larger numbers is irrelevant.

The principle that non procreating members of a species are not only useful but sometimes necessary is established.

B) That homosexuals hurt us and do not help us is an unproven assumption on your part.

The fact that nature produces them speaks against it and in other species such individuals undeniably play a role.

C) The mechanism by which some species make it harder or impossible to procreate for some individual members of that species is hardly and argument against the principle per se.

If it is an argument at all the fact that homosexuals can have offspring is a strong point against homosexuality as a genetic disease.

[orion]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If its genetic, its a defect (since life wants to reproduce). If its a choice, then the person has mental problems, because they are choosing not to reproduce, which is against nature.

I think both can be summed up as nature weeding out the weak.

So, what your saying is it is alright to discriminate against people with genetic defects?

I think you just talked yourself in a lulzy shit hole, HH.

The original question can’t and hasn’t been answered, therefore following the model set forth by educator John Dewey (the father of the modern school system), we have to look at outcomes. In either case, genetic or choice, the outcome of homosexuality is negative for the individual (their line ends) or positive for the species, weeding out those who ought not reproduce.

[/quote]

Neither one nor the other are relevant. Important is how the outcome is for the digital code that allows for such behavior , i.e DNA.

If the occasional homosexual uncle helps his nephews and nieces at a better rate his genes have better chances of making it into the next generations too.

[orion]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
orion wrote:
daniel_lamon wrote:
orion wrote:

Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.

Next example: The human menopause.

Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.

No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.

It is an almost uniquely human trait.

Why?

Where is the sense if they cannot procreate?

Oh my, could they store knowledge and invest resources in people that share part of their genome?

OMG , could homosexuals not do the same and, for lack of offspring , invest their resources into close relatives?

Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?

Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies, I think it is up to you to prove that homosexuals could never ever
play a positive role for this species survival that outweighs the lack of offspring.

Because if they can, it makes sense for nature to produce them at a certain percentage.

The various critters that have types that aren’t able to prcreate breed in much larger numbers then the average one child per 9 month carrying phase. Also we don’t need homosexuals as a species, in fact, we would probably be better off as a species if there wasn’t homosexuals. So you’re other point is invalid. And homosexuals can reproduce if they chose too. But they chose not too which is totally different then the certain critters you refered to.

Logic! On the P&WI forum! OMG, what’s next??? ;D

[/quote]

That is wishful thinking that happens to push your specific buttons that´s all-

And again:

A) That such animals breed in larger numbers is irrelevant.

The principle that non procreating members of a species are not only useful but sometimes necessary is established.

B) That homosexuals hurt us and do not help us is an unproven assumption on your part.

The fact that nature produces them speaks against it and in other species such individuals undeniably play a role.

C) The mechanism by which some species make it harder or impossible to procreate for some individual members of that species is hardly and argument against the principle per se.

If it is an argument at all the fact that homosexuals can have offspring is a strong point against homosexuality as a genetic disease.

[ZEB]

[quote]Majin wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Secondly, there are far more bisexuals than true homosexuals-PERIOD. If 87% of all homosexuals claim to have had sex, or are currently having sex with someone of the opposite sex then they are in fact bisexuals, end of argument. Unless of course you want to make up another definition of “bisexual”.

That’s bs and you know you can’t compare that with straights. Most gays at least tried to either be straight or pretend to be straight. It’s called “being in the closet”. [/quote]

If someone has sex with both genders it’s called bisexual. Tell me how a guy who is actually a homosexual can enjoy sex with a woman? If he can then he is bisexual, not homosexual. Conversely, if a heterosexual man tried to have sex with another man I’m sure it would be impossible for obvious reasons. And that would make him a heterosexual.

Do you see the difference yet?

[quote]If most homosexuals have had sex, or are having sex with someone of the opposite sex then they are in fact bisexual. I don’t think we need to argue about that.

Read above. How many of those were out of the closet?[/quote]

If a man is “in the closet” and at the same time is capable of having sex with a woman then that man is bisexual. He may prefer men, but he’s still bisexual. Now, if he’s not having sex with women because he is simply not aroused by woman he is a homosexual.

No free passes for those who say they are homosexuals but can swing both ways. That’s called bisexual-PERIOD.

[quote]Well, I’m stating that I don’t know for sure how one becomes homosexual. And if the other side was honest they would be saying the same thing. However, they have not been honest. The “born that way” lie has been spread for so long that people (like you) actually believe it.

We know it’s not a choice and cannot be changed and doesn’t fit any specific upbringing criteria. So, as stated, the the most logical thing to say is that there is a natural component.

Then how can one change from homosexual to heterosexual if it is in fact genetic? And according to the best data that I could find about 30% of all who undergo therapy do in fact drop their homosexual lifestyle and in fact do not even have homosexual urges later on.

Explain that one if it’s genetic?

Hey, even if one person changed how can it be genetic. See the problem with that lie?[/quote]

I see a problem with faulty data, especially since there’s a very strong desire by many gays(again Haggard comes to mind) to be able to go back into the closet and pretend that they’re ‘cured’. And so do many political religious zealots who are involved in producing these “studies” you posted.[/quote]

As I’ve stated on prior occasions by all means take out any and all information from the far right and far left. We are still left with a great amount of evidence which indicates that many who call themselves “homosexuals” can and do change to “heterosexual”.

But as I’ve said before as well, even if one person changes how do you explain it? How many African Americans are able to change their skin color?

See the difference between a true genetic trait and perhaps something that is more nurture than nature?

As for actual scientists, the position is that it’s not a mental disorder, does not need to be ‘cured’ and that it’s a normal occurring phenomenon.

In 1973 the APA was hijacked by the militant left. Prior to that time period homosexuality (whether it is or isn’t) was declared a mental disorder.

Frankly, I don’t see anything “normal” about it. The question remains, how does it happen? There is no legitimate argument for it being genetic. If you’ve read something recently that does show this please post it. Otherwise, you’re simply wishing it to be genetic and buying into the big lie of “born that way”.

[quote]And who said that you are “choosing”? I think (and it’s only a guess on my part) that you are programmed through your relationships and experiences in early life to later on have homosexual desires.

And guess what?

My theory is as good if not better than the big “born that way” lie.

Did the 1500 species of animals also get programmed in their early relationships? Your ‘theory’ is driven by religious zeal rather than search for truth.[/quote]

I’m sorry, where did I mention anything about “religion”? You better reread my posts.

Secondly, the animals that you are talking about are not homosexual, they are bisexual as they have sex with both genders, sort of like most who call themselves “homosexuals”.

[quote]
Of course you would say that they are bogus. You’re a good example of a person who wants to believe that you are born that way, so you do. And if you are truly happy as you are then you have no desire to change and that’s that. But, many are not happy living the homosexual lifestyle and seek an alternative. And for them there is hope.

That hope is called the closet.[/quote]

If it helps you sleep at night you can go on believing the big lie. But, what do you say to the many who have changed and are now happily married?

Facts are facts and after a while, in this debate they sort of get in the way of the big “born that way” lie.

[quote]

And in fact before the APA was hijacked by the militant left homosexuality was considered a mental disorder which was treatable. But of course that’s all been washed away with politically correct nonsense.

Before columbus the earth was considered flat. Yeah, the militant left…is it kinda like the “liberal media”? [/quote]

Denying that the liberal media exists is tantamount to claiming that people are “born that way”. You can choose to live your life buying into this crap, as you have, or you can begin to think for yourself. It’s up to you.

But you still have no answer regarding those who have changed.

Hmmm.

[quote]If it is not genetics then could it be that there could have been something, or a few things go wrong in their childhood which lead to their same sex attraction?

I think so, and some other folks who have studied the issue and are not afraid of the militant homosexual response just might have an answer.

wow it must be true…lol. Since all of this has long been refuted in this and other threads I’m not going to bother, you know the data is bunk yourself.[/quote]

None of this has been refuted at any level by anyone, on this forum or anywhere else.

However, if you can post something of significance which does refute each and every study then please do. But, keep in mind you have to account for every study. Because some people do change and most quality statistics demonstrate that the figure is around 30%.

As I stated you can walk around thinking whatever helps you live a happy life, I don’t want you or anyone else to be miserable. But don’t deny the change that has in fact taken place in the lives of the many who have undergone therapy successfully. Denying them their happiness just to continue to bolster the big lie of “born that way” is the epitome of selfishness. And certainly does not demonstrate any sort of love toward your fellow man.

[quote]
When they come out with a medicine for pregnant women to give birth to only straight children, will you be against it too, because it’ll go against your wonderful surveys? Nooooo, but how can all those people lie?[/quote]

You are now just spilling out senseless blather to fill the computer screen.

That’s too bad. If you decide that you really want to engage me at a meaningful level please do the following:

1. Give proof that homosexuality is genetic. Good luck with this one.

2. Refute with any sort of reliable facts that homosexuality is NOT more nurture than nature.

Until then you are just another member of the far left who feels that if they say something loud enough and long enough that it becomes the truth. And that’s just nonsense.

[ZEB]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Majin wrote:

I see a problem with faulty data, especially since there’s a very strong desire by many gays(again Haggard comes to mind) to be able to go back into the closet and pretend that they’re ‘cured’. And so do many political religious zealots who are involved in producing these “studies” you posted.
And the data IS faulty since these “healers” aren’t performing any scientific research to back their claims. In fact, claims is all the data there is, along with surveying that violate every principle of presenting valid information. As for actual scientists, the position is that it’s not a mental disorder, does not need to be ‘cured’ and that it’s a normal occurring phenomenon.

How is it that only gays cannot change to be straight when straight change to be gay all the time and everyone accepts that?

Because they later say that they were really gay all along. So could someone be gay and then go straight and ALSO say “I was straight all along”?

Either no one really changes and EVERYONE is straight or gay regardless of who they have sex with, or people can a do change EITHER WAY.

[/quote]

Excellent post Lorisco.

You’ve just thrown the monkey wrench of common sense into the social liberal thought machine.

[orion]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pookie wrote:

It seems more likely that attraction towards other men is their true nature…

Let’s stop right here, who says that it’s their “true nature”? You? Other social liberals? Those who say that people are “born that way”, with no proof? No one can say for sure.

If a man is able to have sex with a woman and also a man I think it’s pretty safe to say that that man is a bisexual by nature. What else can you call him?

I don’t think anyone is repressing anything. What they’re doing is experiencing what they truly want, that being able to have sex with both genders. Your contention that if any of the men in question were allowed to marry another man so many years ago then they would not be having sex with another man is not valid. How do you know that they would not have been sneaking around on that man with another woman? Since the person is obviously able to have sex with both (bisexual).

Bisexual “true nature”? How can anything different from a procreative model (man & woman) be “true nature” as no other biological mating behavior supports survival of the species?

So unless nature is trying to make this person’s genetic line, through a genetic defect, go extent, it is not “true nature”.

So we are then left with it being a choice and changeable or being a genetic defect.

Where you go wrong is expecting nature to work as you think it does or should and calling unnatural what works differently instead of respecting nature as it actually works and calling that natural.

Riiight! Trying to make it personal again Orion and ignoring the facts?

Show me where a human gene line can be carried on in nature without male/female procreation. But since it can’t occur in nature you have no valid point.

I suggest you read up on Darwin’s natural selection.

I suggest you take into account that biology has evolved (snicker…) since Darwin.

Bees do not procreate either and yet they work and sacrifice themselves for the hive.

Why?

Because a large enough part of their genome gets passed on through their queen or the next queen to make it worth it for their genes to make thousands of not procreating bees to support one that does.

How big of a leap is it to believe that the occasional non procreating human plays a similar role in human societies?

Since homosexuality IS there must be a reason for its existence.

Either the debil made it or nature needs it.

Sounds like you need a course in evolutionary science. The process of natural selection is continual and requires genetic variation. Some of this variation allows the species to function better in a changing environment, and other variation does not. That is why there were a lot of species that are now extinct. So the fact that an abnormality is created in nature does not mean it is functional. And given that humans do not function collectively in terms of procreation, that fact alone, based on the current environment, would make homosexuality a non-functional variation.

But the fact is that all this is not based on biology by psychology. In other words, there is no physical reason gays cannot mate with the opposite sex and procreate. They just refuse to. That is what makes it so difficult to determine if it is nature of individual choice. Either way it still comes back to a non-functional genetic variance or an individual choice.

[/quote]

First of all homosexuality is far, far, far to common to be a mutation. Or to but it another way, if you want to call it a mutation fine, but since nature allows it surprisingly often that makes it definitely a functional genetic variance.

We are back to square one:

You assume nature should work a certain way and call it unnatural when nature works differently.

Yet nature works as it works and it is much more likely that you (or anybody else) simply do not understand how it works yet.

In other words what is more likely, that reality is wrong or your picture of reality?

[orion]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Sounds like you need a course in evolutionary science. The process of natural selection is continual and requires genetic variation. Some of this variation allows the species to function better in a changing environment, and other variation does not. That is why there were a lot of species that are now extinct. So the fact that an abnormality is created in nature does not mean it is functional. And given that humans do not function collectively in terms of procreation, that fact alone, based on the current environment, would make homosexuality a non-functional variation.

But the fact is that all this is not based on biology by psychology. In other words, there is no physical reason gays cannot mate with the opposite sex and procreate. They just refuse to. That is what makes it so difficult to determine if it is nature of individual choice. Either way it still comes back to a non-functional genetic variance or an individual choice.

[/quote]

I also do not understand why the mechanism nature chooses to prevent procreation is so damn important.

Making an individual sterile or uninterested in the opposite sex is almost as effective from an evolutionary point of view, in many ways it is even better because it leaves more options.

[orion]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Sounds like you need a course in evolutionary science. The process of natural selection is continual and requires genetic variation. Some of this variation allows the species to function better in a changing environment, and other variation does not. That is why there were a lot of species that are now extinct. So the fact that an abnormality is created in nature does not mean it is functional. And given that humans do not function collectively in terms of procreation, that fact alone, based on the current environment, would make homosexuality a non-functional variation.

But the fact is that all this is not based on biology by psychology. In other words, there is no physical reason gays cannot mate with the opposite sex and procreate. They just refuse to. That is what makes it so difficult to determine if it is nature of individual choice. Either way it still comes back to a non-functional genetic variance or an individual choice.

[/quote]

I also do not understand why the mechanism nature chooses to prevent procreation is so damn important.

Making an individual sterile or uninterested in the opposite sex is almost as effective from an evolutionary point of view, in many ways it is even better because it leaves more options.

[Majin]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
How is it that only gays cannot change to be straight when straight change to be gay all the time and everyone accepts that? [/quote]

It’s called being in the closet. And thanks to morons like you they can fool their fellow Christians and go back into the closet, continuing the vicious hypocrisy.

[Majin]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Excellent post Lorisco.

You’ve just thrown the monkey wrench of common sense into the social liberal thought machine.[/quote]

Damn, that’s so gay.

[Majin]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
If someone has sex with both genders it’s called bisexual. Tell me how a guy who is actually a homosexual can enjoy sex with a woman?[/quote]

How can you tell whether he enjoys it or not?

If a man is “in the closet” and at the same time is capable of having sex with a woman then that man is bisexual. He may prefer men, but he’s still bisexual.

3rd time. It only bothers me that you’re being intentionally annoying. If homosexuality would be as accepted as heterosexuality, then you could compare them like you do. But when there’s an obvious motive for them to hide for being persecuted or even their life you just sound ignorant.

As I’ve stated on prior occasions by all means take out any and all information from the far right and far left. We are still left with a great amount of evidence which indicates that many who call themselves “homosexuals” can and do change to “heterosexual”.

We’re not left with anything but surveys on people who want to do anything to hide their sexual identity, conducted by practitioners that want nothing to do with science and perpetuated by religious lobbyists.

But as I’ve said before as well, even if one person changes how do you explain it? How many African Americans are able to change their skin color?

One. His name is Michael and he’s got a ranch.

Frankly, I don’t see anything “normal” about it. The question remains, how does it happen? There is no legitimate argument for it being genetic.

Happens in the animal world all the time, we know people don’t choose it, we know it can’t be changed, we know it’s not a mental disorder. That seems like enough for me. But I don’t give a rat’s ass either way. You’re the one invested into it because your faith says it’s a sin.

I’m sorry, where did I mention anything about “religion”? You better reread my posts.

Your sources are a dead giveaway.

Secondly, the animals that you are talking about are not homosexual, they are bisexual as they have sex with both genders, sort of like most who call themselves “homosexuals”.

Nope, many are 100% brokeback. Even the some genes were identified.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8953572

But, what do you say to the many who have changed and are now happily married?

How do you know if they are happily married or when gays enjoy sex with women? Do you put on your invisible cloak and follow them for months? Can you read their thoughts?

Denying that the liberal media exists is tantamount to claiming that people are “born that way”.

Damn, almost forgot about those anarchists at MSNBC, CNN etc. Their docile reporting, celebrity news and shark attack alerts are corrupting the nation.

But you still have no answer regarding those who have changed.

[quote]That’s too bad. If you decide that you really want to engage me at a meaningful level please do the following:

1. Give proof that homosexuality is genetic. Good luck with this one.

2. Refute with any sort of reliable facts that homosexuality is NOT more nurture than nature.

Until then you are just another member of the far left who feels that if they say something loud enough and long enough that it becomes the truth.[/quote]

You mean like the Bible? How nice of you to tell me what I am by the way.

But the truth is, I’ve given more substantial proof than you have. Just admit it, you’re not in it for the truth, you just want it to be proven wrong because that’s what you believe. I have no beliefs and my stake in this debate is your evasive and deceptive methods of making a point. Resorting to a means of dishonest wordplay just to not have to practice acceptance or changing your mind on some ‘unsafe’ issue. Well, nothing I can change.

[zephead4747]

[quote]orion wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
orion wrote:
daniel_lamon wrote:
orion wrote:

Not being able to reproduce is perfectly natural under a lot of circumstances.

Next example: The human menopause.

Menopause results in 5-7 days out of every 30 days where conception and thus reproduction can not happen in natural circumstances.
Homosexual activity results in a lack of reproduction 30 out of 30 days under normal circumstances which results in EXTINCTION.

No, menopause results in women that cannot conceive children for more than 30, 40 years before they die.

It is an almost uniquely human trait.

Why?

Where is the sense if they cannot procreate?

Oh my, could they store knowledge and invest resources in people that share part of their genome?

OMG , could homosexuals not do the same and, for lack of offspring , invest their resources into close relatives?

Plus I have already shown lots of species where the majority cannot procreate AND THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT, THEY ARE DOING JUST FINE, THANK YOU, SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG, GET IT?

Having already proven that non procreating members of a species can play an important role for a species and that non procreating members play an important role in human societies, I think it is up to you to prove that homosexuals could never ever
play a positive role for this species survival that outweighs the lack of offspring.

Because if they can, it makes sense for nature to produce them at a certain percentage.

The various critters that have types that aren’t able to prcreate breed in much larger numbers then the average one child per 9 month carrying phase. Also we don’t need homosexuals as a species, in fact, we would probably be better off as a species if there wasn’t homosexuals. So you’re other point is invalid. And homosexuals can reproduce if they chose too. But they chose not too which is totally different then the certain critters you refered to.

A) That such animals breed in larger numbers is irrelevant.

The principle that non procreating members of a species are not only useful but sometimes necessary is established.

B) That homosexuals hurt us and do not help us is an unproven assumption on your part.

The fact that nature produces them speaks against it and in other species such individuals undeniably play a role.

C) The mechanism by which some species make it harder or impossible to procreate for some individual members of that species is hardly and argument against the principle per se.

If it is an argument at all the fact that homosexuals can have offspring is a strong point against homosexuality as a genetic disease.

[/quote]

Homosexuals don’t hurt us by any means, don’t get me wrong. And by helping us if they were straight I meant there would be more potential mates for people, although it’s not something our society has to really worry about, It is something.

The fact that those animals reproduce in larger numbers is relevant. Let’s say humans have a 90% chance to create a gay or nonsexual offspring. Create 2 children, and they are both homosexal. This happens with most other reproducing pairs, and then there are about 10% of the ext generation as sexually viable. Generation after generation we run out of non relatives, or mates at all to breed with. If you create larger amounts of offspring per birth, this isn’t really an issue, as thee are more people producing more offspring.