Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

From a gay man here, I am curious as to the logic of most who replied to this thread. Some classics:
Kailash: " its because the gay mans mother is ugly".
To Kailash: My mother is very attractive even so at 67 now.

tedro: " Immorality. WHo set the universal moral standard" YOU? To you maybe its immoral, but for a gay person its only natural not immoral.

Curodd: He says he lives in one of the 5 gayest cities on earth, but states that gays act feminine.
To Currodd: IF your claim of living in one of the 5 gayest cities on earth is true, then its likely that your built, buff co-workers, neighbors, gym partners are probabaly gay too. I live in the gayest city on earth (NYC) and still have not met a feminine gay man yet. YOu are an example of a classic closet case.

ALL: To me, my homosexualtiy is purely natural. It is not a choice to be a homosexual. We dont grow up saying “gee when i grow up i want to be a homosexual” as most on this thread would like to believe.

The only choice involved regarding my homosexuality was to be honest about it when asked by family, friends and co-workers. You would be shocked to learn who many bodybuilders are gay men, and how man;y gay men are out there.

[quote]MTMNYC wrote:
From a gay man here, I am curious as to the logic of most who replied to this thread. Some classics:
Kailash: " its because the gay mans mother is ugly".
To Kailash: My mother is very attractive even so at 67 now.

tedro: " Immorality. WHo set the universal moral standard" YOU? To you maybe its immoral, but for a gay person its only natural not immoral.

Curodd: He says he lives in one of the 5 gayest cities on earth, but states that gays act feminine.
To Currodd: IF your claim of living in one of the 5 gayest cities on earth is true, then its likely that your built, buff co-workers, neighbors, gym partners are probabaly gay too. I live in the gayest city on earth (NYC) and still have not met a feminine gay man yet. YOu are an example of a classic closet case.

ALL: To me, my homosexualtiy is purely natural. It is not a choice to be a homosexual. We dont grow up saying “gee when i grow up i want to be a homosexual” as most on this thread would like to believe.

The only choice involved regarding my homosexuality was to be honest about it when asked by family, friends and co-workers. You would be shocked to learn who many bodybuilders are gay men, and how man;y gay men are out there. [/quote]

Good post.

[quote]
MTMNYC wrote:
From a gay man here, […] gay men are out there.

Zap Brannigan wrote:
Good post.[/quote]

Second that.

Makkun

PS: Well argued Damici and MaloneTD.

[quote]Damici wrote:
But it IS discrimination if you’re not willing to allow them the same tax, legal and estate benefits as a straight couple under the same circumstances. That’s what you don’t seem to get. Again, if we’re talking about just two people, without any issue of children, living together, it does you ZERO harm and it does everyone else ZERO harm. Most would argue that the reason these tax and legal benefits exist for married couples as opposed to single people is because a committed, long-term, monogamous relationship creates stability and health in a society, broadly speaking. Two people can pair up to share the expenses and duties of running a household, everyone’s not out banging everyone else and causing all kinds of interpersonal friction, people aren’t spreading STDs rampantly . . . it’s got its societal benefits. This is true whether you’re talking about two straight people or two gay people, so if any two people are willing to make that commitment to each other, the same benefits should apply. Otherwise it’s – you guessed it – discrimination. Your philosophy would never allow gay people to receive any of those same benefits (unless they were willing to live a completely unnatural and traumatizing closeted life, pretending to go through the motions of being straight).
[/quote]

Even without children in the picture it does do harm. It sends a message that it is ok to give into whatever sexual urges come ones way.

The only benefit they would miss out on is the one for taxes, which lots of times is a penalty and not a benefit anyways. I said let the free market determine everything else.

You are missing the point on discrimination. The same law applies to everyone, therefore nobody is being discriminated against. I could also use the choice argument here if I so wished.

So now the government gets to regulate love?

Tell me where I suggested a ban on anything besides gay marriage. I have said there is nothing inherently wrong with being gay, it is the homosexual acts that are wrong. I did not suggest any sort of ban on these acts. If that is the life they wish to lead they have that right. I do believe we should discourage this by any means necessary, short of making it criminal. Giving gays rights above and beyone what everyone else has is not the way to a better society.

[quote]tedro wrote:
… I do believe we should discourage this by any means necessary, short of making it criminal. Giving gays rights above and beyone what everyone else has is not the way to a better society.

[/quote]

I don’t think we should discourage it nor do I think we should encourage it.

I think government should butt out (ha ha) of sex lives between adults. The only thing the government should encourage is procreation in a stable family environment.

No need for the government to meddle in gay, straight, polygamist or any other type of adult relationship.

This screws up the whole legal concept of marriage but who the hell cares? Why does a legal agreement have anything to do with who is screwing who?

[quote]MMG wrote:
Before i start this is not meant to offend anyone.

Yesterday a programe in the UK called ‘make me a muslim’ came on, and on there an islamic preist talking to a homosexual said that he believes that a person makes a conscious choice to be gay, while the homosexual said that it is something you are born with and can not choose.

This got me thinking, and was wondering what other people thought on the topic as to whether you make a conscious choice or are born gay?

I personally dont know and cant get my head round this topic. [/quote]

LOL - a priest vs. a gay man arguing as to whether or not being gay is a choice…I wonder who is more of an authority on THAT subject??

Honestly, what a stupid thing for a bunch of straight men to discuss. I think the gays, themselves, have a little more input on whether or not it was a “choice” than we do.

Ask them, then close the fucking case. It’s really pretty simple - sure, there may be things that “factor in” with regards to developing a sexual preference, but the whole “do they choose to be gay” debate is just so stupid I can’t believe anyone can take it seriously.

[quote]MTMNYC wrote:
tedro: " Immorality. WHo set the universal moral standard" YOU? To you maybe its immoral, but for a gay person its only natural not immoral.
[/quote]

So that which is natural is not immoral? For many it is natural to be attracted to minors, sometimes the minors are even consenting. According to this logic it is not immoral.

As much as I would like to, I did not set the moral standard for the Universe. Homosexuality is immoral because it harms society, plain and simple.

[quote]
ALL: To me, my homosexualtiy is purely natural. It is not a choice to be a homosexual. We dont grow up saying “gee when i grow up i want to be a homosexual” as most on this thread would like to believe.

The only choice involved regarding my homosexuality was to be honest about it when asked by family, friends and co-workers. You would be shocked to learn who many bodybuilders are gay men, and how man;y gay men are out there. [/quote]

Do you have a boyfriend? Did you choose your boyfriend? Do you choose to have sex with him or any other males?

There has actually been a consensus here that there probably are biological factors contributing to homosexuality, whatever you do about it is purely your choice.

Just because there are a bunch of gay bodybuilders out there and more gay men that I don’t know about we are supposed to accept it as ok?

Tedro, especially seeing that gays are and always will be a small minority of the population, it is not “doing anyone harm” for them to be together. You mean to tell me that you’re not capable of still raising your own kids the way you want to raise them, and instill whatever values you wish in them, simply because Kevin and Ted are living together around the block from you?? That’s absurd! “The ghey” is not contagious, you’ll be happy to know.

They are not going to turn anyone else gay, child or not. As a matter of fact – and I’ll have to dig up some research to post on this – I do believe I’ve read that the great majority of children actually raised by gay couples grow up to be . . . STRAIGHT!! Imagine that! And I’m not even sure I would advocate them raising children – I’m just making the point that them living around the corner from you sure as hell ain’t going to affect YOUR children.

(1.) The tax thing is not necessarily small for everyone involved; don’t jump to that conclusion. (2.) Much bigger even than the immediate tax implications, and perhaps the main, much more complex reason the government doesn’t want to tackle the issue of gay unions/marriages, is the the issue of estates and the rights and such that go along with that. That DOES get into major benefits that they would lose out on. It is not a minor issue.

As for the government regulating love, as discussed it essentially always have, hence the institution of marriage. Yes, it is occasionally abused with people pulling off Greencard marriages or marrying for money a few minutes before some 90-year-old billionaire dies, but all the benefits I described earlier that society places on the institution of marriage stem from the basic idea that it is a loving, committed, monogamous relationship that will keep the two people together for decades, not just a practicality that they both happened to agree to.

And in no way does ANYthing I proposed have anything to do with giving gay people rights “above and beyond” those of anyone else.

[quote]tedro wrote:
Damici wrote:

Even without children in the picture it does do harm. It sends a message that it is ok to give into whatever sexual urges come ones way.

The only benefit they would miss out on is the one for taxes, which lots of times is a penalty and not a benefit anyways. I said let the free market determine everything else.

You are missing the point on discrimination. The same law applies to everyone, therefore nobody is being discriminated against. I could also use the choice argument here if I so wished.

So now the government gets to regulate love?

Tell me where I suggested a ban on anything besides gay marriage. I have said there is nothing inherently wrong with being gay, it is the homosexual acts that are wrong. I did not suggest any sort of ban on these acts. If that is the life they wish to lead they have that right. I do believe we should discourage this by any means necessary, short of making it criminal. Giving gays rights above and beyone what everyone else has is not the way to a better society.

[/quote]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
… I do believe we should discourage this by any means necessary, short of making it criminal. Giving gays rights above and beyone what everyone else has is not the way to a better society.

I don’t think we should discourage it nor do I think we should encourage it.

I think government should butt out (ha ha) of sex lives between adults. The only thing the government should encourage is procreation in a stable family environment.

No need for the government to meddle in gay, straight, polygamist or any other type of adult relationship.

This screws up the whole legal concept of marriage but who the hell cares? Why does a legal agreement have anything to do with who is screwing who?
[/quote]

I can agree with this, provided there is an effort to encourage procreation in a stable family environment.

By discouraging I mean we should not fall victims of the gay agenda, we should not give gays extra rights, and being gay should not be compared to being white or being black. I would not have a problem with the government staying out of marriage, so long as the effort is made to encourage two parent, heterosexual households.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tedro wrote:
… I do believe we should discourage this by any means necessary, short of making it criminal. Giving gays rights above and beyone what everyone else has is not the way to a better society.

I don’t think we should discourage it nor do I think we should encourage it.

I think government should butt out (ha ha) of sex lives between adults. The only thing the government should encourage is procreation in a stable family environment.

No need for the government to meddle in gay, straight, polygamist or any other type of adult relationship.

This screws up the whole legal concept of marriage but who the hell cares? Why does a legal agreement have anything to do with who is screwing who?
[/quote]

Sex was not invented (or evolved) for unnatural barbaric acts. Your anus is there for taking a dump, not to play ‘hide-the-weenie’. Gay people are abusing the pleasure that God (or nature) put into the act. Ideally, sex SHOULD be for procreation. However, sex between a man and a woman is socially more tolerated because humans are addicted to pleasure.

Gay sex is unnatural, even though a percentage of the population does it. So what? A percentage of the population are pedophiles (look at the female teachers preying on young boys, for ex). Do we tolerate that?

I usually tolerate gays because there are so many of them, like 3 to 5%. I think it is wrong, unnatural, and immoral. Hopefully, someday, gay people can be cured.

HH

Tedro, in many hours of back-and-forth discussion about this, you have so far shown NOTHING that illustrates this to be the case. Nothing. You’ve expressed your views and beliefs very clearly, which is fine, but you haven’t illustrated any actual evidence of harm.

Which is not surprising, because homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and will continue to be around for as long as people exist. Yet, fear not, it won’t spread!! So you really can relax about it. No one’s “catching” it.

[quote]tedro wrote:
As much as I would like to, I did not set the moral standard for the Universe. Homosexuality is immoral because it harms society, plain and simple.
[/quote]

Thanks for giving us your view on things. However, it’s just that: your view. Lest the overpopulation of the planet be exponentially exemplified, for it was deemed that A Child Shall Be Created ever single time someone has the urge to get a nut off. Great.

And with regard to the female teachers having sex with young boys, we’ve hashed this out at great length already on T-Nation and have come to a unanimous conclusion on the question of whether or not we should tolerate it. The answer is: Yes, if she’s hot.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sex was not invented (or evolved) for unnatural barbaric acts. Your anus is there for taking a dump, not to play ‘hide-the-weenie’. Gay people are abusing the pleasure that God (or nature) put into the act. Ideally, sex SHOULD be for procreation. However, sex between a man and a woman is socially more tolerated because humans are addicted to pleasure.

Gay sex is unnatural, even though a percentage of the population does it. So what? A percentage of the population are pedophiles (look at the female teachers preying on young boys, for ex). Do we tolerate that?

I usually tolerate gays because there are so many of them, like 3 to 5%. I think it is wrong, unnatural, and immoral. Hopefully, someday, gay people can be cured.

HH

[/quote]

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
Can’t be genetic, they can’t reproduce among themselves and pass the “gay gene” on.

Can’t tell if you’re joking or not. They can reproduce if they choose to, obviously. Also, if genetics was really as simple as you propose, most childhood cancers wouldn’t exist. [/quote]

Good point. Another example is Down’s syndrome, which is genetic. Two parents, neither of which have Down’s syndrome, can give birth to a child with the syndrome. It’s called a recessive gene.

[quote]Damici wrote:
Tedro, in many hours of back-and-forth discussion about this, you have so far shown NOTHING that illustrates this to be the case. Nothing. You’ve expressed your views and beliefs very clearly, which is fine, but you haven’t illustrated any actual evidence of harm.

Which is not surprising, because homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and will continue to be around for as long as people exist. Yet, fear not, it won’t spread!! So you really can relax about it. No one’s “catching” it.
[/quote]

Actually I have given many reasons to illustrate how it is harmful. Solid concrete evidence is not going to be found, as it is extremely rare to be able to “prove” something in regards to the social scienece.

My friend, I am afraid you too have fallen victim of the gay agenda. You asked for reasons as to what is wrong with it and I provided you them. Now you do everything but directly accuse me of being a homophobe. I have not insulted gays, I have done my best to be tolerant, but I cannot endorse their way. Never did I say anything about catching the ghey. This is another tactic to paint the anti-gay community as a bunch of intollerant, ignorant homophobes, exactly what the gay media wants. The biggest harm is not in “catching it”.

Although it does happen, BBB gave an example to illustrate this. Many of these cases would not take place if being gay wasn’t so widely accepted. The biggest harm is in the acceptance of a perversion, acceptance of sex outside of marriage, and the acceptance of sex purely for pleasure. These things do not set a very good example for the youth of our nation, and accepting them sets a precedent for many other harmful behaviors.

LOL @ “The Gay Agenda”

Well, I guess that if you’re going to give what YOU believe are reasons why it (might) be harmful, without there being any solid evidence of such, you’re going to have a pretty tough time convincing people of that. I fully understand what your view, and that of social conservatives and devout Christians and devout Muslims, is on the matter. No news there. But it’s just that – a view.

Until you can illustrate something like “more and more children are growing up to turn out gay in our modern society, and gays are now 15% of the population as opposed to 8 or 10%,” then your whole argument – the entire thing – doesn’t yet hold any water.

I’m certainly not going to be one to throw the term “homophobe” around because I think people start looking ludicrous when they do that, but if you drill down your main concern to the heart of the issue, it is that if society openly accepts gay people the way they are, lets them live together and marry, etc., then children will see this as being ok (whereas you see it as being wrong), and hence MORE OF THEM WILL END UP BEING GAY (by choice, or persuasion, or whatever).

I DON’T HAVE THAT SAME FEAR. IT AIN’T GONNA’ HAPPEN.

So no, I’m not going to call you a homophobe, which would mean that you’re genuinely terrified of gay people and run from them when you see them. I will not be calling you any names. But you do fear their influence rising, and hence you fear their numbers rising, as you think it will influence kids to become gay (even though I fully understand that you don’t view it as a contagious disease, like the flu).

I’m very sorry to hear that I have fallen victim to those who espouse “The Gay Agenda!!!” Whoa is me!!! Somebody help me; I’ve been victimized!!

[quote]tedro wrote:
Damici wrote:
Tedro, in many hours of back-and-forth discussion about this, you have so far shown NOTHING that illustrates this to be the case. Nothing. You’ve expressed your views and beliefs very clearly, which is fine, but you haven’t illustrated any actual evidence of harm.

Which is not surprising, because homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and will continue to be around for as long as people exist. Yet, fear not, it won’t spread!! So you really can relax about it. No one’s “catching” it.

Actually I have given many reasons to illustrate how it is harmful. Solid concrete evidence is not going to be found, as it is extremely rare to be able to “prove” something in regards to the social scienece.

My friend, I am afraid you too have fallen victim of the gay agenda. You asked for reasons as to what is wrong with it and I provided you them. Now you do everything but directly accuse me of being a homophobe. I have not insulted gays, I have done my best to be tolerant, but I cannot endorse their way. Never did I say anything about catching the ghey. This is another tactic to paint the anti-gay community as a bunch of intollerant, ignorant homophobes, exactly what the gay media wants. The biggest harm is not in “catching it”.

Although it does happen, BBB gave an example to illustrate this. Many of these cases would not take place if being gay wasn’t so widely accepted. The biggest harm is in the acceptance of a perversion, acceptance of sex outside of marriage, and the acceptance of sex purely for pleasure. These things do not set a very good example for the youth of our nation, and accepting them sets a precedent for many other harmful behaviors.

[/quote]

For the stupid jack asses who have compared homosexuality to pedophilia:

Pedophilia - Usually hurts the younger participant. Usually has an unwilling participant. Is only immoral when one or both of these things applies, and/or the subject is at an age where they’re too easily influenced by adults (pre-pubescent).

Homosexuality - Usually has no unwilling participants. Hurts no one.

[quote]Damici wrote:
Well, I guess that if you’re going to give what YOU believe are reasons why it (might) be harmful, without there being any solid evidence of such, you’re going to have a pretty tough time convincing people of that. I fully understand what your view, and that of social conservatives and devout Christians and devout Muslims, is on the matter. No news there. But it’s just that – a view.

Until you can illustrate something like “more and more children are growing up to turn out gay in our modern society, and gays are now 15% of the population as opposed to 8 or 10%,” then your whole argument – the entire thing – doesn’t yet hold any water.

I’m certainly not going to be one to throw the term “homophobe” around because I think people start looking ludicrous when they do that, but if you drill down your main concern to the heart of the issue, it is that if society openly accepts gay people the way they are, lets them live together and marry, etc., then children will see this as being ok (whereas you see it as being wrong), and hence MORE OF THEM WILL END UP BEING GAY (by choice, or persuasion, or whatever).

I DON’T HAVE THAT SAME FEAR. IT AIN’T GONNA’ HAPPEN.

So no, I’m not going to call you a homophobe, which would mean that you’re genuinely terrified of gay people and run from them when you see them. I will not be calling you any names. But you do fear their influence rising, and hence you fear their numbers rising, as you think it will influence kids to become gay (even though I fully understand that you don’t view it as a contagious disease, like the flu).
[/quote]

How did you come up with this? This is not the point that anybody is trying to make.

From you. It’s the very core of everything you’ve been saying. You don’t want gay lifestyles to be publicly accepted lest it be viewed as ok. Well, what harm would you see in it being viewed as ok? Impressionable people (namely children and/or adolescents) might “end up going that way” if it’s viewed by society as being ok to be gay.

Otherwise, what’s to fear? Nothing, right?

Right.

[quote]tedro wrote:
How did you come up with this? This is not the point that anybody is trying to make.
[/quote]

Being gay is a choice and immoral. The book written about the magical wizard in the sky a few thousand years ago by people who knew about as much as a modern day 5 year old proves it.