Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

[quote]primalfear wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
John S. and Primalfear(of homosexuals) -

It’s not just the naked women though, it’s the fact that two or more naked women are together. These women are having sex together. This is not “natural”. Being turned on by this is “immoral” in your book of immorality.

So you are both guilty of being attracted to something that is “immoral”.

You lose.

I think you may be missing the point. Being attracted to lesbians may very well be immoral and “not natural” for a heterosexual male, however, that doesn’t mean they act on it. Having “deviant” thoughts is much different than acting on those thoughts. That is the distinction.

I have no issues with a guy who has homosexual thoughts, but that is not what causes the problems. The poor mental and physical outcomes come from acting on homosexual thoughts, not just thinking them.

Exactly, you cant always control your mind, but you can control your actions. There have been many times i just wanted to reach out and strangle someones throat for stupidity or cutting me off on the road. Doesnt mean i have to act on impulses that are illegal or immoral.[/quote]

Terrible point, both of you.

Tell me this, if a straight man who is turned on by lesbians pays money to see some hot lesbo action (either buying/renting a video, buying a membership to a website, etc), is he not now involved? Is he not “acting” on those thoughts? He’s certainly supporting people doing things that are “immoral” and “unnatural”.

Or is this just another example of a double standard where its ok for the straight people involved, but the gays are in the wrong? (Much like the repeatedly ignored question KneeGrow keeps asking about men having anal sex with women.)

Face it, you’re just making up excuses.

[quote]primalfear wrote:
Exactly, you cant always control your mind, but you can control your actions. There have been many times i just wanted to reach out and strangle someones throat for stupidity or cutting me off on the road. Doesnt mean i have to act on impulses that are illegal or immoral.[/quote]

Once again, you are comparing violent actions to homosexuals. This is stupidity. Do you understand? You have used “crack head murderers” and now “reaching out and strangling someones throat”. You are puting these into the “immoral category” along with homosexuals.

By your logic, you are claiming that all homosexuals throughout the world have violent murderous tendancies and are dangerous.

I will once again tell you - my gay brother is not a crack head murderer who likes to strangle people. You seem to be very confused.

I suggest you educate yourself…and then come up with an analogy that actually makes sense. The problem is you can’t without it either not making any sense, and/or contradicting your own argument.

I will ask you for the last time primalfear-

Is anal sex with women “immoral”?

Your failure to respond will show Cap, Orion, Schwarzfahrer, myself and all the other people who accept gays or is gay exactly where you stand.

Three words - SELF RIGHTOUS HYPOCRITE.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Terrible point, both of you.

Tell me this, if a straight man who is turned on by lesbians pays money to see some hot lesbo action (either buying/renting a video, buying a membership to a website, etc), is he not now involved? Is he not “acting” on those thoughts? He’s certainly supporting people doing things that are “immoral” and “unnatural”.

Or is this just another example of a double standard where its ok for the straight people involved, but the gays are in the wrong? (Much like the repeatedly ignored question KneeGrow keeps asking about men having anal sex with women.)

Face it, you’re just making up excuses.

[/quote]

Exactly! How would a straight male have lesbian sex? How does a straight man act on having lesbian sex?

Their argument not only doesn’t make any sense, but it actually shows that their problem with homosexuality is defined by them thinking gay men are gross.

Gay men = gross and disgusting

Gay women = hot, attractive, sexy

Wow, very simple wouldn’t you say Cap?

I think we all get it!

Hey Primalfear,

I think pale pasty fat men that weigh 308 pounds with tattoos are gross and I ain’t gay. Does that make pale pasty fat men that weigh 308 pounds with tattoos “immoral”?

Nope, I just think they’re ugly. Probably lots of women do too.

However the fact remains, someone out there ain’t “choosing” to be attracted to pale pasty fat men that weigh 308 pounds with tattoos. And there isn’t anything wrong with that.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I think the authors are lying because of a biased approach to the study resulting in questionable results.

Every one of the authors is lying? Every single one?

Come on Cap, you don’t even believe that. Could it be that the big “born that way” lie is wrong? Yes, in fact it is.

Every one of them performed the test with a biased approach. Thus, the studies are not legitimate.[/quote]

What’s really sad about your approach to this topic is that you just make stuff up as you go along. How in the world do you know that they ALL had a biased approach?

You keep typing and I keep laughing.

There is no objective study proving that homosexuals change without external pressures.

I’m not sure you’re unbiased enough to have this conversation. Do most people who have a serious problem spontaneously change, or do they get help?

Think!

[quote]
Your faulty, bigoted logic is what all of your little “tests” were run on, again, making them completely illegitimate.[/quote]

And you have ZERO proof that they were faulty or bigoted. But just like the “born that way” like you seem to fall right in step with the rest of the people who just say whatever they want to be true with no proof.

[quote]
Answer: biased, nonobjective studies are not legitimate data. Or did you not get that the first 3 or 4 times?[/quote]

There were well over 60 studies presented, I doubt that you even read one of them let alone all of them. You just keep repeating the same old lies in the face of evidence which proves you wrong.

Do you know what that’s called?

Ha ha

[quote]
The liberals will always dodge the direct evidence and try to replace it with a slanderous attack. They have no real answer, and you Cap prove this time and again on this thread.

sigh 5: A biased study provides no legitmate data.[/quote]

Stop sighing for a moment and SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT WHICH STUDIES ARE BIASED.

Can you do it? It would actually mean that you’d have to read the evidence.

[quote]
Yes, Zeb, clamoring for all homosexuals to get “the treatment” is certainly going to change SO MANY minds. [/quote]

Like so many other obvious points this one flew over your head as well.

If those (like you) who perpetuate the big “born that way” lie are allowed to go unchallenged, those who really do want to change will be discouraged from seeking treatment. And as the studies show (you know the studies which you have not read and won’t read because you don’t like the truth) somewhere between 20% and 35% of all who seek treatment are in fact changed.

Before you engage in these debates you should really get your facts straight. At this point all your doing is holding up in a corner screaming “lies, lies, they’re all lies.” And you have no evidence to back it up.

You look bad, but you’re probably used to that huh?

[quote]BlaKistKneeGrow wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If the big “born that way” lie were to be totally unmasked then more would go to therapy, and there would be many more who change.

Come Cap 2+2=4. This stuff is not that difficult when you take off the liberal blinders.

ZEB,

You’ve been ignoring my questions for some reason.

You cannot know if someone chooses an attraction to something without being inside the persons mind. Are you claiming that you are capable of telepathy?[/quote]

If you had read even a few of the studies that I have posted you would see that no one is positive as to how someone becomes a homosexual.

And I never made a claim that they are consciously choosing this life. But there are a great a amount of studies which indicate that it may be more nurture than nature.

Really, go back and read some of the studies that I posted then let me know what you think. Don’t be like CappedAndPlanIt who remains clueless in his own little world and refused to read contrary data.

You’re better than that right?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Look, Zeb, I dont know if people are “born gay” or if they “become gay”. I dont know if its genetic or a result of upbringing or a potential that some have triggered and some dont, I dont know. I just know that some people “are gay” and some aren’t.[/quote]

Hey, you’re finally telling the truth. Good for you, it’s nice and bright under the light of truth huh?

Okay, that whole light of truth moment passed quickly for you.

Show me where I stated that I wanted for “force” homosexuals to be heterosexual? If you can’t show me where I said that then you are in fact a liar. And just when I thought you were going to give up posting lies too. What a shame. (You do know what that word “shame” means don’t you?)

I post study after study which demonstrate that many homosexuals who freely seek therapy on their own change and you say that I want to “force” homosexuals to change.

Do you see why I, and many others have no respect for liberals such as yourself who just keep making stuff up as they go along?

[quote] forced to stop doing what makes them happy as long as it doesnt directly harm anyone else.
[/quote]

Another lie.

You are pathetic.

If two people are happy doing what they’re doing then they don’t want to seek change through therapy, and there is no problem.

Please, stop posting general lies and other assorted stupid stuff. You just continue to harm your case, which is not all that strong to begin with.

Thanks.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I think the authors are lying because of a biased approach to the study resulting in questionable results.

Every one of the authors is lying? Every single one?

Come on Cap, you don’t even believe that. Could it be that the big “born that way” lie is wrong? Yes, in fact it is.

Every one of them performed the test with a biased approach. Thus, the studies are not legitimate.

What’s really sad about your approach to this topic is that you just make stuff up as you go along. How in the world do you know that they ALL had a biased approach?

You keep typing and I keep laughing.

There is no objective study proving that homosexuals change without external pressures.

I’m not sure you’re unbiased enough to have this conversation. Do most people who have a serious problem spontaneously change, or do they get help?

Think!

Your faulty, bigoted logic is what all of your little “tests” were run on, again, making them completely illegitimate.

And you have ZERO proof that they were faulty or bigoted. But just like the “born that way” like you seem to fall right in step with the rest of the people who just say whatever they want to be true with no proof.

Answer: biased, nonobjective studies are not legitimate data. Or did you not get that the first 3 or 4 times?

There were well over 60 studies presented, I doubt that you even read one of them let alone all of them. You just keep repeating the same old lies in the face of evidence which proves you wrong.

Do you know what that’s called?

Ha ha

The liberals will always dodge the direct evidence and try to replace it with a slanderous attack. They have no real answer, and you Cap prove this time and again on this thread.

sigh 5: A biased study provides no legitmate data.

Stop sighing for a moment and SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT WHICH STUDIES ARE BIASED.

Can you do it? It would actually mean that you’d have to read the evidence.

Yes, Zeb, clamoring for all homosexuals to get “the treatment” is certainly going to change SO MANY minds.

Like so many other obvious points this one flew over your head as well.

If those (like you) who perpetuate the big “born that way” lie are allowed to go unchallenged, those who really do want to change will be discouraged from seeking treatment. And as the studies show (you know the studies which you have not read and won’t read because you don’t like the truth) somewhere between 20% and 35% of all who seek treatment are in fact changed.

Before you engage in these debates you should really get your facts straight. At this point all your doing is holding up in a corner screaming “lies, lies, they’re all lies.” And you have no evidence to back it up.

You look bad, but you’re probably used to that huh?

[/quote]

Look, Dumbshit, show me ONE of your studies that does not begin with the LIE that being gay is a problem or is wrong in some way.

Show me ONE study that does not attempt to “cure” gays (because, Dumbshit, if the study is attepting to “cure” gays, then the people running the study must think that being gay is bad, and therefore the study already has an anti-gay bias and is therefore bullshit).

Fuck, Dumbshit, I would have thought you’d be smart enough to figure out a biased study (OR FUCKING SIXTY) when incriminating language is used in the goddamn title of nearly every one.

Again, all your dumbshit studies, Dumbshit, are based off the blatant, flagrant, ignorant WELL OF BULLSHIT that is homophobia.

Where are all the studies showing that heterosexuals can change to homosexuals? Wait, you mean there aren’t dumbshit biased studies run by heterophobes to make up dumbshit “proof”?

Hm, once again someone on your side is suggesting a double standard for gays and straights. Funny, right Dumbshit? Know what that makes you? A bigot. A stupid, fearful, homophobic bigot who wants to force homosexuals to be straight but wants it to be done on the false premise of “helping” them with “therapy”.

Then, when its pointed out that your bullshit “studies” are just that (bullshit), you revert back to the original LIE: that there is anything wrong with homosexuality in the first place.

Face it, Dumbshit, you WANT homosexuals to change, because in your backward dangerous mind, the more homosexuals ‘cured’ is more proof that homosexuality is a “problem” that can be “dealt with”, when, in reality, its you who has the problem.

Too bad you can’t stop lying to yourself long enough to admit any of that though.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Hm, once again someone on your side is suggesting a double standard for gays and straights. Funny, right Dumbshit? Know what that makes you? A bigot. A stupid, fearful, homophobic bigot who wants to force homosexuals to be straight but wants it to be done on the false premise of “helping” them with “therapy”.

[/quote]

But otherwise how could he convince himself of doing the Lords work while bullying people with his superstitious beliefs?

Be glad he doesn´t burn people.

Frankly, I feel little sympathy for people who think they need to play “hetero” because an invisible guy in the sky says so. I guess accepting that they´re gay is part of growing up for some people and the fact that there a lot of moral busybodies that can fuck up their life is also a fact of growing up.

Ultimately those people need to learn to deal with the Zebs of this world and he is relatively harmless.

Maybe only due to the circumstances, but harmless.

ZEB,

I will ask again -

DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH SOMEONE CLOSE TO YOU WHO IS GAY?

IS A MAN HAVING ANAL SEX “IMMORAL”?

Will he continue to ignore the questions?

Lets have a vote…

I don’t understand the idea of choice vs genetics.

I only understand this as a question of genetics vs experience, or “nature vs nurture” because from the standpoint of science choice is just a cognitive construct used to grasp underlying neurological processes.

Based on studies of twins regarding homosexuality Summary and Conclusion
I’d say that it is nature AND nurture, both genetic and environmental.

As for the argument of what is “natural”, I’d ask that someone defines what is natural. How is the behaviour of humans any less natural than the behaviour of rabbits or monkeys? It’s more complicated perhaps, but I don’t see how that makes it unnatural.

As for the argument that it is unnatural because it poses no evolutionary benefit, it’s beyond fair assumption to assume that a behaviour benefits humanity only if it leads to reproduction. There are many unknown factors which influence the evolution of species, and it’s impossible to see them unless we are looking back at the past from a more evolved state.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

IMO, its a moot point because theres no reason gays just cant be gay; what causes me to speak up on the issue is that so many people only want to “prove” that its a choice so they can use it as rationalization for their bigotry against gays (nevermind that being gay could, reasonably, be both a choice and not wrong).

So, on a legal level, I’d rather it be viewed as intrinsic and innate, as to not open those gates I described earlier.[/quote]

You continue to spout out words like bigotry, hate, discrimination, etc. And yet I have seen none of that on this form (I haven’t read everything).

Believe it or not, there are those who do not agree with the lifestyle, but are not hateful or bigots. So you continuing to use those words makes no sense and frankly just sounds like talking points.

Next, gays can be gays when they start to take some responsibly for their behavior and actions. Once they are not the highest group with sexually transmitted disease and are not dyeing younger than most any other groups due to their behavior, THEN we can say, “just let them be gay”. But until then they need to stop hurting themselves and others with their irresponsible lifestyle.

[quote]orion wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Hm, once again someone on your side is suggesting a double standard for gays and straights. Funny, right Dumbshit? Know what that makes you? A bigot. A stupid, fearful, homophobic bigot who wants to force homosexuals to be straight but wants it to be done on the false premise of “helping” them with “therapy”.

But otherwise how could he convince himself of doing the Lords work while bullying people with his superstitious beliefs?

Be glad he doesn´t burn people.

Frankly, I feel little sympathy for people who think they need to play “hetero” because an invisible guy in the sky says so. I guess accepting that they´re gay is part of growing up for some people and the fact that there a lot of moral busybodies that can fuck up their life is also a fact of growing up.

Ultimately those people need to learn to deal with the Zebs of this world and he is relatively harmless.

Maybe only due to the circumstances, but harmless.

[/quote]

We’re it only because of religious superstition, I’d feel little to no sympathy for them either. But for many, its not the invisible man in the sky; its the very real parents, the very real friends, the very real coworkers and siblings and many others.

Gays learning to deal with bigots on a personal level is one thing, thats up to them. Not allowing bigots to control their lives through open, wanton, legally protected discrimination is something I feel we all share a responsibility in.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

IMO, its a moot point because theres no reason gays just cant be gay; what causes me to speak up on the issue is that so many people only want to “prove” that its a choice so they can use it as rationalization for their bigotry against gays (nevermind that being gay could, reasonably, be both a choice and not wrong).

So, on a legal level, I’d rather it be viewed as intrinsic and innate, as to not open those gates I described earlier.

You continue to spout out words like bigotry, hate, discrimination, etc. And yet I have seen none of that on this form (I haven’t read everything).
[/quote]

Here are a few examples from this thread:

“The point is whether you believe its genetics or choice, if you let homos get married then farmer fred can marry his horse”

“America the greatest country in the world seems to falling in a pit of gays gays gays and craven immorality. After ww2 we as a society are going down the proverbial tube, and if our fore fathers who stole all this nice land cause the indians didnt fight hard enough for it, thought for one second that there should be some gay rights in the constitution, im sure they discussed it…but im sure they didnt caquse its not supposed to exist.”

“If anyone of my family harmed anyone of my family in anyway and yes if they were gay, i would kick them to the fucking curb…live like a law abiding normal human being or crawl in a hole.”

“Do you honestly remember that poor young boy i believe in the late 80’s who contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion? Did that poor young kid deserve that because your live and let live society allowed some asshole fag or drug abuser to give tainted blood to a young kid that hasny even started his life. Get fucking real thinking that homos dont hurt anyone…tell that to that poor young boy!”

And those are a few of the outright, obvious examples. I’ll skip trying to get into the slightly more subtle kinds (like suggesting that homosexuals need therapy to be cured).

sigh This is the way it always goes, isn’t it? You somehow overlook all of primalfears use of terms like “fag” and talking about how homosexuals arent normal human beings, you overlook Zebs constant love affair with the idea that homosexuals can be converted, and still dont “see” any bigotry.

Yes, the problem is clearly that I’m just throwing the words around because they make good talking points.

OhHHHHHHHH, THATS when gays will have your permission! Ok, that makes complete sense because you’re totally in a position to determine if “gays can be gays” or if “gays arent allowed to be gays”.

You know something, though, you do make a good point, many gays lead an irresponsible lifestyle. And that irresponsible lifestyle results in a much higher rate of STDs in the gay community.

So if you have a problem with that, have a problem with that! Have a problem with people having too many sexual partners or not using protection or not getting regularly tested! Its possible to have a problem with an irresponsible lifestyle without having a problem with homosexuality (there are many homosexuals who respect their increased risk and act responsibly).

If you wish to speak out against irresponsibility, great, I’m all for that. But if you are going to pretend that homosexuality and irresponsibility are inexorably linked, or that the problem is homosexuality, or that the problem is only with homosexuals, then you are wrong.

Just letting them be gay is not the same as condoning irresponsibility since the two are not linked.

People like Zeb believe that the only way to save gay people is to turn them straight, and people like Lorisco believe that gays need to be saved in order to be accepted.

So, the conclusion we can infer here is that people will be comfortable with “just letting them be gay” once there are no gays.

I’m not going to debate with the “gay people are immoral” crowd anymore until they answer my two questions -

  1. Do you have any experience in dealing with a gay person who is family or a close friend?

  2. Is a man having anal sex with a woman “immoral”?

I will keep posting these questions over and over and over again until I get a response.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Next, gays can be gays when they start to take some responsibly for their behavior and actions. Once they are not the highest group with sexually transmitted disease and are not dyeing younger than most any other groups due to their behavior, THEN we can say, “just let them be gay”. But until then they need to stop hurting themselves and others with their irresponsible lifestyle.

[/quote]

Others…? What others?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

IMO, its a moot point because theres no reason gays just cant be gay; what causes me to speak up on the issue is that so many people only want to “prove” that its a choice so they can use it as rationalization for their bigotry against gays (nevermind that being gay could, reasonably, be both a choice and not wrong).

[…]

If you wish to speak out against irresponsibility, great, I’m all for that. But if you are going to pretend that homosexuality and irresponsibility are inexorably linked, or that the problem is homosexuality, or that the problem is only with homosexuals, then you are wrong.

Just letting them be gay is not the same as condoning irresponsibility since the two are not linked.[/quote]

Good post.

Makkun

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Next, gays can be gays when they start to take some responsibly for their behavior and actions. Once they are not the highest group with sexually transmitted disease and are not dyeing younger than most any other groups due to their behavior, THEN we can say, “just let them be gay”. But until then they need to stop hurting themselves and others with their irresponsible lifestyle.

Others…? What others?[/quote]

Others = Children who die of AIDS after receiving a tainted blood transfusion donated by a gay, or gays that sleep with women occasionally and spread HIV to them.

I’m not going to debate with the “gay people are immoral” crowd anymore until they answer my two questions -

  1. Do you have any experience in dealing with a gay person who is family or a close friend?

  2. Is a man having anal sex with a woman “immoral”?

I will keep posting these questions over and over and over again until I get a response.