Homosexuality is a choice

[Garrison0fMars]

Methinks that HS is a rebellion against Normal.

Why? Does this include transsexuality and bisexuality as well?

 

[bikerdruid]

No, I think I could not choose adopt the homosexual orientation.

You did not born queer. You born a male which developed a queer behaviour. "Queer" is not a gender identity.

i was born as a homosexual male.
i have no ambiguity about my gender. i am a man.
i just happen to be a queer man.
as you say that you could not choose to be homosexual, neither could i choose to be heterosexual.
it is not in my nature. it would be unnatural for me.

 

[JFrankA]

How do you know that was for pleasure?

How do you know it's not?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161
This is an extreme case. They would be heterosexuals engaging in sex out of the circumstances. It would more than likely not change their sexual identities at all.

I disagree with your argument.

Why more likely to not change? The change can happens, a male can have an sexual experience with another male and repeat it many times if please him. The presence of power of choice to repeat the experience is what changes the social behaviour.

How people become bisexuals? It is not a change of behaviour?

Do you have evidence that it is change or simply situational adaptation? Like I said, you are offering a drastic situation as exemplar and expect us to, what, use that as the template for all reasons for sexuality? Me no think so.

I think that studies show that sex is a basal drive in any animal (or plant) and the drive will be achieved one way or another (even if not for, omg, procreation!). Life will find a way. You cannot expect people to be celibate when a good portion of our body is wired for sex (sexual organs, pheromones in the brain, hormones, and other sexual factors). That is the wish of an idealistic religion, not of realistic humans. Masturbation, for instance, has its purpose. We don't do it mainly for pleasure but for satisfaction (release). If there were no impulse to do so, why is it there?

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161
But remember that sexuality isn't THIS or THAT.

What is this and that?

Strictly Heterosexual or Homosexual. Kinsey showed that sexual attraction is a range not an either/or situation. To say even:

Hetero, Bi, Homo is incorrect. There is a spectra between some ideally strict heterosexuality and ideally strict homosexuality. It is not 'you are homosexual 100%' (etc.).

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161
While I have a deeper attraction to males, I am also attracted to females.

Are that a definition of bisexual?

See, again, using the strictures. I'm homosexual about 80% and 20% heterosexual. It all depends upon the personal attraction and 'chemistry'. To pre-answer a later query: Yes, isn't all attraction initially about physical appearances maybe with a bit of personality? More on that anon.

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161
What? You mean, 'sexuality' isn't a dichotomy!? Are you attracted to the boobs and twat or to the person? I don't see a guy and say, "Wow, he must have a huge c-ck! That's why I'm gay! I'm gonna go have sex with every man!" You think that, don't you?

No, I do not think that.

Good

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161
That is your simplistic view of homosexuality: hetero is love, homo is sex.

No, it is not.

Correct.

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161
You must be Christian, maybe Protestant, since they are typically very focused on genitalia.

I am not. What a fallacious argument...

Maybe if you offered more information I wouldn't have to make assumptions. You sure are coming off as this. Or don't you see it?

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161
I could care less. I'm interested in the person and not what is between their thighs...

Do you mean that when you are sexually attracted?

'Love' is a dream. Anyone with any knowledge of biological processes involving courtship, mating, and such should realize that, say, 'love at first sight' is no such thing. We have 'lustful interchange of pheromones at first sight and close encounter'. We each have individual ideals in our heads about the types of partners in which we are interested. And in the process of bonding, we are drugged by dopamine to retain a euphoric state we call 'love' to increase the bonding and move it towards something more possibly.

There are some ideals that are more universal about beauty even (symmetry, type-casting, health, and so on). These types aren't choices. I would say that they have many inputs from many sources (and NOT many choices). There is good evidence, which you keep ignoring and denying, that suggests that our attractions are based upon genetics, nurture, nature, environment, upbringing, parents, siblings, and probably other stimuli. But you continue to hammer in on 'the gay gene' (which obviously doesn't exist but there may be genetic factors which we haven't yet found). People who are attracted to the same sex do exist. And they exist in nature for other species. Where is the 'unnatural' part of which you drone on about?

Your avatar (the Caduceus) belies your complete misunderstanding of biology and physiology!

 

[SnakeTongue]

I did nothing of the sort. I drew conclusions from your posts about your posts. You perceive it as personal. It is not.

Oh yes, you did:

My expectation: you will not even reply to this post. You are very selective about responding to others. You cherry pick when you can find something to say, or seemingly feign confusion or ask for clarification. No language barriers can account for this, IMO.

Your posts suggest that you find homosexuality icky; your posts seem to show an inability to employ empathy, compassion, and understanding of others who think or feel differently than you.

-

Are you serious? CT------------------------->

I specifically stated it had to do with community posts. The community sub-forum. Have you even posted there? It had absolutely, positively, nothing at all to do with you. The evidence is there for you to see--and draw your own conclusions. I have only interacted with you in this thread, to the best of my recollection.

So why did you bring it into the debate?

Do you expect me guess what to do with your list because your posting history has convinced many that you possess these qualities, even if you disagree with someone on a particular issue?

Why are you appealing to authority and appealing to emotion?

Point of view.

But as expected, you did not answer my question--you know the one with the question mark. Nor did you refute that your view of what is unnatural is exactly what heterosexuals do. As I pointed out in #4.

So once again, evasion noted, and nice derail.

Instead to explain the list, you made observations about your expectations, about who I could be and about who you think you are.

Should I consider your previous post an effort of derailing?

I will answer your question with a single answer due the lack of an appropriate explanation:

4. Many males of multiple species (in the wild) will participate in sex with many females. They can and do transmit diseases. Is this unnatural?

No, disease transmission is natural.

 

[SnakeTongue]

No, I mean that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing, without caring about whether what you are saying is correct or not. That is what you wrote looks like.

All right.

Could you provide examples of "unnatural" events?

 

[Alan]

I am not the one saying that things can be unnatural. I think that "natural" is a silly word, as anything that happens is natural.

 

[Furcifer]

All right.

Could you provide examples of "unnatural" events?

Pamela Anderson's rack and a Justin Beiber concert.

 

[Belz...]

You did not made your argument and presented the parts of a research which supports your claim.

Neither did you. Why should I put more effort into this than you ?

Wikipedia is not reliable source of reference

Why not ? Do they not cite their sources ?

New Scientist is not an official reference for objective science.

Why not ?

Please, provide link to researches and web pages without commercial bias.

No. Your refusal to accept what is being told to you is not my problem. I've given you pointers and a starting point. Your continued bigotry is your problem.

I observe nature.

You're not a very good observer since you missed the fact that genitals are used in other ways in nature.

Where did I said "can't"?

Here:

No, I think I could not choose adopt the homosexual orientation.

If it's a choice, why can't you ?

 

[JFrankA]

All right.

Could you provide examples of "unnatural" events?

I'll give you two more:

Using sex for only procreation.

Believing that using sex as an act bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love for each other, is not "natural" and immoral.

 

[JFrankA]

Oh yes, you did:

So why did you bring it into the debate?

Do you expect me guess what to do with your list because your posting history has convinced many that you possess these qualities, even if you disagree with someone on a particular issue?

Why are you appealing to authority and appealing to emotion?

Do you even know what those are?

Instead to explain the list, you made observations about your expectations, about who I could be and about who you think you are.

Should I consider your previous post an effort of derailing?

Are you talking to yourself, here? You constantly do that. You have drawn conclusions about me and others based on what I had typed, ignored or dodged any challenges put to you.

I will answer your question with a single answer due the lack of an appropriate explanation:

No, disease transmission is natural.

Finally, a direct answer. Now let's see if you got the guts to defend you point when it's challenged or you going to be a coward.

If disease transmission is natural, and one of your points about why homosexuallity is not "natural" because

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:
<snip>
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

then an example of "unnatural" would be to have heterosexual sex with a partner who has a disease or has a high chance of transmitting a disease, such as herpes or have a hemophilia or has a family history of heart disease, mental disorders, substance addiction, etc, even if that sex is meant to procreate.

Is that correct in your opinion?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Do you have evidence that it is change or simply situational adaptation? Like I said, you are offering a drastic situation as exemplar and expect us to, what, use that as the template for all reasons for sexuality? Me no think so.

What is the difference between change and situational adaptation?

No, I not proposing a model to explain the human sexuality. I am doing an exemplification to explain how the sexual behavior can change.

I think that studies show that sex is a basal drive in any animal (or plant) and the drive will be achieved one way or another (even if not for, omg, procreation!).

Could you provide a reference to the studies?

Life will find a way.

For what?

You cannot expect people to be celibate when a good portion of our body is wired for sex (sexual organs, pheromones in the brain, hormones, and other sexual factors).

You mean I cannot expect people control the sexual urge because it is an instinct that overcomes the intellect?

That is the wish of an idealistic religion, not of realistic humans.

Realistic humans also appreciate control of the sexual urge. This is not reserved to a specific religion.

Masturbation, for instance, has its purpose. We don't do it mainly for pleasure but for satisfaction (release). If there were no impulse to do so, why is it there?

Not for pleasure, but for satisfaction?

Pleasure is equivalent to satisfaction:

satisfaction

noun
[mass noun]
1 fulfilment of one's wishes, expectations, or needs, or the pleasure
2 Lawthe payment of a debt or fulfilment of an obligation or claim
3 Christian TheologyChrist's atonement for sin.

pleasure

noun
[mass noun]
a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment
enjoyment and entertainment, as opposed to necessity
[count noun] an event or activity from which one derives enjoyment
sensual gratification

adjective
[attributive]
used or intended for entertainment rather than business

verb
[with object]
give sexual enjoyment or satisfaction to
[no object]
(pleasure in) derive enjoyment from

http://oxforddictionaries.com/

-

Strictly Heterosexual or Homosexual. Kinsey showed that sexual attraction is a range not an either/or situation. To say even:

How he showed that sexual attraction is a range and not a behaviour?

Hetero, Bi, Homo is incorrect. There is a spectra between some ideally strict heterosexuality and ideally strict homosexuality. It is not 'you are homosexual 100%' (etc.).

Incorrect?

So Bikerdruid is incorrect when he types:

i just happen to be a queer man. (...) i could not choose to be straight. it would be an unnatural thing for me (...)

He is affirming that he is a homosexual man (which prefer being recognized as queer). If he is not a man with exclusively homosexual behaviour, what he is?

See, again, using the strictures. I'm homosexual about 80% and 20% heterosexual. It all depends upon the personal attraction and 'chemistry'.

Strictures?

I am using definitions which anyone can verify in the Oxford dictionary:

bisexual

adjective
1 sexually attracted to both men and women.
2 Biology having characteristics of both sexes.

That means you are bisexual since you admit attraction to both genders.

To pre-answer a later query: Yes, isn't all attraction initially about physical appearances maybe with a bit of personality? More on that anon.

I did not understand the question.

Maybe if you offered more information I wouldn't have to make assumptions. You sure are coming off as this. Or don't you see it?

No, I do not see it.

I told in another thread: I am a follower of the Greek god Hermes, the messenger of the gods. That is why I said in this thread I am a theist.

'Love' is a dream. Anyone with any knowledge of biological processes involving courtship, mating, and such should realize that, say, 'love at first sight' is no such thing. We have 'lustful interchange of pheromones at first sight and close encounter'. We each have individual ideals in our heads about the types of partners in which we are interested. And in the process of bonding, we are drugged by dopamine to retain a euphoric state we call 'love' to increase the bonding and move it towards something more possibly.

There are some ideals that are more universal about beauty even (symmetry, type-casting, health, and so on). These types aren't choices. I would say that they have many inputs from many sources (and NOT many choices). (...)

Interesting explanation...

My original question was: when you are sexually attracted to a person, what is between their tights do not really matter?

Your answer was a long explanation that love is a biological trait.

That means a yes since our genitals are also part of our biological trait?

(...) There is good evidence, which you keep ignoring and denying, that suggests that our attractions are based upon genetics, nurture, nature, environment, upbringing, parents, siblings, and probably other stimuli. (...)

Where is the evidence?

(...) But you continue to hammer in on 'the gay gene' (which obviously doesn't exist but there may be genetic factors which we haven't yet found). (...)

Yes, I do.

No genes, no genetic trait.

The search for the gay gene started more than a decade ago and failed. Why do you think it will be found if was not in the last decade?

(...) People who are attracted to the same sex do exist. And they exist in nature for other species. Where is the 'unnatural' part of which you drone on about?

The unnatural part is in the 99.05% of the species. There are not any behaviour equivalent to human homosexual behaviour.

Your avatar (the Caduceus) belies your complete misunderstanding of biology and physiology!

I guess you could not interpret the hide symbols in the Caduceus... Could you?

 

[SnakeTongue]

I am not the one saying that things can be unnatural. I think that "natural" is a silly word, as anything that happens is natural.

Interesting... You cannot provide examples of unnatural because you admit that everything which happens is natural.

I am correct?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Pamela Anderson's rack and a Justin Beiber concert.

I will add to the list of examples.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Neither did you. Why should I put more effort into this than you ?

You are doing the claims, not me.

Why not ? Do they not cite their sources ?

Because my six old daughter could create her own page in the Wikipedia and put how much sources she wish to prove that she exist.

Why not ?

Because New Scientists do not represent the official institutions of science. New Scientists is a commercial magazine, not a scientific publication.

No. Your refusal to accept what is being told to you is not my problem. I've given you pointers and a starting point. Your continued bigotry is your problem.

You are able to call me a bigot, but you are not able to copy and paste parts of an article which supports your claim?

You're not a very good observer since you missed the fact that genitals are used in other ways in nature.

Which are the other ways? Could you provide examples?

Here:

No can't anywhere...

If it's a choice, why can't you ?

I did not typed I cannot. I typed I could not.

 

[DC]

You are doing the claims, not me.



Because my six old daughter could create her own page in the Wikipedia and put how much sources she wish to prove that she exist.



Because New Scientists do not represent the official institutions of science. New Scientists is a commercial magazine, not a scientific publication.



You are able to call me a bigot, but you are not able to copy and paste parts of an article which supports your claim?



Which are the other ways? Could you provide examples?



No can't anywhere...



I did not typed I cannot. I typed I could not.

why could you not?

 

[JFrankA]

No, I did not missed. The explanations were poor and without evidence.

I only used what explanations you gave.

What does that say about you?

 

[SnakeTongue]

I'll give you two more:

Using sex for only procreation.

Believing that using sex as an act bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love for each other, is not "natural" and immoral.

All right.

1. Sex only for procreation is unnatural.
2. Sex only for pleasure is unnatural.

I will add to the list.

Do you even know what those are?

The qualities? Yes, I know.

Are you talking to yourself, here? You constantly do that. You have drawn conclusions about me and others based on what I had typed, ignored or dodged any challenges put to you.

No, I am typing to another user that is not you.

Why you like to answer questions that are not for you?

Finally, a direct answer. Now let's see if you got the guts to defend you point when it's challenged or you going to be a coward.

If disease transmission is natural, and one of your points about why homosexuallity is not "natural" because

(...)

then an example of "unnatural" would be to have heterosexual sex with a partner who has a disease or has a high chance of transmitting a disease, such as herpes or have a hemophilia or has a family history of heart disease, mental disorders, substance addiction, etc, even if that sex is meant to procreate.

Is that correct in your opinion?

It depends on how the sexual conduct is performed and which partners have the respective diseases.

 

[SnakeTongue]

why could you not?

Because I do not really wish adopt a homosexual behaviour.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I only used what explanations you gave.

What does that say about you?

I do not know. What does that say about me?