Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]dk44 wrote:
My problem with gay people is the fact that they like to rub it in your face (being gay, and their penises). When I go out in public I dont want to see you and your life partner all over each other, straight or gay. Quit making it your life goal to inform me that you like penises. And quit wearing pink shirts.
.[/quote]

Wow, Arkansas must have a really wild gay population, if they are doing such in public places. Of course, maybe you are hanging out in gay clubs?

In San Francisco (aside from an occasional exchange of a kiss between two people) I cannot think of a time when I have seen a gay couple making out in public.

62

[quote]dk44 wrote:
My problem with gay people is the fact that they like to rub it in your face (being gay, and their penises). When I go out in public I dont want to see you and your life partner all over each other, straight or gay. Quit making it your life goal to inform me that you like penises. And quit wearing pink shirts.

P.S. Does anyone else get shitty when your driving and you see a VW beatle and start thinking “oh this bitch is gonna be hot” only to pull up next to it and see a Ryan Seacrest look-alike? Bullshit.[/quote]

Most gay people don’t act like Liberace. You’ve probably met ten times more than you think (if we aren’t counting misattributions) but you didn’t know they were gay precisely because they didn’t “rub it in your face”. Thanks to your biased sample you now look like you have little familiarity with the topic beyond what the TV told you.

63

entheogens said
“Of course, maybe you are hanging out in gay clubs?”

Says the guy who lives in San Francisco.

64

I have little familiarity with the topic?

Well from what I understand, and I could be way off, its when a man puts his penis in another man. But feel free to enlighten me on the whole gay thing. I am positive you would know way more about it than I could ever dream.

65

A friend of mine has been living in San Francisco for a few years. Wait a minute! He must be . . . he just HAS to be . . . (it’s the rule) . . . he’s gotta’ be – GAY!!! He lives in San Francisco!! So he MUST be gay, right??! Cause there’s only queers in that thar city!!

SHIT!! I always thought he was straight as an arrow!!!

[quote]dk44 wrote:
entheogens said
“Of course, maybe you are hanging out in gay clubs?”

Says the guy who lives in San Francisco.
[/quote]

66

I was clearly joking with the San Fran comment, didnt mean to offend anyone.

67

[quote]tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Homosexuality is like all other behaviors. It is a combination of both nature and nurture that determines it.

Certainly some genetic factors predispose one to being gay, but I do believe certain environmental factors come into play.

To say gay people are “sick” or “immoral” is just fucking retarded. It could very easily be genetic. Plenty of genes that usually don’t allow one to reproduce get passed along just fine recessively for generations.

One could also argue that sexual predators are also the victims of genetic factors and/or hormonal imbalances, yet I think we would all agree that they are sick and immoral. Genetics are not an excuse to act immorally. We all have the ability to make choices on whether or not we should act on these genetic impulses. Lixy pointed out earlier that polygamy is likely genetic, yet few will claim that it is moral.

[/quote]

Sexual predators hurt people. Polygamists don’t.

As long as no one is forced into anything, polygamy is fine by me. If anything, it benefits women more than men, but it tends to fuck up the men in a society. Society kinda breeds that behavior out due to this. A social invisible hand. If we were in a LOW population crisis, less gay people would be showing up, as it’d be less socially acceptable to be gay. Gays don’t hurt anyone, and don’t harm anyones property directly or indirectly, therefore, they are perfectly moral.

Polygamy, if done correctly, does not harm a person or his/her property. Neither does being gay. Sexual predators do. Bad comparison.

68

[quote]BodyBldgBabe wrote:
I SAY POST SOME MAN-ON-MAN LOVE PICTURES, DAMMIT!!! ;D[/quote]

Only after you post Woman on Woman… and maybe not even then. hahaha :xD

69

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I DON’T LIKE flaunters anywhere around me. If an anti-man wants to wear lace doillies and eye liner in public, I WILL tell him to get the fuck away from me

[/quote]

you mean kinda like this guy: - YouTube

but in all seriousness I agree I have no problem with gay people as long as they act their gender. and if a guy who is totally a feminine walks up to me and starts to make passes at me you best believe I will kick his ass to a bloody pulp. but short of that I really don’t care if you are Gay Straight or Bi, as long as (if your a dude) you don’t hit on me.

70

[quote]entheogens wrote:
BBBabe, brings up a good point ,too. If a man has on occasion put a dick in his mouth or a women licked the kee-kat, does that make them gay? How about the prison population?
[/quote]

If a man makes a conscious decision to suck a dick then he has homosexual tendencies and I would class such a person as bi or gay. This would include the prison population with the only exception being rape, when the conscious decision might be to stay alive (and even then you’d have to REALLY love life).

The label reflects the act, so if you choose to indulge in said act you take the label by default.

No straight man would suck a dick just because the opportunity arose, that’s like vegans eating meat on weekends.

71

I believe there is a biological element, and that could be genetic, or hormonal in nature.

But I only believe about 1 out of every 3 people who claim to be gay actually are.

The reason I believe this is due to the high instance of childhood molestation among homosexuals. I doubt there is a biological connection to this.

Also have you ever seen a lesbian who refuses to date men, yet they date women who dress, act, and look like men, and their partner even has the strap on dildo.

If you are truly interested in women, and not men, then I cannot see how they would ever be attracted to women like this. They are dating almost-men.

Also why would any lesbian be interested in a dildo if they were gay? (Yes I know how it works.)

I do also believe there are people who have chosen the gay lifestyle. Definitely not biological. These are people who for some reason or other decided they wanted that lifestyle, or it seemed popular, or made them stand out.

Now if that was their choice, so be it. None of my business really.

Again I do believe that ~ a third of the gay community is biologically gay, and again as far as the lifestyle is concerned, it is none of my business what others do, as long as it does not interfere with others.

Now getting into the idea of Gay marriage, I really do not have a problem with it. If I owned a company that provided benefits such as health insurance, then I would want to extend those benefits to (serious) same sex partners.

When the conservatives say they are willing to give the rights of marriage to gay couples, but only without the name, to me that sounds a little moronic but I don’t think the semantics are that important, so whatever.

But when the gay community rejects it because it does not include the word marriage I think how stupid. You are given the rights you want on a silver platter, and reject them. Regardless of that the government calls it, you can call it marriage on your own.

The big problem is not the people who want rights, but that term I keep hearing about wanting others to accept their marriage.

This is a big mistake in two big ways. The first is trying to get others to change, and the second is actually wanting others involved in your personal life, kind of the opposite of what we want.

72

[quote]tedro wrote :

I agree, as I said before, I doubt there is a purely genetic reason, but their is almost certainly some sort of biological reason that gives people homosexual tendencies. There are also likely biological reasons that cause some people to be sexual predators, child molesters, or even serial killers. Whether or not one acts on these urges is purely choice. I believe that God challenges us all in different ways and ultimately gives us the free will to make our own decisions. The decision to participate in homosexual behaviors is presicely that, a decision.

[/quote]

Even my half brother would agree with this statement…and he’s attracted to men. We were both raised in Christian homes and have great parents. He understands its a choice and like “Tedro” said God challenges us.He has struggled w/ this for years but finally allowed God to work in his life. Man was created for a woman and vica versa. Thats the beauty of free will though. You can agree with this statement or disagree. I won’t dislike someone cause they have different viewpoints than me.

73

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Homosexuality is like all other behaviors. It is a combination of both nature and nurture that determines it.

Certainly some genetic factors predispose one to being gay, but I do believe certain environmental factors come into play.

To say gay people are “sick” or “immoral” is just fucking retarded. It could very easily be genetic. Plenty of genes that usually don’t allow one to reproduce get passed along just fine recessively for generations.

One could also argue that sexual predators are also the victims of genetic factors and/or hormonal imbalances, yet I think we would all agree that they are sick and immoral. Genetics are not an excuse to act immorally. We all have the ability to make choices on whether or not we should act on these genetic impulses. Lixy pointed out earlier that polygamy is likely genetic, yet few will claim that it is moral.

Sexual predators hurt people. Polygamists don’t.

As long as no one is forced into anything, polygamy is fine by me. If anything, it benefits women more than men, but it tends to fuck up the men in a society. Society kinda breeds that behavior out due to this. A social invisible hand. If we were in a LOW population crisis, less gay people would be showing up, as it’d be less socially acceptable to be gay. Gays don’t hurt anyone, and don’t harm anyones property directly or indirectly, therefore, they are perfectly moral.

Polygamy, if done correctly, does not harm a person or his/her property. Neither does being gay. Sexual predators do. Bad comparison.
[/quote]

Not a bad example, it just shows that you believe the line is crossed when somebody directly harms another. I believe it is crossed when it harms society in general, like what you pointed out with polygamy.

For the record, I don’t believe it is immoral to “be” gay, but it is immoral to engage in homosexual acts.

74

How do you define when it “harms society,” though? I’m generally of the libertarian, live-and-let-live philosophy, so if someone is doing something that doesn’t harm me or anyone else, I couldn’t care less.

But I’m open to reason if someone can show me how it does actually harm society. I just don’t see it so far. If two men, or two women, want to shack up and live together and do whatever they do in their own home, how on earth is that harming me, you or either of our extended families?

[quote]tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
tedro wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Homosexuality is like all other behaviors. It is a combination of both nature and nurture that determines it.

Certainly some genetic factors predispose one to being gay, but I do believe certain environmental factors come into play.

To say gay people are “sick” or “immoral” is just fucking retarded. It could very easily be genetic. Plenty of genes that usually don’t allow one to reproduce get passed along just fine recessively for generations.

One could also argue that sexual predators are also the victims of genetic factors and/or hormonal imbalances, yet I think we would all agree that they are sick and immoral. Genetics are not an excuse to act immorally. We all have the ability to make choices on whether or not we should act on these genetic impulses. Lixy pointed out earlier that polygamy is likely genetic, yet few will claim that it is moral.

Sexual predators hurt people. Polygamists don’t.

As long as no one is forced into anything, polygamy is fine by me. If anything, it benefits women more than men, but it tends to fuck up the men in a society. Society kinda breeds that behavior out due to this. A social invisible hand. If we were in a LOW population crisis, less gay people would be showing up, as it’d be less socially acceptable to be gay. Gays don’t hurt anyone, and don’t harm anyones property directly or indirectly, therefore, they are perfectly moral.

Polygamy, if done correctly, does not harm a person or his/her property. Neither does being gay. Sexual predators do. Bad comparison.

Not a bad example, it just shows that you believe the line is crossed when somebody directly harms another. I believe it is crossed when it harms society in general, like what you pointed out with polygamy.

For the record, I don’t believe it is immoral to “be” gay, but it is immoral to engage in homosexual acts.
[/quote]

75

[quote]Damici wrote:
How do you define when it “harms society,” though? I’m generally of the libertarian, live-and-let-live philosophy, so if someone is doing something that doesn’t harm me or anyone else, I couldn’t care less.

But I’m open to reason if someone can show me how it does actually harm society. I just don’t see it so far. If two men, or two women, want to shack up and live together and do whatever they do in their own home, how on earth is that harming me, you or either of our extended families?
[/quote]

Damici,
There are a number of reasons as to why it harms society, some of which do have a religious basis. First and foremost, it downplays the importance of the heterosexual, marriage-based family. Children raised in a two-parent heterosexual household are more likely to be quality, law abiding citizens. We need to encourage the marriage based, moral family, lest we fall in to the liberal spiral we seem to be entering.

Second, it sends the message that it is ok to engage in any sexual activity as long as both parties are consenting. This is a slippery slope that justifies sex with minors, sex outside of marriage, and even beastiality.

Third, pregnancy through anonymous sperm donation is very popular among the lesbian population. There are a number of problems inherent to this procedure, including the encouragement of males to create offspring they have no intentions of raising.

Finally, we have the gay agenda, which is more of a result of some of the above more than a reason. Do you want your children to be exposed to this? Do you want them to think it is ok for grown males to act like complete fruits? You may argue as such, but I believe that men and women are inherently different and that we have traditional gender roles for a reason. This is not to say that one sex is better than the other, rather both sexes have strengths and weaknesses and when we respect and combine our weaknesses with the strengths of others we are able to achieve much more than we ever would alone, or with somebody of the same sex.

76

[quote]Damici wrote:
How do you define when it “harms society,” though? I’m generally of the libertarian, live-and-let-live philosophy, so if someone is doing something that doesn’t harm me or anyone else, I couldn’t care less. [/quote]

I’m a libertarian too. But it is clear to me that homosexuals are doing more bad to society than good. Promiscuity is more widespread in those circles than among straight people. That leads to propagating STDs, passion crimes, and many other things. And anyone with a basic understanding of anatomy can see how sex between two men dramatically increases chances of contamination by a certain sneaky virus.

Marriage is a contract, and screwing around on the side is a serious breach of said agreement. It wrecks homes, increase the chances of kids suffering, and more subtle harm done to society.

It’s impossible to make the case for or against homosexuality in a clear-cut manner, and this is not an attempt at either. I do know that for the general welfare of society, one should condemn behavior that helps pandemics. Because of that, and unlike you, I could care a lot less. Nowadays, homosexuality is celebrated - if not encouraged - and that is the problem.

Suck cock if you want to, but don’t expect me to defend your right to be gay about it.

77

Any sex not for procreation can be harmful to society.

78

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Any sex not for procreation can be harmful to society. [/quote]

Nonsense. Sex for pleasure is beneficial to society because it’s an excellent outlet for stress and other tensions.
Too much too much promiscuity, can lead to fatality.

79

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Any sex not for procreation can be harmful to society.

Nonsense. Sex for pleasure is beneficial to society because it’s an excellent outlet for stress and other tensions.
Too much too much promiscuity, can lead to fatality.[/quote]

So what is your problem with gay sex? Don’t gay people need to release stress and other tensions?

80

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…assuming you are heterosexual: at which point in your life did you decide to become heterosexual?
[/quote]

I didn’t know the difference between hetero and homosexual at the time but I was five when I realized I wanted to look up girl’s dresses.

As a far as it being a choice…its only a choice in so much you can control who you are sexually attracted to. Why am I repulsed by fat women and bimbo’s…? Is it a choice or is it something that was instilled in me. I dunno…I don’t care. I like what I like and the world is my buffet.