Homosexuality

[Upchurch]

Because, if it is genetic, we have a club to beat the Fundies with.

To be honest, I don't really care about beating the Fundies (as fun as that might sound). What I really care about is that the Fundies stop beating up on those who they disagree with.

Why aren't we arguing for people's right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? Because we already lost that argument: we've given up on human rights and liberty, and this point were just arguing for recognition of reality.

You lost me on this one. What do you mean?

 

[Pahansiri]

For me it is so sad to see so many posts/threads at so many sites concerning who another being may love or sleep with.

At sites like Rapture Ready you find almost endless post concerning this. Their belief is because it is a “sin” they may beat it to death.

Yet other “sins” are left undressed, why these other “sins” are ones done by them, divorce infidelity, lies, stealing for example.

We cheer at “cool’ battle footage and a “smart” bomb that just hit the target and forget about the children and innocent people who suffer and die. So much for thou shall not kill.


We cheer at when just at the “end’ of this last ‘war” when the US bombed the hell out of a building/ restaurant because Saddam and the boys “may have been there” they were not but other people were, families and people who lived near the now huge crater. So much for thou shall not kill.

They say these people are “causalities of war” if they are US people that are a tragedy if not a US person “causalities of war”.

Yet post after post, thread after thread about whom someone loves or may sleep with.

Homosexuality by many is seen as sex, heterosexuality seen as love?


I am sure if many who care so much for who another loves was attacked for who they loved it would be seen as hate but attack a gay etc and it is an act of “love”?

Many Christian friend will say often “ well the Bible clearly says hate the sin love the sinner” when asked for that passage expect al long silence.

This is not to attack Christians or anyone for if it was I would be doing what I see as wrong.

Give to others the same respect you seek. Seems simple.

Just what I believe.

 

[Loki]

*** Anecdote Warning ***

I've got two (female) cousins who are gay (same family). They insist that they had "no choice" - hetro simply didn't work for them.

 

[swstephe]

Big confusion in terms

I'm trying to figure out the responses. There seems to be some people that think that as soon as someone claims there was one iota of choice involved, that I'm implying responsibility and morality too. I don't judge people on their choices, so it doesn't make sense to me. I'm actually just saying that saying homosexuality is 100% genetic is an oversimplification, that there is some amount of reason and experience involved, which means that someone still has the potential to choose which way to act. But choice doesn't pass morality on anyone. I may choose not to eat today, even though my genetic preference for eating can be much stronger than my gender preference. There is no morality involved in that choice. Someone else has to apply morality to it, and I'm not implying anyone, (religion, society). In fact, I look at the headlines about gay marriage and think, "why is the government even involved in making such laws? they ought to throw out every law concerning marriage and just worry about child/spousal abandonment/abuse instead?". People should be allowed to choose anyone they want as long as both people are mature enough and rational enough to know what they are doing and not hurting anyone?

Isn't it ironic that Christians take certain words and make them hot-buttons, in different contexts? "Choice" is Christian when talking about homosexuals, but anti-Christian when talking about abortion. Maybe not ironic, it might be intentional, it prohibits people from rationalizing it. I didn't even realize that "choice" was such a hot-button word around skeptics.

Here is something to think about. It may be inconceivable for an 18 year-old man to be sexually attracted to an 81-year old woman, but what about her 81-year old husband. Isn't it possible that he may find her attractive for reasons which have developed over the years? Did something change, or were the genetics hard-wired?

I personally don't find supermodels as attractive as other women. My rational mind, combined with life experiences and general assumptions have combined, over time, to give them a less favorable reaction. I guess it depends on what you can conceive you can gain with interaction with the person. I suppose there must be some attraction signals there somewhere, but I have just supressed them so I can spend my time on more productive persuits.

Just because something is inconceivable, doesn't mean there is no choice. There are always potential choices which are so negative that a rational mind will supress their genetically-derived impulses. Are you going to tell someone who has a genuinely unacceptable sexual impulse, (such as attraction toward children), that they are geneticly programmed that way, are incapable of supressing their genetic desires because it would be uncomfortable, but since acting on those impulses is unacceptable, they must be surgically or chemically altered? Do you really want to give Christians that ammo???

I didn't get the reference to Janet Reno or Johnny Depp. Were you saying that you would rather sleep with Janet because she is a woman, or Johhny because he is more sexually attractive, (and effeminate)??

Consider a situation where all women in the world were unavailable to you, for the rest of your life. Life-imprisonment, with no chance of parole. It is either same-sex or nothing. Your genetics are saying, "must have sex", your testosterone is raging. You definitely would say "never", right??? ... But you said people didn't have a choice, if you don't have a choice, you have to say "yes". Your options are more limited, the most sexually attractive human that you will ever see for the rest of your life is a guy. Hmmm ... okay, you can follow your genetic programming, I'm going to stick with my ability to choose my actions despite my genetic programming everytime.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Re: Big confusion in terms

I'm trying to figure out the responses. There seems to be some people that think that as soon as someone claims there was one iota of choice involved, that I'm implying responsibility and morality too. I don't judge people on their choices, so it doesn't make sense to me. I'm actually just saying that saying homosexuality is 100% genetic is an oversimplification, that there is some amount of reason and experience involved, which means that someone still has the potential to choose which way to act.

Stop right there. It's already being addressed. You're still going on about "acting on impulses" while people pointed out we're not discussing choice to act on things here. Sure, a gay man can choose to act straight, but it will be the same as a straight man acting gay. Neither will be very comfortable in the role.

But choice doesn't pass morality on anyone. I may choose not to eat today, even though my genetic preference for eating can be much stronger than my gender preference. There is no morality involved in that choice. Someone else has to apply morality to it, and I'm not implying anyone, (religion, society). In fact, I look at the headlines about gay marriage and think, "why is the government even involved in making such laws? they ought to throw out every law concerning marriage and just worry about child/spousal abandonment/abuse instead?". People should be allowed to choose anyone they want as long as both people are mature enough and rational enough to know what they are doing and not hurting anyone?

That's a nice way of looking at it but this has no bearing on the argument at hand as I just mentioned.

Isn't it ironic that Christians take certain words and make them hot-buttons, in different contexts? "Choice" is Christian when talking about homosexuals, but anti-Christian when talking about abortion. Maybe not ironic, it might be intentional, it prohibits people from rationalizing it. I didn't even realize that "choice" was such a hot-button word around skeptics.

I think you're confused a little bit. The discussion was about whether a homosexual can choose to be a homosexual, not whether a homosexual can choose to act on their desires (two different things). You're talking about choosing to act upon desires which has been addressed already.

Here is something to think about. It may be inconceivable for an 18 year-old man to be sexually attracted to an 81-year old woman, but what about her 81-year old husband. Isn't it possible that he may find her attractive for reasons which have developed over the years? Did something change, or were the genetics hard-wired?

This is becoming a red herring actually...

Still, I think the physical attraction will have diminished to be replaced by a mental attraction. I'm sure the 81 year old would find a 21 year old woman more physically appealing.

I personally don't find supermodels as attractive as other women. My rational mind, combined with life experiences and general assumptions have combined, over time, to give them a less favorable reaction. I guess it depends on what you can conceive you can gain with interaction with the person. I suppose there must be some attraction signals there somewhere, but I have just supressed them so I can spend my time on more productive persuits.

You're creating a red herring by missing the point.

You find women attractive. I ask whether you could find males sexually attractive?

Just because something is inconceivable, doesn't mean there is no choice. There are always potential choices which are so negative that a rational mind will supress their genetically-derived impulses. Are you going to tell someone who has a genuinely unacceptable sexual impulse, (such as attraction toward children), that they are geneticly programmed that way, are incapable of supressing their genetic desires because it would be uncomfortable, but since acting on those impulses is unacceptable, they must be surgically or chemically altered? Do you really want to give Christians that ammo???

More red herrings.

We're not discussing paedophiles or sexual deviants. I would say their attractions may have mental basis mixed with physical basis.

Once again, could you find a male sexually attractive? I know I couldn't no matter how hard I would choose to.

I didn't get the reference to Janet Reno or Johnny Depp. Were you saying that you would rather sleep with Janet because she is a woman, or Johhny because he is more sexually attractive, (and effeminate)??

Consider a situation where all women in the world were unavailable to you, for the rest of your life. Life-imprisonment, with no chance of parole. It is either same-sex or nothing. Your genetics are saying, "must have sex", your testosterone is raging. You definitely would say "never", right??? ... But you said people didn't have a choice, if you don't have a choice, you have to say "yes". Your options are more limited, the most sexually attractive human that you will ever see for the rest of your life is a guy. Hmmm ... okay, you can follow your genetic programming, I'm going to stick with my ability to choose my actions despite my genetic programming everytime.

You seem to either be bisexual (and this is not a personal attack) or very confused.

The point was very simple. You can't just choose to be attracted to men when you're only attracted to women (unless you're bisexual). If you're bisexual I can see why you don't understand the analogy - you find both sexes equally appealing therefore selection becomes a choice.

A gay person can no more choose to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex then a straight person to the same sex. It's the same as a left handed person trying to be right handed (they can do it but they'll never truly be right handed). Yes, you can choose to act different but you can't become different.

Whether they choose to act upon their attraction is an entirely different matter.

 

[Loki]

swstephe,

I'm actually just saying that saying homosexuality is 100% genetic is an oversimplification, that there is some amount of reason and experience involved, which means that someone still has the potential to choose which way to act.

Perhaps you needed to say this, perhaps not - it seems a "given" to me. To use Yahzi's "left-handed" analogy, the genetics gives a "predisposition" - you can still exercise a choice to write right handed. I don't think anyone who argues "genetic-based" is arguing "must live life as a homosexual/hetrosexual". The discussion would be "are you fighting or following your genetic predisposition". Or perhaps I'm also misunderstanding the strength of the "pro-genetics" argument?

 

[ImpyTimpy]

** Another anecdote warning **

I know a man who was brought up in a family of 3 other brothers. His brothers are all straight but he's gay. When he was younger he pretended to be straight and even got into a long term relationship with a woman - basically kept trying to tell himself he's not gay. He simply couldn't keep it up anymore and finally him and the woman split up. Since then he came out of the closet and admitted that since he was little he always knew he was somehow different but didn't realise he was gay until later into his teenage years. He's had a hard life and from my chats with him he wishes he was straight.

From that alone I can see homosexuality does not appear to be a choice.

 

[Supercharts]

Human sexuality is very interesting…

We all have our own opinion on what is a sexual fulfillment.
Like moths around a flame we flit in and about about what is “normal” and what is “not”.

We all think about sex as what we believe it to be. We are our own censors.

Accepting the idea [not a fact but an opinion] about sex sets us apart from many others. [Like Cats and Weasels…sorry].

So – what is sex?
What’s in the majority?
Why do we care about the majority opinion?

It’s really the result of a bunch of hormones coursing through our bodies over which we have no control.

My only opinion [from a male point of view] is that putting your penis into a vagina is much better than ramming it up some guys a**hole. Others disagree. To those who disagree you might consider trying it. [Basically it smells a lot better].
Butt I could be wrong.

 

[Ladewig]

Am I the only one who is curious as to what Christian's original questions are? Christian, will you post again in this thread?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Am I the only one who is curious as to what Christian's original questions are? Christian, will you post again in this thread?

I was wondering the same. Come back Christian!! I'm one of your biggest peeps!!! (and why did you ever split with Edge?)

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Big confusion in terms

I'm actually just saying that saying homosexuality is 100% genetic is an oversimplification, that there is some amount of reason and experience involved, which means that someone still has the potential to choose which way to act.

Maybe you do. Maybe you can convince yourself that sleeping with Tom Cruise is more fun than sleeping with Nichole Kidman. Hey, more power to ya, I envy you! But I can't.

As has been pointed out by several people, we are not discussing how you act, we are discussing how you feel.

 

[slimshady2357]

Where is Diamond/Titanpoint?

He's been saying for months now that he has compelling evidence for the biological (but specifically NOT genetic) origin of homosexuality.

Of course he's also been saying he'll present it any day now for just as long

Adam

 

[Christian]

Ladewig wrote:
Am I the only one who is curious as to what Christian's original questions are? Christian, will you post again in this thread?

Yes, sorry.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
I was wondering the same. Come back Christian!! I'm one of your biggest peeps!!! (and why did you ever split with Edge?)

Thanks (I think) What is "split with Edge"?

Ok, this is the thing. I want to use the skeptic's approach, scientific, if you will.

I see two positions here. Either homosexuality has a genetic component or it does not.

If it does, we can't say it is a matter of simple lifestyle choice.


Ok, how do we approach this objectively. I have confirmed that the bulk of the evidence is anecdotal. Is that enough for a skeptic to take the default position that there is a genetic component. Shouldn't there be more, if not, why not?

I see the parallel attempt with left-handedness. My objection, is that clearly, in that case, there are scientific outside methods to confirm a genetic component.

I can device tests that can conclusively prove that there must be such a genetic component for left handedness.

Can someone forward a similar assertion on tests that could conclusively confirm the genetic component in homosexuality?

 

[Yahzi]

Christian

Ok, how do we approach this objectively. I have confirmed that the bulk of the evidence is anecdotal. Is that enough for a skeptic to take the default position that there is a genetic component. Shouldn't there be more, if not, why not

In the absence of any contrary evidence, the skeptic takes homosexuals at their word. Many homosexuals report homosexual feelings at ages that they cannot possibly be responsible for, like 4. Given the complete lack of evidence against this, why wouldn't we just believe them? Being a skeptic does not mean assuming everyone who holds a position you don't like is lying.

In every other emotional area, personal testimony is considered acceptable. Homosexuality is the only area in which you are required to ignore the testimony of homosexuals about what homosexuality feels like.

We are approaching this objectively. You just don't like the answer.

I see the parallel attempt with left-handedness. My objection, is that clearly, in that case, there are scientific outside methods to confirm a genetic component.

How so clearly? Can you name a single test, study, or expierement that convinced you? Seriously, how can you be so certain that left-handess is genetic - in the absence of any scientific reference on your part - and yet be so certain that homosexuality isn't? Doesn't this reflect a prejudice on your part?

I can device tests that can conclusively prove that there must be such a genetic component for left handedness.

Really? And how would you do this? By interviewing people and asking them which hand they prefered using? Or perhaps you would test them - perhaps you would assign them unusual tasks and see which hand they performed better with. But again that would be trusting them not to fake their own response.

Yet if we offer you exactly the same evidence for homosexuality, you call it ancedotal. Do you see how it is impossible to prove that homosexuality is as genetic as left-handedness once you decide that the amount of proof required is different?

FYI, people have done studies that show that homosexuals experience the same kind of arousal when shown pictures of the same sex that heterosexuals experience when shown pictures of the opposite sex.

If it does, we can't say it is a matter of simple lifestyle choice.

Why does it matter? Even if it were purely a matter of choice (which it is not, at least for most people), why would it matter?

Leviticus condems adultery just as harshly as it condemns homosexuality. The Bible clearly defines re-marriage while your first wife is still alive as adultery. Choosing to get divorced and remarried is clearly a life-style choice. Yet no one is suggesting that re-marriage is unnatural or evil.

Clearly the objection to homosexuality is not religious (since if it were, people would object to remarriage just as much), but rather a case of fascism. People don't object to homosexuality on religious grounds, but rather on the grounds of "but I don't do it." They accept remarriage, though, because that is something they do.

One has to ask why the Vatican is not campaigning against remarriage with the same fervor that it is against homosexual marriage. One can only assume it is a political decision, a recognition that they can't win on the divorce issue, but they can still beat up the gays.

Why do we have to prove a genetic component before we are allowed to be free to make our own choices? Why do I have to behave just like you in cases that don't concern you? Why are we expected to allow people to pick and choose the parts of Leviticus they want to enforce (without at least identifying that they are merely making arbitrary choices)?

 

[Dancing David]

In short no, there wouldn't be an ethical way to devise a test.

Assuming thier is a genetic factor in homosexuality is not as simple as saying 'thier is a gene which causes people to be attracted to the same sex.'

If you consider things like imprinting, chemical attraction and socialized attraction they could all have genetic components that are hard wired into out biology.

To devise a test would mean unethical cruelness.

Take fifty children
Raise half of them in isolation and expose them to only opposite sex couples.
Raise half the children in isolation and expose them to only same sex couples.

Then ask how many feel that they just don't fir in after puberty and matuartion?

Raise half exposed to only same sex peers and adults.
Raise half exposed to only opposite sex peers and adults.

Raise half exposed to same sex adults and opposite peers.
Raise half exposed to opposite sex adults and same sex peers.

This is just a small sample of the kind of unethical experimentation that would have to be conducted to find out what biological basis there may be for homosexuality.
This would not even touch on things like the age of the mother, in uetero factors or enviromental factors that could none the less have a biological component.

 

[Christian]

Yahzi:

It is hard to debate with you because you erect so many distracting strawmen. I really don't want to spend my time striking them down.

But I will try to respond to your post, so others can see what's going on.

Yahzi wrote:
In the absence of any contrary evidence, the skeptic takes homosexuals at their word.

There is contrary evidence and it is anecdotal as well. There are many ex-homosexuals who say it was a lifestyle. Why not take them at their word too?

Many homosexuals report homosexual feelings at ages that they cannot possibly be responsible for, like 4.

Do they report this at 4? Link please.

Given the complete lack of evidence against this, why wouldn't we just believe them?

You are wrong, anecdotal evidence goes both ways. That is the problems. Maybe, you need to here, the other side too. Wouldn't that be fair?

Being a skeptic does not mean assuming everyone who holds a position you don't like is lying.

Aside from the huge strawman. This is a false dichotomy. I certain most are convinced that there is a genetic component. That does not mean there is.

In every other emotional area, personal testimony is considered acceptable.

Yes, of course but never conclusive or sufficient to take a scientific position. Or are we allowed double standards?

Homosexuality is the only area in which you are required to ignore the testimony of homosexuals about what homosexuality feels like.

Another strawman here. No, not ignore, just not sufficient to come to a default position.

We are approaching this objectively. You just don't like the answer.

Assuming things??? Strawman??? No, I don't think you are being objective.

How so clearly? Can you name a single test, study, or expierement that convinced you? Seriously, how can you be so certain that left-handess is genetic - in the absence of any scientific reference on your part - and yet be so certain that homosexuality isn't? Doesn't this reflect a prejudice on your part?

No it does not. Yes, I can be quite certain left-handess is genetic? 100%. Please, this should be obvious to you. If I were to choose randomly 100 6 yr olds. I could, with dexterity tests predict with 100% accuracy who is right or left-handed.

I have three daughters. My twins are 10 months old. I know, from simple observation that they are both right-handed. My oldest daughter is too and, by age 1, I knew she was.

Do you have any idea how obvious this trait is?

In Latin American countries, soccer is the preffered sport (I understand it is also the most popular among kids in the US). Just watch any toddle kick a ball. After any number of kicks, you will know if he/she is left-handed.

Really? And how would you do this? By interviewing people and asking them which hand they prefered using? Or perhaps you would test them - perhaps you would assign them unusual tasks and see which hand they performed better with. But again that would be trusting them not to fake their own response.

It is very easy to test for the trait, specially and conclusively among toddlers. They can't fake left-handess.

No, unusual tasks necessary either.

Yet if we offer you exactly the same evidence for homosexuality, you call it ancedotal.

No, that is it point. I'm not aware of such tests for homosexuality. The test I'm talking about cease to be anecdotal.

Do you see how it is impossible to prove that homosexuality is as genetic as left-handedness once you decide that the amount of proof required is different?

You are wrong, left-handedness can be tested without anecdotal evidence.

FYI, people have done studies that show that homosexuals experience the same kind of arousal when shown pictures of the same sex that heterosexuals experience when shown pictures of the opposite sex.

Yes, but this test does not show there is a genetic component. Actually, it could show that males are suceptible to this type of conditioning.

Why does it matter? Even if it were purely a matter of choice (which it is not, at least for most people), why would it matter?

Why do topics like this matter? Something calle the truth, maybe.

I wont comment on the rest of your post...


Dancing David wrote:
In short no, there wouldn't be an ethical way to devise a test.


You got a point there. Totally different from testing for left-handness

Ok, so if we are stuck with anecdotal evidence and they go both ways. Why would the default position be that there is a genetic component? Why not the opposite?

 

[The Mad Linguist]

Ok, so if we are stuck with anecdotal evidence and they go both ways. Why would the default position be that there is a genetic component? Why not the opposite?

The default position is not that sexuality is genetic. The default position is that it is innate to a person. Being innate does not necessarily mean genetic. It could easily be caused by factors in the developmental environment of the foetus, for instance.

Why do we assume sexuality to be innate rather than a matter subject to personal choice? Because the vast majority of persons report that it is so. This is a matter of near-universal human experience. Heterosexuals do not choose to be attracted to the opposite sex, they JUST ARE. The same applies to homosexuals, but with the same sex.

The anecdotes you have referred to from "ex-homosexuals" are untrustworthy. I have never heard anyone claim to be an "ex-homosexual" who was not an adherent of a brand of Christianity that considers homosexuality a sin. Clearly, such testimony is not unbiased.

 

[Fade]

There is contrary evidence and it is anecdotal as well. There are many ex-homosexuals who say it was a lifestyle. Why not take them at their word too?

Quality and Quantity. Name me an ex-homosexual group that isn't full of fundamental christians. It's easy to fake being heterosexual. Find a woman, marry her, go through the motions, get accepted by society. Easy. I tried to do this, and failed. I can feel sexual attraction for women, but there is nothing emotional there. I don't thirst for their companionship the way I do for a mans. My mother tells me that she knew I was gay when I was around 10 years old.

Imagine that. The same time my (specifically, my own, some people become 'sexual' earlier and some later) sexuality began to appear, I started noticing the other boys. Imagine that.

You are wrong, anecdotal evidence goes both ways. That is the problems. Maybe, you need to here, the other side too. Wouldn't that be fair?

I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that sexuality, for some people, is a switch they can change in themselves, if they tell me this is so. I haven't yet found a person that claims this that doesn't also happen to be supporting an agenda, but to point this out would not be fair.

Aside from the huge strawman. This is a false dichotomy. I certain most are convinced that there is a genetic component. That does not mean there is.

I am going to take a huge shot in the dark here and assume that you simply haven't bothered to read up on the evidence itself. Sure, there is a lot of anecdote flying around on both sides, but there is an irrefutable link between homosexuality and genetics. Evidence was cited earlier in this thread. You choose to ignore it.

Another strawman here. No, not ignore, just not sufficient to come to a default position.

Nobody is asking you to "come to a default" position based upon testimony alone. The testimony is merely a part of it. The human sciences have already concluded that there are gentic factors, add onto this the nearly endless stream of personal testimony, and how can you think to disagree with it? There is quite possibly something in there that is wrong. Percentages might be off, exact factors perhaps not wholly known, but science is pointing it's great big flashing arrow at the truth, and we simply need to keep following it until we have all the evidence we need. That evidence will probably change the direction of our path a little, but it's doubtul that we will reverse.

Assuming things??? Strawman??? No, I don't think you are being objective.

Because we all know Yahzi is a huge homo and is working with some sort of agenda, right? What possible PERSONAL REASON could he have to make him be looking at this in a subjective light? You could accuse somebody like ME of being a little biased, but what could a heterosexual possibly gain from this line of reasoning? Nothing!

No it does not. Yes, I can be quite certain left-handess is genetic? 100%. Please, this should be obvious to you. If I were to choose randomly 100 6 yr olds. I could, with dexterity tests predict with 100% accuracy who is right or left-handed.

Wrong. I am ambidextrous, but I favoured my right hand because everyone else used theirs. When I was 9 I started writing with my left hand (as well as my right) because my right hand was getting sore. My teacher, at the time, asked me how long I could do this.. I told her as long as I could write.

If you want to raise your infant in a sterile white room with cameras on the wall, sure, you may be able to observe these things and be a little more certain, but you can not deny the effects of environment (on handedness or homosexuality), because these things do factor in.

 

[pgwenthold]

My take on this? I think there are plenty examples of both cases, where homosexuality is completely innate and where it is a choice (but it depends on how you define choice).

A good example I can relate was a pair of sisters that I saw on one of the talkshows. One was a raging lesbian, one of those "I have known all my life" types. Her sister was hetero- for most of her life. However, she had a lots of relationship problems, so her sister says, why not try it with a woman? Her words were basically, "I tried it, and found I liked it, and haven't gone back to men since."

Now, you could say that at some level, she made a choice to be lesbian. She didn't have to be, but she chose that direction. On the other hand, you could also say her problem may have been that she was denying her homosexuality, but who knows. "I tried it, and liked it..." sounds very much like someone who made a concious choice to be gay. On the other hand, what we can say is that she was _capable_ of liking it, which is not something that is chosen.

A good comparison is your taste in food. Is your taste in food a choice? Or something innate? Consider something you try for the first time. Whether you like it or not does not is not something you chose, it is something you discover about yourself. Now, in the end you can claim that you chose to give it a try, and found that you liked it. But does that mean that you chose to like it? Not at all.

I think there are plenty of examples of folks who would admit that they have not felt themselves homosexual their whole lives, but discovered it as the result of their choice to try it. However, that doesn't mean that they chose to like folks of the same sex.

PS The situation with the sisters that I described above is very similar to that of a couple that we knew in college

 

[Christian]

The default position is not that sexuality is genetic. The default position is that it is innate to a person. Being innate does not necessarily mean genetic. It could easily be caused by factors in the developmental environment of the foetus, for instance.

I don't understand this. Is this distinction valid? If innate does not mean a physcal trait, then are you talking about a metaphysical trait. If the environment is the cause, then it can't be innate, right?

Why do we assume sexuality to be innate rather than a matter subject to personal choice? Because the vast majority of persons report that it is so. This is a matter of near-universal human experience.

The vast mayority of people report miracles (supernatural events)in their lives...Appeal to the masses???

The anecdotes you have referred to from "ex-homosexuals" are untrustworthy. I have never heard anyone claim to be an "ex-homosexual" who was not an adherent of a brand of Christianity that considers homosexuality a sin. Clearly, such testimony is not unbiased.

By the same token, the testimony of homosexuals is not unbiased, right?

Does being a Christian render the testimony untrustworthy? Why? Bias again? How about a Muslim?

Fade wrote:
Quality and Quantity. Name me an ex-homosexual group that isn't full of fundamental christians.

Who rates this? You must agree with me that any qualitatively rating is subjective and biased on both camps.

I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that sexuality, for some people, is a switch they can change in themselves, if they tell me this is so. I haven't yet found a person that claims this that doesn't also happen to be supporting an agenda, but to point this out would not be fair.

But this implies you don't have an agenda, and you do. I, for one, assume it is a legitimate one and that you are 100% honest in what you believe. But you still have one, even if it is only to say that homosexuality has a genetic component.

I am going to take a huge shot in the dark here and assume that you simply haven't bothered to read up on the evidence itself.

Don't assume this. I have read about it. No one here contests the fact that most evidence is anecdotal and all presented in the post have been anecdotal, right? Am I missing a link presented that I did not read? I don't think so.

but there is an irrefutable link between homosexuality and genetics.

I'm sorry, I have missed this information, can you please show me where? If I have missed it, I' apologize. I started the thread with the intention of being as informed as possible and no one presented this irrefutable link.

Evidence was cited earlier in this thread. You choose to ignore it.

If I did, it was not intentional. I still don't see it.

Nobody is asking you to "come to a default" position based upon testimony alone. The testimony is merely a part of it.

Ok, I agree.

The human sciences have already concluded that there are gentic factors, add onto this the nearly endless stream of personal testimony, and how can you think to disagree with it?

I have asked for this information and I find no such conclusions.

Because we all know Yahzi is a huge homo and is working with some sort of agenda, right? What possible PERSONAL REASON could he have to make him be looking at this in a subjective light?

No, his agenda is different let me show you. From this thread:

Posted by Upchurch
So, ultimately, what does it matter if it's genetic or their own personal choice?

Posted by Yahzi
Because, if it is genetic, we have a club to beat the Fundies with.

See, the fundies already slipped up: they decided to stop drowning babies that were born with some kind of deformity. Once they did this, they tacitly acknowledged that people (and God) cannot be held responsible for genetic defects. It's quite rare these days to find a fundy who still sticks to the "deformities are god's way of punishing a sinner!"

So if we can show that homosexuality is genetic, it takes the wind right out of the fundie's sails.

Why aren't we arguing for people's right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? Because we already lost that argument: we've given up on human rights and liberty, and this point were just arguing for recognition of reality. If they were gonna be convinced by the "get government out of our bedrooms" argument, the gay issue would have been resolved 20 years ago. But fascism is not so easily swayed.

Yazhi equate Christians to fascists and anything that can hurt Christians is good material to use.

You could accuse somebody like ME of being a little biased, but what could a heterosexual possibly gain from this line of reasoning? Nothing!

Actually, you are using the biased card to discredit Christian testimony. I can't judge that at all. What I can say is that, according to scientists (as I've heard so many times here) testimonial evidence is unreliable.

Wrong. I am ambidextrous, but I favoured my right hand because everyone else used theirs. When I was 9 I started writing with my left hand (as well as my right) because my right hand was getting sore. My teacher, at the time, asked me how long I could do this.. I told her as long as I could write.

You are supporting my point. All I have is that instead of two clasifications there are three. And with scientific tests, we can, with 100% accuracy determine who is what.