Homosexuality is a choice

[SnakeTongue]

It is homosexuality a choice?

For some people it is a matter of choice, to another it is not a matter of choice.

I already said that in the post #651

I am coming to a conclusion that homosexuality cannot be changed with a single choice, but few choices of a particular individual can result in homosexuality.

 

[JFrankA]

It is homosexuality a choice?

For some people it is a matter of choice, to another it is not a matter of choice.

I already said that in the post #651

I am coming to a conclusion that homosexuality cannot be changed with a single choice, but few choices of a particular individual can result in homosexuality.

Once again, I'm calling Shenanagans.

What you said was this: you are beginning to think that for some people, being sexually attracted to the same gender is not ONE choice, but the result of MANY choices so it's not a choice for them.

So it's not a choice if the person makes many choices.

You keep dancing but you keep falling...

 

[SnakeTongue]

Once again, I'm calling Shenanagans.

What you said was this: you are beginning to think that for some people, being sexually attracted to the same gender is not ONE choice, but the result of MANY choices so it's not a choice for them.

So it's not a choice if the person makes many choices.

You keep dancing but you keep falling...

I did not said anything like that...

What is happening, JFrankA? Still dazzled with my "poison"?

 

[Blue Mountain]

The way i see it, one's sexual orientation is akin to the hair on one's head. Most of us have hair on our head, but naturally it comes as thick or thin; it comes in straight, wavy and curly variants; it comes in colours ranging from black, brown, blond, and red, with the colour disappearing to grey and white as we age. This is akin to one's sexual orientation. We're born with it. A homosexual man no more chose that orientation than he chose his hair texture and colour.

Now we can choose to do a lot with our hair. We can grow it long, cut it short, or keep somewhere in between. Is it straight and you want it wavy or curly? Is it light and you want it darker? Dark and you want it blond? A hairdresser has chemicals that can do all that. This is akin to one's sexual expression. Gay people can act straight; I know several gay men who were married to women, and conceived and raised children. (For the most part the kids turned out OK, even if the marriages eventually failed.) On occasion, straight people try gay sex for a number of reasons: to see what it's like and because they get paid for it are two that come to mind.

But like hair which will always grow out again to its normal colour and texture, so too is a person's innate sexual nature always there. A gay person in an opposite-sex relationship is living a lie.

Snake Tongue, is hair natural? Are cutting, dyeing, and permanent waves natural?

 

[SnakeTongue]

That's the problem with you. You keep moving the goalposts from "1 example" to "30,000 examples" and from "may" to "must". Who cares ? Yes, it MAY strengthen bonds. Isn't that good enough ? Since when must something be 100% certain in order to work ?

No, it is not good enough. Bond strengthening already happens without the presence of homosexuals.

People who get along are more likely to help one another. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

You did not presented an answer explaining the "inclusive fitness" or "altruist trait" of a homosexual.

Fail.

Evidence, please.

How many times will be necessary I post the same evidence which I have already presented?

http://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=436&year=2009

Q: Geoffrey Toyes and Jefry Cohen in NJ (Higher Education grade other): Hi, My friend and I are gay. With all the current controversy about homosexuality, has there been any research linking sexual orientation to genes?

A: Barry H. Thompson, M.D., M.S.:
In a very general sense, some studies indicate that there may be a considerable genetic component to sexual orientation. However, there is no known gene for "homosexuality." Sexual orientation, no matter the genetic make-up of an individual, likely is a very complex matter.

-

From that post I gleaned this:

"Ordinary course of biological nature" is pretty much a synonym for "natural" so it doesn't quite work. If you meant "found in nature" then your point has already been answered.

No, it is not. If it was, the "ordinary" word would be useless in the definition.

No, I do not mean that.

I already have and you STILL ignored it. People use logs are chairs all the time, and yet it wasn't meant for it, etc.

In nature, the only thing something is "designed" for is the thing it is used for. So if, say, a penis, is used for something else than reproduction, then I don't see why it's wrong of unnatural even if its primary purpose is reproduction.

Please, provide evidence which proves that:

Lions use it penis to dig holes
Elephant use it ears to fly
Saw fish use it nose to cut wood

Please, provide evidence that "sexual dimorphism" did not have any effect in the evolutionary process of the species.

 

[SnakeTongue]

The way i see it, one's sexual orientation is akin to the hair on one's head. Most of us have hair on our head, but naturally it comes as thick or thin; it comes in straight, wavy and curly variants; it comes in colours ranging from black, brown, blond, and red, with the colour disappearing to grey and white as we age. This is akin to one's sexual orientation. We're born with it. A homosexual man no more chose that orientation than he chose his hair texture and colour. Now we can choose to do a lot with our hair. We can grow it long, cut it short, or keep somewhere in between. Is it straight and you want it wavy or curly? Is it light and you want it darker? Dark and you want it blond? A hairdresser has chemicals that can do all that. This is akin to one's sexual expression.

What would be a "bald" person in your analogy?

Gay people can act straight; I know several gay men who were married to women, and conceived and raised children. (For the most part the kids turned out OK, even if the marriages eventually failed.)

If this several people was married and even had children with natural sex, they were heterosexual or bisexuals before become "gays".

On occasion, straight people try gay sex for a number of reasons: to see what it's like and because they get paid for it are two that come to mind.

That "straight" people are bisexuals, not "straight".

But like hair which will always grow out again to its normal colour and texture, so too is a person's innate sexual nature always there. A gay person in an opposite-sex relationship is living a lie.

So why the "gay" people like to live lies if no one had forced them to have a relationship with a person of the opposite gender?

Snake Tongue, is hair natural? Are cutting, dyeing, and permanent waves natural?

Hair is natural and it is an inheritable genetic trait.

Homosexualism is not natural and it is not an inheritable genetic trait.

Your analogy is fallacious because compare two things which do not share the same characteristics.

 

[JFrankA]

I did not said anything like that...

What is happening, JFrankA? Still dazzled with my "snake oil"?

There. Fixed it for you.

No, I am in no way dazzled.

I noticed that you never ever addressed any questions in my dispute of your "Homosexual conduct is unnatural because" list. In fact, you completely ignored that post.

Seems to me you are the one that is "dazzled" by serious, challenging questions to your opinions.

 

[Belz...]

SnakeTongue is Masturbation unnatural behavior?
it doesn't lead to reproduction.

I second this question.

 

[Belz...]

No, it is not good enough. Bond strengthening already happens without the presence of homosexuals.

Not to that extent and not between members of the same sex.

You did not presented an answer explaining the "inclusive fitness" or "altruist trait" of a homosexual.

Fail.

What ? I fail at something you thought I should've done ?

How many times will be necessary I post the same evidence which I have already presented?

So no "known" gene for homosexuality leads you to claim there isn't one.

No, it is not. If it was, the "ordinary" word would be useless in the definition.

I'm sorry, I can't parse your sentence. Could you rephrase ?

No, I do not mean that.

Then I have no idea what you mean by "unnatural".

Lions use it penis to dig holes
Elephant use it ears to fly
Saw fish use it nose to cut wood

Why do I need to show evidence for stuff that YOU want ? You said homosexuals did not use their penises for their intended purpose. I have shown you that 1) things can be used for other purposes than their mean purpose and that 2) the purpose of a thing is the thing it's being used for.

Feel free to keep moving those goalposts.

Please, provide evidence that "sexual dimorphism" did not have any effect in the evolutionary process of the species.

What does that have to do with this thread ?

 

[Alan]

Bald people would be asexuals in that story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

 

[Alan]

If this several people was married and even had children with natural sex, they were heterosexual or bisexuals before become "gays".

According to behavioural definitions, but not necessarily according to attraction/arousal definitions.

That "straight" people are bisexuals, not "straight".

Behaviourally, not necessarily according to attraction/arousal definitions.

So why the "gay" people like to live lies if no one had forced them to have a relationship with a person of the opposite gender?

There's a lot of social pressure. Not necessarily "forced" per se, but there can be a lot of pressure to appear heterosexual.

Hair is natural and it is an inheritable genetic trait.

Homosexualism is not natural and it is not an inheritable genetic trait.

Your analogy is fallacious because compare two things which do not share the same characteristics.

Ugh. You go on and on about "natural" despite being corrected.

 

[Belz...]

It is homosexuality a choice?

For some people it is a matter of choice, to another it is not a matter of choice.

That's an amazingly useless assertion.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ron_Tomkins, lets start on the base that you are right and homosexual sex is natural because sex with infants can lead to reproduction. That means anyone can choose to rip off a child's vagina/anus by their own free will. Fine.

Scenario: I've kidnapped you and I'm pointing a gun at you. I say "make that little girl pregnant with your penis right now or I shoot you in the head"

What do you do?

Do you concede my demand and become a child abuser or do you have me shoot you?

(Please notice this is not the same as forcing you to have homosexual sex, which does not require you to actually like it. You can have sex forced and in fact, that's what rape is all about. What I'm asking you is if you can decide to rip off a little girl's vagina to make her pregnant you didn't originally feel attracted to, out of pure willful choice on your part)

I don't know which one is more ironic: 1) The fact that you have ignored my scenario no matter how many hundreds of times I reposted it in this thread, yet you think it's perfectly okay to copy/paste it, change a few words and address it back at me (As if that was gonna make your argument any stronger), or 2) The fact that your pathetic version of my own scenario, does nothing but continue to prove my point: That sexual orientations and desires cannot be chosen. You can't choose to be a homosexual and you can't choose to be a pedophile. So pointing a gun at me and forcing me to have sex with an underage girl will not accomplish me changing my sexual inclinations. Forcing me at gunpoint to have sex with a man will not accomplish me changing my sexual inclinations. Sexual orientation cannot be consciously chosen.

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.

Did you completely miss how many times we've told you that masturbation is a natural act that does not have the purpose of natural fertilization? Your argument that sexual activities that don't have the purpose of natural fertilization are therefore unnatural is null.

3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

Sex between a heterosexual couple can also transmit different sexual diseases. Sorry but try with a better one next time.

Your understanding and handling of this subject is the one of a 5 year old.

 

[Blue Mountain]

What would be a "bald" person in your analogy?

As other have mentioned, asexual. They're probably rather rare, but they exist.

If this several people was married and even had children with natural sex, they were heterosexual or bisexuals before become "gays".

Here we diverge. These people will tell you they were always gay (homosexual orientation) but out of ignorance or a desire to conform acted in a heterosexual fashion, the same way a person with brown or grey hair dyes it to a different colour.

On occasion, straight people try gay sex for a number of reasons: to see what it's like and because they get paid for it are two that come to mind.

That "straight" people are bisexuals, not "straight".

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say.

But like hair which will always grow out again to its normal colour and texture, so too is a person's innate sexual nature always there. A gay person in an opposite-sex relationship is living a lie.

So why the "gay" people like to live lies if no one had forced them to have a relationship with a person of the opposite gender?

But they are forced to, primarily by homophobic bigots who won't let them live with or marry a person of their preferred gender. The forcing can be cultural, legal, or both. In Canada, homosexual sex was a criminal act until 1969. In some countries one can be executed for having sex with a person of the same gender. And those laws exist because of people who think it's not natural, and so they try to stamp it out by passing laws making homosexual acts illegal and by blocking attempts to reform the law to same-sex marriages.

Hair is natural and it is an inheritable genetic trait.

Homosexualism is not natural and it is not an inheritable genetic trait.

Your analogy is fallacious because compare two things which do not share the same characteristics.

Herein we disagree. Homosexuality may not be inheritable (same as things like congenital birth defects--cleft palates, missing limbs, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, etc) but the evidence is strongly in favour of it being congenital (that is, present at birth.)

 

[Emet]

One more time:

Homosexual conduct is unnatural because:

1. The inappropriate use of the genitals (or artificial genitals).
2. Do not have the purpose of natural fertilization.
3. Increase the chances to transmit and/or acquire different diseases.

Heterosexuals:
1. Engage in the very same 'inappropriate' use of their genitals. Every. Single. Day.
2. None of the conduct implied in #1 has the purpose of natural fertilization--whether homosexual or heterosexual.
3. Disease transmission depends on the number of partners one has, and what, if any precautions one may take (in the case of humans)
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?

 

[kuroyume0161]

One more time:

And the response will be 'lalalallalalallalala'. His glasses of invicibility are welded to his head and he can't see anything but 'homosexuality is unnatural'. Thus my statement about 'dust' and 'wind'. He should read some So-crates.. dude...

 

[SnakeTongue]

Not to that extent and not between members of the same sex.

What ? I fail at something you thought I should've done ?

Anyway... Look like you did not explained where exactly homosexuality fits in the theory of evolution.

Oh yes, you fail.

So no "known" gene for homosexuality leads you to claim there isn't one.

It is the biggest scientific project of genetics which are doing the claim, not me.

I'm sorry, I can't parse your sentence. Could you rephrase ?

Then I have no idea what you mean by "unnatural".

No, I am done with the dispute of "natural" and "unnatural"

Why do I need to show evidence for stuff that YOU want ? You said homosexuals did not use their penises for their intended purpose. I have shown you that 1) things can be used for other purposes than their mean purpose and that 2) the purpose of a thing is the thing it's being used for.

Feel free to keep moving those goalposts.

What does that have to do with this thread ?

Look like you cannot understand the nature's purpose to our biological morphology.

I am done with you.

 

[SnakeTongue]

There. Fixed it for you.

No, I am in no way dazzled.

I noticed that you never ever addressed any questions in my dispute of your "Homosexual conduct is unnatural because" list. In fact, you completely ignored that post.

Seems to me you are the one that is "dazzled" by serious, challenging questions to your opinions.

I am really exhausted to explain again and again and again...

If you wish to keep the dispute of "natural" and "unnatural", present examples of what is "unnatural".

 

[Alt+F4]

And the response will be 'lalalallalalallalala'. His glasses of invicibility are welded to his head and he can't see anything but 'homosexuality is unnatural'. Thus my statement about 'dust' and 'wind'. He should read some So-crates.. dude...

Homosexuality is unatural because he says it is. End of story.

 

[SnakeTongue]

According to behavioural definitions, but not necessarily according to attraction/arousal definitions.

Behaviourally, not necessarily according to attraction/arousal definitions.

All right. Which are the definitions of "attraction/arousal"?

There's a lot of social pressure. Not necessarily "forced" per se, but there can be a lot of pressure to appear heterosexual.

So husbands that embrace the "gay" behaviour after a long marriage were originally "heterosexuals". From a long time ago men always had the freedom to choose to engange in a relationship.

That is the so called patriarchy which the feminists whine about.

Ugh. You go on and on about "natural" despite being corrected.

I am not here to be correct. This is not a classroom. This is a forum in the cyberspace to debate.

Just one user had presented good examples of what is "unnatural" to dispute my definition.