Homosexuality is a choice

[SnakeTongue]

Let's see:

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 ?

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

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

That's not a full sentence.

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.

You do know about search engines, right ?

Your insults are not helping the debate.

New Scientist magazine is popular kind or real science literature?

 

[kuroyume0161]

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

????

The Caduceus is used as a symbol of medicine in the USA (even if mistakenly used). The Rod of Asclepius is more apropo for sure but there is still a boat load of irony in your avatar and this entire discussion.

 

[SnakeTongue]

????

The Caduceus is used as a symbol of medicine in the USA (even if mistakenly used). The Rod of Asclepius is more apropo for sure but there is still a boat load of irony in your avatar and this entire discussion.

That is what is strange, the Caduceus is not a appropriate symbol for medicine. You are quite right, the Rod of Asclepius would be more appropriate.

Why my avatar is a boat load of irony to the entire discussion?

 

[Arcade22]

The logical extremity of the whole "It's a choice" line of thought is that we homosexuals can be rewired and "fixed". If we did choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex there would be no real ethical problem for them to tell kids and adults alike everywhere that we should stop "being gay" and become "perfectly normal heterosexual people" since we all know how "immoral, bad, disgusting and blablala" homosexuality really is, which many parents, teachers and all kinds of worthless rabble do today and in the process cause endless grief and pain in their victims.

It's essentially just an Ad Hoc justification for their hatred of homosexuals because, since "it's a choice", we homosexuals could simply stop being gay and therefore we wouldn't suffer discrimination, murder, assault, burning with hot pokers, lynchings, corrective rape, being buried alive or any other colorful things Christians and all kinds of disgusting cretins fantasize about.

 

[JFrankA]

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

I admit that "basic attraction" is a term I'm using for lack of a better one. What I mean by "basic attraction" in the terms of sexual attraction is the attraction to something that goes without thinking, may distract one's thoughts at the time, that sort of thing. If someone can come up with a better term and explanation, please do.

That kind of reaction can not change.

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.

Oh, so how long is the time limit on research? Ten years? Really? If something is not proven in ten years, that's it, it's scientifically correct to stop?

By the way, you're wrong. There has been some proof that a gene change can influence sexual orientation in fruit flies.

Completely different things...

You keep asking for examples and you keep rejecting them. That was an example of how, for hundreds of years, we hypothesized that something existed, but could not prove it or find it. We finally found it to be true several years ago.

I'm speaking in this example of scientific study, how is this different from that?

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

Behavior, maybe. Sadly, plenty of gay people have changed their behavior to satisfy society. However, the orientation never changes.

How do you know that?

Logic. If someone can be sexually attracted to the same sex because of a combination of genes, pre-natal fluids, "wiring" of the neurons during pregnancy, environment, etc, then the same process can produce the opposite result or something in between.

I did not understand your question.

You said:

Male attracted to another male means homosexual.

Your definition leaves out females attracted to females. Homosexuality works with all genders.

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.

So she is bisexual, she has no choice, she may call herself heterosexual, but her basic attraction is bisexual. Her sexual orientation, no matter what she calls herself is not a choice?

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.

How about bisexual? At what point would you call me homosexual? If, during the example above, I purposely touched another man?

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

I disagree with that definition.[/quote]

Too bad. Deal with it. That is the definition of "sexual orientation".

How you defined it:

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

Is wrong.

She is attracted to males and females.

Bisexual.

So what if she found females attractive yet never ever has sex with any of them, is she still bisexual?

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

Going with the analogy, an asexual person wouldn't like any fruit. But still my point remains. I do like banana bread but still doesn't like bananas. The basic like and dislike does not change. The only reason why I like banana bread is because of the other ingredients, (or circumstances, if you will) that allows me to like the bread. It does not mean I have made the choice to like bananas now. I still wouldn't eat one.

I did not read everything else in this post.

I said:

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.

One of the things you mentioned was brain plasticity. That factors in. There was a posting of how pre-natal fluids affect how the neurons are wired, there's also the fact that there may not be a gene, but a combination of genes may affect how one is sexually orientated, there's also environment factors, in others everything else.

The point I was making is that the logic of "there is no homosexual gene, therefore being attracted to the same gender is not natural" is very flawed.

No comments

Which part?

That speaks volumes.

 

[Mycroft]

The logical extremity of the whole "It's a choice" line of thought is that we homosexuals can be rewired and "fixed". If we did choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex there would be no real ethical problem for them to tell kids and adults alike everywhere that we should stop "being gay" and become "perfectly normal heterosexual people" since we all know how "immoral, bad, disgusting and blablala" homosexuality really is, which many parents, teachers and all kinds of worthless rabble do today and in the process cause endless grief and pain in their victims.

Well, except if homosexuality is just a choice that would imply that heterosexuality is just a choice too. Once you accept that then there is no empirical reason why one choice is better than the other that doesn't rely on some religious doctrine. Far from being an excuse to discriminate it should be a reason not to discriminate. If someone's personal faith tells them some dead-guy from two-thousand years ago really cares who they find sexually attractive, that's their choice, but the rest of us have the freedom to disagree and make the choices for ourselves.

 

[JFrankA]

All right. So you example is?

1. A person using sex only for procreation and not for 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?

Close. I fixed it for you.

The second example of unnatural to me is, to be clear, is someone believing that sex is only for procreation without and not pleasure, or bonding, forgiveness, pleasure, sharing an experience, to have fun, to release tension, to relax, or even for a simple act to show of love.

All right. I will not consider as example.

Thank you.

What truth?

That's what we are debating to find out.

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

Too bad. Welcome to the forums. This is a discussion. Whatever one says here is fair game for others to comment on, support, clarify, etc. Happens to everyone who posts.

Getting to my example:

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?

Excuse me, I gave you a clear cut detailed example.

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.

What part of it did you not understand?

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

That is what I am asking you about the above example.

ETA: I apologize, after re-reading my post to your response, something struck me. Are you saying what the sexual position was would determine whether it's unnatural or not? Also, are you saying that unnatural or natural would hinge on if the male had a high chance of transmitting a disease of if the female had a high chance of transmitting a disease?

 

[Alt+F4]

The logical extremity of the whole "It's a choice" line of thought is that we homosexuals can be rewired and "fixed". If we did choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex there would be no real ethical problem for them to tell kids and adults alike everywhere that we should stop "being gay" and become "perfectly normal heterosexual people" since we all know how "immoral, bad, disgusting and blablala" homosexuality really is, which many parents, teachers and all kinds of worthless rabble do today and in the process cause endless grief and pain in their victims.

It's essentially just an Ad Hoc justification for their hatred of homosexuals because, since "it's a choice", we homosexuals could simply stop being gay and therefore we wouldn't suffer discrimination, murder, assault, burning with hot pokers, lynchings, corrective rape, being buried alive or any other colorful things Christians and all kinds of disgusting cretins fantasize about.

I think that the whole "it's just a choice" crap is just another way the homo haters can sleep better at night. They will never have to worry about ever developing those type of feelings, cause it's just a choice, like which shirt to wear to work. It's about trying to control the uncontroable.

 

[alfaniner]

What are I am doing?

See, the whole reason for the "quote" feature is to allow replies to a single part of what may be a lengthy post.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Masturbation is unnatural because do not use the genitals in an appropriate manner.

And I said...
"Then you're doing it wrong."

It was supposed to be a joke, but now I'm not so sure.

 

[Piggy]

Well, except if homosexuality is just a choice that would imply that heterosexuality is just a choice too.

This is what confuses the stemwinding hell out of me when it comes to the HIAC argument... I don't know of any adherents of HIAC who believe that heterosexuality is a choice.

It's kind of like they think it's similar to tattooing -- you're born without tattoos and if you want to get one, it's a choice: you're born heterosexual, and if you want to be gay, that's a choice.

Nevermind that they don't believe they could actually make that choice... but I digress....

I suppose re-conversion (a la Gavin MacLeod) is something similar to having a tattoo lasered out?

It makes no sense to me.

I don't believe that I could simply choose to be attracted to men instead of women. So why should I believe that gay men could choose to be attracted to women instead of men, or that lesbians could choose to be attracted to men instead of women?

 

[Belz...]

Your insults are not helping the debate.

What insults ? There are no insults in my reply. You're just dodging my points. Here they are again:

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 ?

 

[Belz...]

The logical extremity of the whole "It's a choice" line of thought is that we homosexuals can be rewired and "fixed".

That's the impression that SnakeTongue gives me. I fear that's exactly what he's planning to advocate once he "proves" his point. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Belz...]

This is what confuses the stemwinding hell out of me when it comes to the HIAC argument... I don't know of any adherents of HIAC who believe that heterosexuality is a choice.

It's kind of like they think it's similar to tattooing -- you're born without tattoos and if you want to get one, it's a choice: you're born heterosexual, and if you want to be gay, that's a choice.

Nevermind that they don't believe they could actually make that choice... but I digress....

I suppose re-conversion (a la Gavin MacLeod) is something similar to having a tattoo lasered out?

It makes no sense to me.

I don't believe that I could simply choose to be attracted to men instead of women. So why should I believe that gay men could choose to be attracted to women instead of men, or that lesbians could choose to be attracted to men instead of women?

Thank you for summarizing the thread so eloquently.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I admit that "basic attraction" is a term I'm using for lack of a better one. What I mean by "basic attraction" in the terms of sexual attraction is the attraction to something that goes without thinking, may distract one's thoughts at the time, that sort of thing. If someone can come up with a better term and explanation, please do.

That kind of reaction can not change.

Psychoanalysis libido:

Freud conceived of the mind as having only a fixed amount of psychic energy, or libido. Though the word libido has since acquired overt sexual implications, in Freud's theory it stood for all psychic energy. This energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and sexual urges. In Freud's theory, the mind, like the universe, could neither create nor destroy energy, but merely transfer it from one form or function to another. (...)¹​

Libido is the primeval energy which drive the sexual desire towards an object.

(...) A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another. This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects, which often persists throughout life.⁴​

The primeval energy cannot be directed controlled by conscious thoughts, but it can directed from one object to another. In contrast, the libido can also be fixed in a special object and it will persist during the entire life of an individual.

Oh, so how long is the time limit on research? Ten years? Really? If something is not proven in ten years, that's it, it's scientifically correct to stop?

Yes, that is it.

By the way, you're wrong. There has been some proof that a gene change can influence sexual orientation in fruit flies.

The conclusion of the Drosophila Melanogaster research was that a defective gene is the cause of an abnormal male reproduction behaviour. It is not any indication of sexual behaviour equivalent to the Homo Sapiens sexual behaviour:

(...) Uncovering the fru distal breakpoint with deletions usually led to males with two of the fru courtship abnormalities: no copulation attempts with females (hence, behavioral sterility) and vigorous courtship among males, including the formation of "courtship chains". However, certain genetic changes involving region 91B resulted in males who formed courtship chains but who mated with females. (...)²​

There is no proof that a gene can influence the human sexual orientation.

You keep asking for examples and you keep rejecting them. That was an example of how, for hundreds of years, we hypothesized that something existed, but could not prove it or find it. We finally found it to be true several years ago.

I'm speaking in this example of scientific study, how is this different from that?

You are comparing a perversion of the human sexuality with planets and stars.

Sexology and astronomy are very different subjects.

Behavior, maybe. Sadly, plenty of gay people have changed their behavior to satisfy society. However, the orientation never changes.

(...)

Logic. If someone can be sexually attracted to the same sex because of a combination of genes, pre-natal fluids, "wiring" of the neurons during pregnancy, environment, etc, then the same process can produce the opposite result or something in between.

It is no defined process of human sexuality.

Sexual behaviour it is not an unchangeable process.

The neurons are wired after birth and brain plasticity proves that such phenomenon occurs in accordance with our life experience.

Scientists have not been able to find clear gender-related structural differences between the brains of boys and girls at birth. At that stage of life their properties and functions overlap almost entirely. The same is true for behaviors. Male and female behavior - let alone homosexuality and heterosexuality - is apparently not hardwired into the brain at birth. In fact, only one quarter of the brain is formed in a new-born child; the rest is developed through learning and experience (environmental input). We can be confident that whatever male/female differences exist in adult brains (and, no doubt, more will be found at some stage), they will be largely shaped by learning and behavior. But what learn ing and experiences do to the brain is not set in concrete either. Brain cells are replaced in roughly seven year cycles, meaning that new neuron pathways can be formed and old ones reshaped. Intensive exercise, training or imagination changes the brain microstructure. We are not victims of our biology or the experiences which shape the detail of our brain. Anatomy is not destiny; change is always possible. The brain is plastic and is in a constant state of change. Indeed the question is rather: what change is not possible?³​

You said:

Your definition leaves out females attracted to females. Homosexuality works with all genders.

Yes, I know that.

So she is bisexual, she has no choice, she may call herself heterosexual, but her basic attraction is bisexual. Her sexual orientation, no matter what she calls herself is not a choice?

The definition of the sexual orientation is not a choice.

How about bisexual? At what point would you call me homosexual? If, during the example above, I purposely touched another man?

What is your intention when touching another man in the hypothetical example above?

Too bad. Deal with it. That is the definition of "sexual orientation".

How you defined it:

Is wrong.

Yourself had agreed with the definition:

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.

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

Can you prove that it is?

It is not sexual orientation equivalent to the libido oriented towards an object?

Libido means in psychoanalysis in the first instance the force (thought of as quantitatively variable and measurable) of the sexual instincts directed towards an object - "sexual" in the extended sense required by analytic theory. (...)⁴​

So what if she found females attractive yet never ever has sex with any of them, is she still bisexual?

Yes, the definition of bisexual is based in attraction, not in sexual intercourse.

Going with the analogy, an asexual person wouldn't like any fruit. But still my point remains. I do like banana bread but still doesn't like bananas. The basic like and dislike does not change. The only reason why I like banana bread is because of the other ingredients, (or circumstances, if you will) that allows me to like the bread. It does not mean I have made the choice to like bananas now. I still wouldn't eat one.

What would you do if the only food available are just bananas?

What would do a person which dislike bananas at all (asexual) when bananas are the only food available?

I said:

One of the things you mentioned was brain plasticity. That factors in. There was a posting of how pre-natal fluids affect how the neurons are wired, there's also the fact that there may not be a gene, but a combination of genes may affect how one is sexually orientated, there's also environment factors, in others everything else.

The point I was making is that the logic of "there is no homosexual gene, therefore being attracted to the same gender is not natural" is very flawed.

Pre-natal fluids were already refuted.

Neurons are wired after birth.

No combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour.

The environmental factors are the only explanation with a solid scientific base.


References:
¹ The Libido, or Psychic Energy, in Freud - http://www.victorianweb.org/science/freud/libido.html
² Behavior and Cytogenetics of fruitless in Drosophila melanogaster - http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/121/4/773
³ Brain Plasticity Backs Up Orientation Change - http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Plasticity.htm
⁴ Sigmund Freud - Life and Work - http://www.freudfile.org/psychoanalysis/libido.html

 

[Marcus]

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

Now we are getting somewhere! Or at least we were 4 days ago, which is how old this post is. It took you months to finally admit this.It's only a short step for you to admit that no one else can Choose either.

 

[Arcade22]

Well, except if homosexuality is just a choice that would imply that heterosexuality is just a choice too.

I've always heard this weird reasoning from that we humans have a "natural" purpose to reproduce and get our own offspring. All humans are "supposed" to breed, and since a homosexual couple cannot have a offspring without the help of a surrogate mother, technology or something unnatural therefore homosexuals ARE unnatural and since it's a choice to deviate from nature homosexuality should always be discouraged, hidden or even legislated against.

Some variation of this has nearly always been the justification for not supporting gay rights that I have heard from those who either don't want to outright state that their homophobic beliefs come from religious edicts that some rambling delusional peasants from thousands of years ago came up with, or from those that simply have no other arguments or reasons why they can object to gay rights.

All of this falls apart because it assumes, out of nowhere, that we humans have some kind of purpose or goals other than those that we give ourselves.

 

[Belz...]

I've always heard this weird reasoning from that we humans have a "natural" purpose to reproduce and get our own offspring. All humans are "supposed" to breed

Typical misunderstanding of evolution. Just like the phrase "survival of the fittest" doesn't represent evolution well, etc. This comes from people with little or no knowledge of the subject matter. Dunning-Kruger in full effect.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Sigmund Freud? Really? You, SnakeTongue, used two references of four of Freudian psychoanalysis to back up your claims and responses. You may wish to have a more recent look at how Freud is viewed in the psychiatric and psychoanalytical fields these days. Freud is considered a Fraud. The reason is that all of his analyses were based upon his authority and interpretation (id est: subjective) using very lax rules. While he started out his career studying brain physiology, especially neural structure, he eventually went down this blind path of analyzing things based upon his own inductive relationships without any objective evidence or testing.

Please don't include Rorschach tests either as they have been shown to be useless analytic tools as well.

 

[Emet]

This guy isn't any better as a credible source.

another link.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Sigmund Freud? Really? You, SnakeTongue, used two references of four of Freudian psychoanalysis to back up your claims and responses. You may wish to have a more recent look at how Freud is viewed in the psychiatric and psychoanalytical fields these days. Freud is considered a Fraud. The reason is that all of his analyses were based upon his authority and interpretation (id est: subjective) using very lax rules. While he started out his career studying brain physiology, especially neural structure, he eventually went down this blind path of analyzing things based upon his own inductive relationships without any objective evidence or testing.

Please don't include Rorschach tests either as they have been shown to be useless analytic tools as well.

Have you a better theory to explain the basic attraction example presented by JFrankA?