Homosexuality is a choice

[JFrankA]

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?

This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.

There may not be a gene (we haven't found one yet), but there is no gene for "liking chocolate ice cream" either. It's a mixture of several different things going on that may include genes, especially since having a gene for one thing may have a side effect on another. E.g. Blue eyes are a side effect of having melanin in the skin.

Also, there are ways the neurons in the brain are set up and connected, which people often use the term "wired", to make an outcome.

Can a person choose to be left handed? No. An right handed infant will use her/his right hand instinctively. Now one can train to be left handed but no matter how much one trains, a right handed person will instinctively choose their right hand.

Basic sexual attraction is the same thing. Bikerdruid and other men like him are basically attracted to men. It's like being left handed or it's like chocolate ice cream and not vanilla.

Let me ask you this: I am attracted to black haired, blue eyed women. Olivia Wilde in the upcoming movie Tron is drop dead sexy and irresistible to me. However, when she appears in her normal look in the television show she stars in, I am not attracted to her as intensely. Yeah, she's good looking, but not nearly as captivating to me when she's in the short hair and blue eyes.

Am I not attracted to women now?

Here's another question. My girlfriend is heterosexual. If you were to ask her, she is very heterosexual. However, in certain circumstance, with certain people, she would have sex with another woman.

I ask you, is she bisexual?

I am heterosexual. However, in certain circumstances, it would turn me on to watch a bunch of men have sex with my girlfriend.

I ask you, am I bisexual?

Let's take it down a step. I hate bananas. Don't like them in cakes, don't like them alone, don't like banana splits, etc. So I am an "anti-banana eater". But I do like banana bread. I will eat banana bread with butter. That's the only time I'll eat anything that tastes like bananas.

I ask you, do I still not like bananas?

The point is this: You are simplifying the whole issue. You say something to effect of "ah, there is no 'homosexual gene' so it's not natural to be homosexual" yet, you are ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FACTORS IN.

Living beings, especially the higher functioning ones, such as mammals, etc, are very complex. Things are not black and white like you are trying to lump them into. Attraction has a base that is just is. That can change temporarily depending on circumstances, people involved, conditions and state of mind at the time. However, the basic thing that a person desires does not change. When it comes to emotion and reaction, nothing is black and white.

Now I'm sure you haven't read this, or maybe you skimmed it, looking for "evidence" and quotes, not see any and you are going to do your ignoring and dismissing dodge that you have been pulling since you started pontificating. You are off in your own little world. And I'm sorry, what a sad, terrible place it is because it's so limited.

 

[JFrankA]

All right.

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

I will add to the list.

*golf clap* Nice job. Very nice twisting what I said. You must have been selling snake oil and straw men for a long time.

That is not what I said. Not even close. I know because I was careful in my choice of words.

Here, let me show you:

1.

Using sex for only procreation.

is not same as

Sex only for procreation is unnatural.

In my quote, what I imply is that if a species uses sex only for procreation and not for any other purpose, e.g. 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".

In your quote, what you imply is that having sex to procreate is not natural.

You made a dishonest, misrepresentation of what I said. But in fairness, I will let that side, because I may not have been clear enough.

However:
2.

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.

and

Sex only for pleasure is unnatural.

is definately NOT what I said. You ignored the word "Believing" and ignored EVERYTHING IN THE STATEMENT other than the word "pleasure".

This is an out and out misrepresentation and a lie on your part. You are arguing dishonestly. There is no way to trust anything you say now, not your resources, not your observations, certainly not you.

You do not have poison, you have snake oil.

The qualities? Yes, I know.

If you really know what those logical fallacies are and still use them incorrectly on purpose, that shows that you are dishonest and don't care about the truth.

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

Based on your track record, you are purposely missing what I am saying.

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

Because it is a group discussion.

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

Stop dodging, get some guts to defend your position when it's challenged. I gave an example in detail. Do you have the courage to answer it honestly or are you going to be a coward and dodge again because you clearly can't back your opinion?

Here is the example again. Is this kind of sex "natural" or not?

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.

 

[SnakeTongue]

This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.

All right, a person is basically attracted to something.

There may not be a gene (we haven't found one yet), but there is no gene for "liking chocolate ice cream" either. (...)

Yet? How much faith is necessary to find it?

(...) It's a mixture of several different things going on that may include genes, especially since having a gene for one thing may have a side effect on another. E.g. Blue eyes are a side effect of having melanin in the skin.

Also, there are ways the neurons in the brain are set up and connected, which people often use the term "wired", to make an outcome.

Yes, that is defined as brain plasticity.

Can a person choose to be left handed? No. An right handed infant will use her/his right hand instinctively. Now one can train to be left handed but no matter how much one trains, a right handed person will instinctively choose their right hand.

Basic sexual attraction is the same thing. Bikerdruid and other men like him are basically attracted to men. It's like being left handed or it's like chocolate ice cream and not vanilla.

Male attracted to another male means homosexual.

Thank you by help answer the original question.

Let me ask you this: I am attracted to black haired, blue eyed women. Olivia Wilde in the upcoming movie Tron is drop dead sexy and irresistible to me. However, when she appears in her normal look in the television show she stars in, I am not attracted to her as intensely. Yeah, she's good looking, but not nearly as captivating to me when she's in the short hair and blue eyes.

Am I not attracted to women now?

I do not know. Are you not?

Here's another question. My girlfriend is heterosexual. If you were to ask her, she is very heterosexual. However, in certain circumstance, with certain people, she would have sex with another woman.

I ask you, is she bisexual?

Oh yes, she is.

I am heterosexual. However, in certain circumstances, it would turn me on to watch a bunch of men have sex with my girlfriend.

I ask you, am I bisexual?

If you do not engage sexual intercourse or do not wish to engage in sexual intercourse with men, you are not.

In this case, voyeurism is part of you sexual orientation.

Let's take it down a step. I hate bananas. Don't like them in cakes, don't like them alone, don't like banana splits, etc. So I am an "anti-banana eater". But I do like banana bread. I will eat banana bread with butter. That's the only time I'll eat anything that tastes like bananas.

I ask you, do I still not like bananas?

Yes, you still do not like bananas, but you still like banana bread.

The point is this: You are simplifying the whole issue. You say something to effect of "ah, there is no 'homosexual gene' so it's not natural to be homosexual" yet, you are ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FACTORS IN.

What is everything else?

Living beings, especially the higher functioning ones, such as mammals, etc, are very complex. Things are not black and white like you are trying to lump them into. Attraction has a base that is just is. That can change temporarily depending on circumstances, people involved, conditions and state of mind at the time. However, the basic thing that a person desires does not change. When it comes to emotion and reaction, nothing is black and white.

Your voyeuristic desire does not change? Do you have this desire since your childhood?

Now I'm sure you haven't read this, or maybe you skimmed it, looking for "evidence" and quotes, not see any and you are going to do your ignoring and dismissing dodge that you have been pulling since you started pontificating. You are off in your own little world. And I'm sorry, what a sad, terrible place it is because it's so limited.

Why you like so much to appeal to ad hominem?

 

[Belz...]

You are doing the claims, not me.

"Homosexuality is a choice" is not a claim ?

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.

And once you check the sources you'd see that her claims are bull. Did you check the sources ?

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

There is no such thing as an official institution of science. There is the mechanism of peer-review.

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?

Copy and paste ? I gave you two links and you hand-waved them. Why should I believe you'll read anything I put up here ?

Which are the other ways? Could you provide examples?

I already HAVE, Snaketongue. Masturbation, for one, homosexual behaviour, for two. Urinating, for three.

No can't anywhere...

Now you are being fully dishonest. "Could not" and "can not" are not equivalent, here ? You could not but you can ? What kind of dodgy nonsense is that ?

 

[Belz...]

Because I do not really wish adopt a homosexual behaviour.

That was not the question. This is the third time you are evading it. What are you so afraid of ?

For the record, even if I WISHED to adopt a homosexual behaviour, I would still not be a homosexual because that's not who I am. Again, can YOU adopt this behaviour or not ? It's a choice, isn't it ? I'm not asking you if you wish it, but if you CAN.

 

[Belz...]

Why you like so much to appeal to ad hominem?

That was not an ad hominem. Perhaps you should work on your knowledge of skeptical thinking, first. Oh, and grammar, too.

 

[JFrankA]

All right, a person is basically attracted to something.

Good start. Now the argument is can that basic attraction be chosen?

Can you prove that it is?

Yet? How much faith is necessary to find it?

Why does it require faith? It's an unknown. Searching for possibilities does not require faith, it's just looking. That's science.

Up until a few years ago, we did not know that there were planets outside of our solar system, but we kept searching for them to find out if they did exist. The technology got better, etc, and we found planets.

Same thing.

Yes, that is defined as brain plasticity.

Okay, I'll go along with that. However, that does not prove that it's a choice. All that it shows is that a basic attraction to something comes from a bunch of different things. It doesn't prove that it didn't come from a gene, nor does it prove that it isn't affected by one or a set of genes. Also, it doesn't prove the attraction to the same sex is not "natural". Because if the brain can "wired", for lack of a better word, to be basically attracted to a member of the same gender, then it must use the same process to be "wired" to be attracted to a member of the opposite gender.

Male attracted to another male means homosexual.

Thank you by help answer the original question.

Then why do you do question that definition when others use it in that way? Also, you seem to forget women can be homosexual too.

I do not know. Are you not?

Well, here's the question: I wouldn't be all that attracted to Olivia Wilde when she is not in short black hair. If she came on to me as Olivia Wilde without the short black hair, I don't think I'd accept.

Is that being homosexual?

Oh yes, she is.

Funny, she says she's not. So she can't choose to say she's heterosexual. So does that mean she has no choice to be heterosexual?

If you do not engage sexual intercourse or do not wish to engage in sexual intercourse with men, you are not.

But what if I wanted to join in with all the men? I mean, I'd be with my girl (I'm trying to make this a non-NSFW as possible), but other men would be performing with her too.

Am I homosexual now?

In this case, voyeurism is part of you sexual orientation.

No, that's a misuse of the words "sexual orientation". It's actually called a sexual "-phile".

Sexual orientation is:

one's natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

And by that definition, my girlfriend is NOT bisexual, because her predilection is for heterosexuality.

So again, is she heterosexual, or bisexual?

Yes, you still do not like bananas, but you still like banana bread.

Ah, so the fact that I like banana bread but don't like bananas still makes me a person who doesn't like bananas so my basic likes (or dislikes in this case) doesn't change, I haven't chosen to like bananas now, just in that circumstance.

So if a man who isn't basically attracted to women, may find a woman attractive, that doesn't mean he's chosen to change his basic attractions. Indeed, they are still there and not his "choice".

What is everything else?

Open your eyes and look around you. You mentioned one of the "everything else" things in this post.

Your voyeuristic desire does not change? Do you have this desire since your childhood?

Yes. Just as I have known since childhood that I am attracted to women. Just as I had desires for other sexual -philes since childhood.

Why you like so much to appeal to ad hominem?

I am man enough and honest enough to admit that last part did have an ad hominem to it.

Are you man enough and honest enough to admit that you made a straw man what I listed as unnatural?

Oh, I see you did not reply to that part of my previous post.....

That says a lot.

 

[SnakeTongue]

*golf clap* Nice job. Very nice twisting what I said. You must have been selling snake oil and straw men for a long time.

That is not what I said. Not even close. I know because I was careful in my choice of words.

Here, let me show you:

1.

is not same as

In my quote, what I imply is that if a species uses sex only for procreation and not for any other purpose, e.g. 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".

In your quote, what you imply is that having sex to procreate is not natural.

You made a dishonest, misrepresentation of what I said. But in fairness, I will let that side, because I may not have been clear enough.

All right. So you example is?

1. Sex only for procreation without emotions and pleasure (bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love) is unnatural.

That is it?

However:
2.

and

is definately NOT what I said. You ignored the word "Believing" and ignored EVERYTHING IN THE STATEMENT other than the word "pleasure".

This is an out and out misrepresentation and a lie on your part. You are arguing dishonestly. There is no way to trust anything you say now, not your resources, not your observations, certainly not you.

You do not have poison, you have snake oil.

All right. I will not consider as example.

If you really know what those logical fallacies are and still use them incorrectly on purpose, that shows that you are dishonest and don't care about the truth.

What truth?

Based on your track record, you are purposely missing what I am saying.

I am purposely typing that I not welcome you to interrupt questions not directed for you or about you.

Because it is a group discussion.

All right.

Stop dodging, get some guts to defend your position when it's challenged. I gave an example in detail. Do you have the courage to answer it honestly or are you going to be a coward and dodge again because you clearly can't back your opinion?

Excuse me, but I typed: It depends on how the sexual conduct is performed and which partners have the respective diseases.

Which part did you not understand?

Here is the example again. Is this kind of sex "natural" or not?

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.

I asked examples, not disputes of definitions. That is a example of unnatural sexual intercourse or not?

 

[alfaniner]

Masturbation is unnatural because do not use the genitals in an appropriate manner.

Then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Alt+F4]

Masturbation is unnatural because do not use the genitals in an appropriate manner.

Good god, it's the sex police!

I guess if a penis touchs anything other than a vigina it's UNATURAL!. If a penis accidentally touchs a clitoris...UNNATURAL! If a mouth comes in contact with a nipple....UNNATURAL!

Snake, do you realize how silly you appear or are you someone that has never had a sexual encounter with another human being? I'm not trying to be mean, but your arguments are ridiculous.

 

[SnakeTongue]

"Homosexuality is a choice" is not a claim ?

It is a claim.

And once you check the sources you'd see that her claims are bull. Did you check the sources ?

Yes, few days ago.

There is no such thing as an official institution of science. There is the mechanism of peer-review.

What is a mechanism of peer-review?

Copy and paste ? I gave you two links and you hand-waved them. Why should I believe you'll read anything I put up here ?

Yes, copy and paste.

I do not know.

I already HAVE, Snaketongue. Masturbation, for one, homosexual behaviour, for two. Urinating, for three.

All right.

Genitals are designed for the use of procreation and also for:

1. Masturbation (sex)
2. Homosexual behaviour (sex)
3. Urinating (no sex)

Very good list. May I add the fact that few insects use the genitals as potential weapons?

4. Kill (no sex)

That was very good examples.

Anything else?

Now you are being fully dishonest. "Could not" and "can not" are not equivalent, here ? You could not but you can ? What kind of dodgy nonsense is that ?

Verbs.

 

[SnakeTongue]

That was not the question. This is the third time you are evading it. What are you so afraid of ?

I am not afraid of anything.

For the record, even if I WISHED to adopt a homosexual behaviour, I would still not be a homosexual because that's not who I am. Again, can YOU adopt this behaviour or not ? It's a choice, isn't it ? I'm not asking you if you wish it, but if you CAN.

No, I cannot adopt this behaviour at this moment.

It can be a choice.

That was not an ad hominem. Perhaps you should work on your knowledge of skeptical thinking, first. Oh, and grammar, too.

It was.

You also like to defend comments not made for you? Group discussion? With who you are grouping here?

 

[Belz...]

This is the crux of your major mistake. Again, a person is basically attracted to something. Whatever caused it, genes, pre-birth fluids, brain shape, neuron mapping, a mixing of all that plus upbringing whatever, it doesn't matter. A person is basically attracted to a gender or a type of person. Just like one person love chocolate ice cream and another hates it.

There may not be a gene (we haven't found one yet), but there is no gene for "liking chocolate ice cream" either.

Exactly this.

 

[Belz...]

It is a claim.

So your comment that you weren't making a claim was a lie, then.

What is a mechanism of peer-review?

Look it up. It's what separates real science litterature from the popular kind.

I do not know.

That shoudl get you thinking. If people have no reason to expect you to be reasonable because you gave them reasons to believe otherwise, then you are not likely to have productive conversations with them.

All right.

Genitals are designed for the use of procreation and also for:

1. Masturbation (sex)
2. Homosexual behaviour (sex)
3. Urinating (no sex)

Very good list. May I add the fact that few insects use the genitals as potential weapons?

4. Kill (no sex)

That was very good examples.

Anything else?

So far, so good. You have admitted that genitals can be used naturally for things other than procreation. So now the question becomes: why doesn't homosexuality fit in that list, in your opinion ?

No, I cannot adopt this behaviour at this moment.

It can be a choice.

Make up your mind. Either it's a choice and you CAN, or you CANNOT and it's not a matter of choice. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

It was.

You also like to defend comments not made for you?

I'm allergic to nonsense, no matter who it's directed against. Insults are not ad hominems. Look it up.

 

[DC]

Because I do not really wish adopt a homosexual behaviour.

but if you wished, you would be able to change the gender you feel attracted to?
Or do you feel attracted by both genders now already?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Good start. Now the argument is can that basic attraction be chosen?

Can you prove that it is?

What would be a basic attraction? It is just one?

Why does it require faith? It's an unknown. Searching for possibilities does not require faith, it's just looking. That's science.

Faith is required when science has show in the last decade of researching that no gay gene was found and no serious scientific project are doing any progress.

Up until a few years ago, we did not know that there were planets outside of our solar system, but we kept searching for them to find out if they did exist. The technology got better, etc, and we found planets.

Same thing.

Completely different things...

Okay, I'll go along with that. However, that does not prove that it's a choice. All that it shows is that a basic attraction to something comes from a bunch of different things. It doesn't prove that it didn't come from a gene, nor does it prove that it isn't affected by one or a set of genes. Also, it doesn't prove the attraction to the same sex is not "natural".

It proves that a change happens in the human sexual behaviour, whatever how this changed had happened.

Because if the brain can "wired", for lack of a better word, to be basically attracted to a member of the same gender, then it must use the same process to be "wired" to be attracted to a member of the opposite gender.

How do you know that?

Then why do you do question that definition when others use it in that way? Also, you seem to forget women can be homosexual too.

I did not understand your question.

Well, here's the question: I wouldn't be all that attracted to Olivia Wilde when she is not in short black hair. If she came on to me as Olivia Wilde without the short black hair, I don't think I'd accept.

Is that being homosexual?

No, it is not.

Funny, she says she's not. So she can't choose to say she's heterosexual. So does that mean she has no choice to be heterosexual?

No, does not mean that.

That means she choose say whatever she wish to say.

To say and to be are different.

But what if I wanted to join in with all the men? I mean, I'd be with my girl (I'm trying to make this a non-NSFW as possible), but other men would be performing with her too.

Am I homosexual now?

No.

No, that's a misuse of the words "sexual orientation". It's actually called a sexual "-phile".

Sexual orientation is:

I disagree with that definition.

And by that definition, my girlfriend is NOT bisexual, because her predilection is for heterosexuality.

So again, is she heterosexual, or bisexual?

The definition of the sexual orientation is made in accordance with the attraction to something.

She is attracted to males and females.

Bisexual.

yes, you still do not like bananas, but you still like banana bread.

Ah, so the fact that I like banana bread but don't like bananas still makes me a person who doesn't like bananas so my basic likes (or dislikes in this case) doesn't change, I haven't chosen to like bananas now, just in that circumstance.

So if a man who isn't basically attracted to women, may find a woman attractive, that doesn't mean he's chosen to change his basic attractions. Indeed, they are still there and not his "choice".

What fruit would represent the absence of attraction (asexual)?

Open your eyes and look around you. You mentioned one of the "everything else" things in this post.

I did not read everything else in this post.

Yes. Just as I have known since childhood that I am attracted to women. Just as I had desires for other sexual -philes since childhood.

All right.

I am man enough and honest enough to admit that last part did have an ad hominem to it.

Are you man enough and honest enough to admit that you made a straw man what I listed as unnatural?

No comments

Oh, I see you did not reply to that part of my previous post.....
That says a lot.

Which part?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Then you're doing it wrong.

What are I am doing?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Good god, it's the sex police!

I guess if a penis touchs anything other than a vigina it's UNATURAL!. If a penis accidentally touchs a clitoris...UNNATURAL! If a mouth comes in contact with a nipple....UNNATURAL!

Snake, do you realize how silly you appear or are you someone that has never had a sexual encounter with another human being? I'm not trying to be mean, but your arguments are ridiculous.

No, I do not.

Can I add your examples of unnatural events to the list?

 

[SnakeTongue]

So your comment that you weren't making a claim was a lie, then..

I do not endorse your conclusion.

Look it up. It's what separates real science litterature from the popular kind.

New Scientist magazine is popular kind or real science literature?

That shoudl get you thinking. If people have no reason to expect you to be reasonable because you gave them reasons to believe otherwise, then you are not likely to have productive conversations with them.

Whatever...

All right.

So far, so good. You have admitted that genitals can be used naturally for things other than procreation. So now the question becomes: why doesn't homosexuality fit in that list, in your opinion ?

I did not typed naturally anywhere in that post.

Make up your mind. Either it's a choice and you CAN, or you CANNOT and it's not a matter of choice. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

I already made.

I'm allergic to nonsense, no matter who it's directed against.

What are you doing here? You should be far away if my non-sense irritates you.

Insults are not ad hominems. Look it up.

Look it up? Where?

 

[Belz...]

I do not endorse your conclusion.

Let's see:

You are doing the claims, not me.

"Homosexuality is a choice" is not a claim ?

It is a claim.

So your comment that you weren't making a claim was a lie, then.

So basically you're not making a claim; then I repeat your claim which you admit is a claim, meaning that your assertion that it wasn't one was a lie, and you do not endorse your conclusion ? Are you now saying that you forgot your own opinion ?

Whatever...

Of course. How naive of me to expect you to reflect upon your own behaviour.

I did not typed naturally anywhere in that post.

Of course you did, implicitely, since that was the very point of the question you were answering. Your word games are idiotic and juvenile.

I already made.

That's not a full sentence.

What are you doing here? You should be far away if my non-sense irritates you.

You may be able to tolerate lies and idiocy, but I feel obligated to adress it in order to reduce the amount of it that's found in the world. Your suggestion that I leave shows how little integrity you have.

Look it up? Where?

You do know about search engines, right ?