Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
MMG wrote:
Chill out BlaKistKneeGrow! i think your moving off the topic some what. the question isn’t whether gays are right or wrong, but whether being gay is genetic or a concious choice. i posted the original question after a program i saw and has nothing to to do with trying to condem them or classify them as mentally ill or something!

I question people that make this a topic. Why do you care?
[/quote]

People make it a topic because discriminating against homosexuals is the bigotry du jour, and if it can be proven that homosexuality is a “choice” and not inherent and unchangable, they can continue discriminating with impunity.

342

[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
MMG wrote:
Chill out BlaKistKneeGrow! i think your moving off the topic some what. the question isn’t whether gays are right or wrong, but whether being gay is genetic or a concious choice. i posted the original question after a program i saw and has nothing to to do with trying to condem them or classify them as mentally ill or something!

I question people that make this a topic. Why do you care?
[/quote]

Well, i care because its an interesting question. from what ive found most homosexuals, if not all believe that being gay is genetic, even tho they have any proof, except for saying “why would i choose to be this way? why would i choose to be bullied and beaten up?”. this sort of thinking to me is illogical.

you cant just make a statement and not back it up, with atleast some proof or theory. therefore, after thinking about the topic myself, i thought id see what other people felt and if straight people also believed that being homosexual was genetic.

Also, as a science student i find it interesting to know why nature would still ‘produce’ gays (as theoretically they should be extinct if it was a natural genetic variation), unless it is a fairly new phenomenon, which i dont believe it is.

They are my main two reasons! im sure i could give you other examples of why the topic is interesting, but why bother!

343

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
MMG wrote:
Chill out BlaKistKneeGrow! i think your moving off the topic some what. the question isn’t whether gays are right or wrong, but whether being gay is genetic or a concious choice. i posted the original question after a program i saw and has nothing to to do with trying to condem them or classify them as mentally ill or something!

The fact that a “choice V genetics” debate exists MAKES it about ethics.

Lets say we questioned whether those with Down Syndrome were “choosing” to be mentally retarded to avoid work. Fucking stupid eh?

I feel the same way about people who question whether homosexuals are born that way or choose. The fact is, that yes, they do choose the lifestyle. But as they don’t choose the attraction, that is completely irrelevant. [/quote]

First off, that example doesn’t make sense! Down’s has been proven to be a syndrome genetically. whereas being homosexual has no such proof.

Secondly, your saying that homosexuals have an attraction to the same sex. where is your proof for this! this is exactly why i created the thread. to try and find out whether people can back-up their statements on homosexuality being genetic!

344

I don’t think it’s a choice - there’s something innate to it, even if it’s not genetic per se.

To crib from my previous post, it’s likely one, or a combination, of the following three factors:

(1) Infection. Homosexuality may be caused by an infectious agent – a germ or a virus. This is the Cochran/Ewald theory, which made a cover story for the February 1999 Atlantic Monthly.

(2) Genetics, indirect. Homosexuality may be an undesirable (from the evolutionary point of view) side effect of some genetic defense against a disease – analogous to the sickle-cell anemia mutation, a by-product of genetic defenses against malaria, negative to the organism but nothing like as negative, net-net, as susceptibility to malaria.

(3) Womb environment – too much of the wrong thing. Here the effect of the rogue hormones is to feminize the brain of a male infant. (I assume that there are theories corresponding to this for female infants, though I have never seen them documented.)

That’s for the innate attraction to the same sex. As Beowolf pointed out, lifestyle and behavioral choices are distinct, though intertwined to some extent.

At the end of the day, from a moral perspective it matters very little whether it’s choice or not. It matters whether it’s negative for society; if a predilection for arson were found to be genetic, it wouldn’t affect whether we tried to stop arson. Nor would the fact that if a predilection for eating ice cream were found to be purely a choice would it affect whether society were to pass laws against eating ice cream. This issue is not different just because this issue provokes strong emotional responses.

Now, I personally don’t think homosexuality is generally a harm to society and I do think that homosexuals should just be left alone to their relationship of choice. Consenting adults should generally be left alone to make their own decisions about things that aren’t directly harming others.

345

[quote]MMG wrote:
Well, i care because its an interesting question. from what ive found most homosexuals, if not all believe that being gay is genetic, even tho they have any proof, except for saying “why would i choose to be this way? why would i choose to be bullied and beaten up?”. this sort of thinking to me is illogical.

you cant just make a statement and not back it up, with atleast some proof or theory. therefore, after thinking about the topic myself, i thought id see what other people felt and if straight people also believed that being homosexual was genetic.

Also, as a science student i find it interesting to know why nature would still ‘produce’ gays (as theoretically they should be extinct if it was a natural genetic variation), unless it is a fairly new phenomenon, which i dont believe it is.

They are my main two reasons! im sure i could give you other examples of why the topic is interesting, but why bother!
[/quote]

It may seem interesting, but it really just causes aggravation for the affected (gays).

Let’s flip it around on you. I take it that your a straight man. What if whatever sexual fetish that you’re into was looked down on all throughout the world. And they had a derogatory name for “people like you”. Your fetish in no way hurts anyone else and it is between to consenting adults.

You don’t choose your desire for this fetish, you know this about yourself, but the rest of the world wants to put topics up that ask whether you choose it or not.

A life long of struggle dealing with being this way and being made fun of and knowing the world looks down at you, don’t sit there and try to tell me that you wouldn’t be upset about it. “You queer, you faggot, you homo, you cock sucker, you fudge packer. Burn in hell faggots”. But for some reason, I’m going to heaven because I’m a great person for saying these things, right? This kind of crap drives you crazy throughout your life.

It shows a person’s true character if they are able to put themselves in other peoples shoes and really think about how they feel about things.

346

[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
MMG wrote:
Well, i care because its an interesting question. from what ive found most homosexuals, if not all believe that being gay is genetic, even tho they have any proof, except for saying “why would i choose to be this way? why would i choose to be bullied and beaten up?”. this sort of thinking to me is illogical.

you cant just make a statement and not back it up, with atleast some proof or theory. therefore, after thinking about the topic myself, i thought id see what other people felt and if straight people also believed that being homosexual was genetic.

Also, as a science student i find it interesting to know why nature would still ‘produce’ gays (as theoretically they should be extinct if it was a natural genetic variation), unless it is a fairly new phenomenon, which i dont believe it is.

They are my main two reasons! im sure i could give you other examples of why the topic is interesting, but why bother!

It may seem interesting, but it really just causes aggravation for the affected (gays).

Let’s flip it around on you. I take it that your a straight man. What if whatever sexual fetish that you’re into was looked down on all throughout the world. And they had a derogatory name for “people like you”. Your fetish in no way hurts anyone else and it is between to consenting adults.

You don’t choose your desire for this fetish, you know this about yourself, but the rest of the world wants to put topics up that ask whether you choose it or not.

A life long of struggle dealing with being this way and being made fun of and knowing the world looks down at you, don’t sit there and try to tell me that you wouldn’t be upset about it. “You queer, you faggot, you homo, you cock sucker, you fudge packer. Burn in hell faggots”. But for some reason, I’m going to heaven because I’m a great person for saying these things, right? This kind of crap drives you crazy throughout your life.

It shows a person’s true character if they are able to put themselves in other peoples shoes and really think about how they feel about things.
[/quote]

I completely get what your saying! i would be pretty pissed off, but just because a question is unpleasent for some people doesn’t mean what you should ignore or dis miss it.

i do also agree with bostonbarrister that consenting adults should be left on their own to do as they like as long as they dont harm society. but you have to admit that from a science point of view, this is a pretty interesting question.

347

Another point i would make (and i apologize as i have not read the thread in its entirety) is that it choice and environment are not the same thing
Thus even if being gay is only mildly genetic but is mostly caused by some event in early childhood or in the womb, it still isn’t a conscious choice.

Much like if ur born with fetal alcohol syndrome because ur mother drank, its neither a choice, nor is it very genetically based… the same may apply to being gay

348

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

I think this discussion is getting way to deep for most, but I would say that if there is no purpose there would be no need for many very complex systems in nature or the human body to exist. They would have no function.

For example, your body is exposed to a pathogenic virus. It either overcomes the virus or the virus overcomes the host (body). Causality, right?

Well here is the purpose. Once your body is exposed to the virus and survives it makes a template of the virus to remember later. So when it sees that virus again it can take it out much faster, and does. This “learning” is not cause and effect. It is deliberate and purposeful action with the purpose of self preservation.

Cause and effect would be the same response every time an invader appears. But learning to respond in different more efficient ways each time takes purpose. The fact that any organism learns and changes behavior over time demonstrates purpose.

[/quote]

This is still based on a cause/effect relationship. The immune system isn’t learning and planning in the sense that sentient organisms with a nervous system do.

But if u argue that this is purpose u basically have to say the immune system is conscious (which im actually not opposed to). Its not conscious in the exact same way as a nervous system but it is conscious. This can be extended then to basically anything that is able to respond to an ever changing environment (Check out The Web of Life by Fritjov Capra) he has an interesting take on this idea

Anyway regardless of the semantics game we are playing with purpose i just wanted to clear up the misconception that some ppl have with how evolution occurs

349

Being gay is a choice…tell me that anyone of you either male or female were sitting in the sandbox at 3 yrs old and said to yourself “man id like to stick my pee pee in that lil dudes diaperhole” Please get real, any choices we make in life wheteher its religous, sexual, or political party are all chosen as we become to an age of understanding. The whole gay thing is just another way to get more privleges and benefits from the govt like all the minorities in this country do.

Its an excuse to cover up bad behavior. When someone does something illegal or unnatural and someone “calls them on it” they call it bigotry. Just like when a bunch of black beat up a white teacher down here in south carolina, we were supposed to forgive them because its in there culture…are you friggin kidding me?

The papers justified the beating of a school teacher because its in their culture…well fuck your culture, they are animals and animals when they do stuff against the average human are usually put to sleep. But i digress…being gay is not natuaral…so i guess if gays can marry then i can become mormon and have 10 wives now? Where the hell does the blatant depravity end?

350

Another thing i wanted to make a point about earlier and i may be being nit-picky here is that almost nothing is wholly genetic or wholly environment.

Nearly everything is influenced to some degree by both of these forces.

Phenotype: Two arms, this is obviously genetically based, but u still can’t say it is wholly genetic. Reason being I can cut ur arm off and then ur phenotype is 1 arm. Also it may be that ur mother drinks while pregnant and u are born without arms.

So the question isn’t whether things are nature or nurture, but to what degree nature and nurture play a role in the existence/emergence of a trait

In all probability it works this way for sexual orientation as well. Not to mention like almost every behavior it is surely a polygenic trait. This then creates a continuum of sexual preference rather than a blatant either or. (One possible reason why so many “homosexuals” have had heterosexual sex.)

351

[quote]primalfear wrote:
Being gay is a choice…tell me that anyone of you either male or female were sitting in the sandbox at 3 yrs old and said to yourself “man id like to stick my pee pee in that lil dudes diaperhole” Please get real, any choices we make in life wheteher its religous, sexual, or political party are all chosen as we become to an age of understanding. The whole gay thing is just another way to get more privleges and benefits from the govt like all the minorities in this country do.

Its an excuse to cover up bad behavior. When someone does something illegal or unnatural and someone “calls them on it” they call it bigotry. Just like when a bunch of black beat up a white teacher down here in south carolina, we were supposed to forgive them because its in there culture…are you friggin kidding me?

The papers justified the beating of a school teacher because its in their culture…well fuck your culture, they are animals and animals when they do stuff against the average human are usually put to sleep. But i digress…being gay is not natuaral…so i guess if gays can marry then i can become mormon and have 10 wives now? Where the hell does the blatant depravity end?[/quote]

…I’ve “liked” girls since I was in pre-school. My gay friends have “liked” boys since they were in pre-school. No prompting. NO life changing event. They say they just knew.

You are all asking for proof.

The proof is in the pudding. Gay people say they aren’t choosing, than they aren’t choosing. You can’t just dismiss all of the testimony of homosexuals everywhere.

Just like when a klepto steals things. They can’t help it. Wanna know how we know that? They tell us.

352

This is to ZED.

Earlier u said something to the effect of “if even one person is converted than it is not genetic”
this is not actually correct and i apologize if this was just lazy wording on ur part…
it would be more correct to say if even one person is converted than it is not wholly genetic"

for instance even if psychologists find as u stated that there are various events in early childhood that cause one to become a homosexual, the trait can still be heavily genetic. Children may be born with a predisposition to be able to respond to those early childhood situations in different ways. Some may be more predisposed to cope in a way that causes them to later develop homosexual feelings while others may not.

Thus, converting them back later in life does not mean the trait has no genetic basis

The other problem with the idea of the studies that u stated is that if this is the case it would be very hard to trace the genetics. For instance if many other ppl in the family had these same genes that would predispose them to becoming a homosexual, but only if the correct environmental stimulus was there (absent father or something), the trait may never be realized because none of these folks had an absent father

in this way it would cause u to underestimate the genetic contribution

another problem with determining the degree to which genetics plays a role in homosexuality is that the pedigree is not the best because of the repression of overt homosexuality in the past. Thus it may be difficult to glean much from family histories

353

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
primalfear wrote:
Being gay is a choice…tell me that anyone of you either male or female were sitting in the sandbox at 3 yrs old and said to yourself “man id like to stick my pee pee in that lil dudes diaperhole” Please get real, any choices we make in life wheteher its religous, sexual, or political party are all chosen as we become to an age of understanding. The whole gay thing is just another way to get more privleges and benefits from the govt like all the minorities in this country do.

Its an excuse to cover up bad behavior. When someone does something illegal or unnatural and someone “calls them on it” they call it bigotry. Just like when a bunch of black beat up a white teacher down here in south carolina, we were supposed to forgive them because its in there culture…are you friggin kidding me?

[/quote]

What a well thought out argument…I’m gonna guess closet homosexual… just embrace it man

354

[quote]primalfear wrote:
being gay is not natuaral…so i guess if gays can marry then i can become mormon and have 10 wives now? Where the hell does the blatant depravity end?[/quote]

Irony.

Apes and ancient humans = Often polygamists and vagrant homos.

355

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
primalfear wrote:
being gay is not natuaral…so i guess if gays can marry then i can become mormon and have 10 wives now? Where the hell does the blatant depravity end?

Irony.

Apes and ancient humans = Often polygamists and vagrant homos.[/quote]

The point was you childish human beings is that where does it stop? Can anyone have an adult conversation without the fucking insults? You cannot give a privelage to one american and not give the same to another.

The point is whether you believe its genetics or choice, if you let homos get married then farmer fred can marry his horse and yes mormons should be able to be a polygamist. Its in there genetics too…isnt it? Its what they always knew and belived to be right…so you cant say you were born gay in one breath and expect privleges unless you give way to all the depravities of this sick society.

356

[quote]primalfear wrote:

The point was you childish human beings is that where does it stop? Can anyone have an adult conversation without the fucking insults? You cannot give a privelage to one american and not give the same to another. [/quote]

Yes you can. It’s done all the time. Examples: People who don’t have kids can’t get the child tax credit; people who have certain incomes can’t get medicare; many states disallow convicted felons to vote or buy guns, even after they’ve served their sentences.

[quote]primalfear wrote:
The point is whether you believe its genetics or choice, if you let homos get married then farmer fred can marry his horse and yes mormons should be able to be a polygamist. Its in there genetics too…isnt it? Its what they always knew and belived to be right…so you cant say you were born gay in one breath and expect privleges unless you give way to all the depravities of this sick society.[/quote]

You’re referring to making marriage an individual Constitutional right. This would be a bad idea IMHO.

However, that’s not necessary in order to leave homosexual alone to live together; nor is it necessary for the legislature to create a separate program (a “privilege”) to benefit homosexual unions; nor is it even necessary for the legislature to create a gay marriage or to expand traditional marriage to gay couples. This is really only a problem if the federal courts expand the current Constitution to create an individual right to marriage (which would make little sense, but that hasn’t stopped courts before, and that’s another post).

357

[quote]primalfear wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
primalfear wrote:
being gay is not natuaral…so i guess if gays can marry then i can become mormon and have 10 wives now? Where the hell does the blatant depravity end?

Irony.

Apes and ancient humans = Often polygamists and vagrant homos.

The point was you childish human beings is that where does it stop? Can anyone have an adult conversation without the fucking insults? You cannot give a privelage to one american and not give the same to another.

The point is whether you believe its genetics or choice, if you let homos get married then farmer fred can marry his horse and yes mormons should be able to be a polygamist. Its in there genetics too…isnt it? Its what they always knew and belived to be right…so you cant say you were born gay in one breath and expect privleges unless you give way to all the depravities of this sick society.[/quote]

Since we are a polygamous species you actually have a point there.

Most cultures are/were polygamous.

That years of (undeniably Judeo/Christian)indoctrination makes you think polygamy or homosexuality are “depravities” and “sick” is your own problem.

And the polygamy hatin´ is not even in the bible.

If it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for you.

358

Primalfear,
as a late thread visitor, why should you bother to read or challenge any of the arguments already made? Why not just present the usual gays-are-disgusting-because-they-choose-to rant. Bravo.

[quote]primalfear wrote:
Being gay is a choice…tell me that anyone of you either male or female were sitting in the sandbox at 3 yrs old and said to yourself “man id like to stick my pee pee in that lil dudes diaperhole” [/quote]
What? Apparently, in Primalfearland, three year olds are already super hetero studs.

[quote]primalfear wrote:
Please get real, any choices we make in life wheteher its religous, sexual, or political party are all chosen as we become to an age of understanding. The whole gay thing is just another way to get more privleges and benefits from the govt like all the minorities in this country do.[/quote]
As if you made a deliberate choice for ANY of these.
If you’d be primalhussein from Iraq, chances are well over 90% you’d be a muslim, if you’d be primalpundit from Mumbay, you’d be hindu, primalivan would be orthodox etc.
Same goes of course for sexual and political preferences of the masses (you, for instance).

359

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Primalfear,
as a late thread visitor, why should you bother to read or challenge any of the arguments already made? Why not just present the usual gays-are-disgusting-because-they-choose-to rant. Bravo.

primalfear wrote:
Being gay is a choice…tell me that anyone of you either male or female were sitting in the sandbox at 3 yrs old and said to yourself “man id like to stick my pee pee in that lil dudes diaperhole”
What? Apparently, in Primalfearland, three year olds are already super hetero studs.

primalfear wrote:
Please get real, any choices we make in life wheteher its religous, sexual, or political party are all chosen as we become to an age of understanding. The whole gay thing is just another way to get more privleges and benefits from the govt like all the minorities in this country do.
As if you made a deliberate choice for ANY of these.
If you’d be primalhussein from Iraq, chances are well over 90% you’d be a muslim, if you’d be primalpundit from Mumbay, you’d be hindu, primalivan would be orthodox etc.
Same goes of course for sexual and political preferences of the masses (you, for instance).

[/quote]

You mean, had he been Primalhector in Greece 2000 years ago he would look down at the barbarians not engaging in homosexual mentor/scholar relationships and call them ugly names?

Of course he would and with gusto…

360

[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I feel for your brother.

Have you given any thought to the idea that the ridicule he receives by some for being gay may not be the sole cause of his mental and psychological problems? In other words, if you check the CDC statistic on homosexuals it is not good. They have a lot more mental and physical problems that are difficult to pin on only societal pressure.

It might also interest you to know that before the late 1970’s being homosexual was considered a mental illness (in the DSM).

In any case, I personally believe that homosexuals do not deserve ridicule or “acceptance”, they deserve treatment. Just like people with morbid obesity should not be “accepted” as a lifestyle choice, they need help.

We can sit back and say we accept gays and they have the right to kill themselves through their lifestyle choices or psychological issues, but is that the compassionate thing to do? What is the outcome?

Treatment? Do they offer treatment for men wanting to have anal sex with women? What about men wanting to recieve blow jobs? It’s not natural, or is it? Last time I checked (I didn’t literally check) a penis does not belong in an asshole - MAN OR WOMAN.

Please explain the asshole thing to me…

[/quote]

The difference would appear to be one of outcome. In other words, a guy has anal sex with a women and another guy has anal sex with a guy. Both have anal sex but statistically the guy who has sex with the other guy is at significantly greater risk for medical and psychological problems. So it appears to not be an apples to apples comparison.

So if your brother was having anal sex with a woman do you think he would still be experiencing the mental and physical problems he is currently having? Statistically he wouldn’t. So that is the difference.