is homosexuality genetic or is it learned behavior?

Not sure what that had to do with my post.

 

Yes I do not disagree with that. And it is not optimal or lead to the best outcome. But the reality is that gay couples do that as well.

So again, if all else is equal and the only difference is gay or straight. Straight is optimal. Gay is a biological dead end.

 

You know what, re read your post. Still drinking my morning coffee...

But if by "ideal" you are referencing straight people...I mean, now you are asking them to take on procreation for gay people, because gay people cannot procreate without outside help of someone from the other sex.

So the higher the percentage of gay couples, the less likely the society can replace itself.

 

What makes you think there is a higher percentage of gay couples?

 

I think the percentage of those who now identify as lgbtq has increased.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/24/us/americans-identifying-lgbtq-poll-trnd/index.html

This article lists them at 15 percent. (half of that is bisexual so I suppose could still chance into an optimal coupling) I do agree with some of what the article suggests. However with this new push for trans and non binary identity as being the new "in" thing where kids who want attention can just make up ridiculous pronouns and declare they are gay...instead of just not showering and dressing in all black like they used too...I will suggest that within ten years we will see this number climb substantially. Just needs time for the data to come out.

 

I was not specifying on the couple being gay or straight, just specifiying the reasons for divorce usually involves something other than the love of the child. The reality is, no one gets married in hopes of getting divorced a few years later.

Yes, gay couples are now having divorce rates similar to the divorce rates in their home state in some circumstances, but that does not negate being gay or straight. It is just life IMO.

 

Sure but I am discussing optimal outcomes for the continuation of society.

 

By that, you are stating that either being gay or straight is a choice, hence the use of optimal outcomes.

Personally, being gay or straight is not a choice, as I posted a while back in this thread. And if optimal outcome is the game here, then yes, no disease such as Diabetes, Cancer, Heart Disease, Parkinsons, Dimentia/alzheimer's disease, etc. But those diseases are about as genetic as being gay or straight.

 

Perhaps what you're missing here is the idea that an experiment in gay sex doesn't make someone homosexual. It means they engaged in a homosexual act, for sure. It does not however mean, or make them homosexual. Tell you what, If, as you suggest, they have a natural existence, would that not entirely undermine your own assertion that it is a learned behavior? This is the kind of narrative that folks have just because they want to remain argumentative. Being crass and smug about it isn't appealing for continued conversation.

 

No it's not a choice. We all have our preferences. But it's not an optimal preference.

 

It used to be genetic but now that preschoolers being taught they could be any gender they want it’s not just genetic anymore
Example:
Little boy identifies as girl so he’s no longer asked to take out the garbage
School finds this out and gets him therapy and a liberal shrink to force gender transition down his throat
Boy gets out on puberty blockers, realizes he actually likes women but now his wiener doesn’t work
Boy commits suicide
Thanks liberals!

 

I have no idea what “berg” you are referring to but feel free to stick with your zero sources.

 

To who? So are the other examples that were given so we should vilify people with colorblindness, etc?

 

certainly. But I'm not talking about trans people or people that identify as queer whatever that means.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/24/us/americans-identifying-lgbtq-poll-trnd/index.html

This article lists them at 15 percent. (half of that is bisexual so I suppose could still chance into an optimal coupling) I do agree with some of what the article suggests. However with this new push for trans and non binary identity as being the new "in" thing where kids who want attention can just make up ridiculous pronouns and declare they are gay...instead of just not showering and dressing in all black like they used too...I will suggest that within ten years we will see this number climb substantially. Just needs time for the data to come out.[/QUOTE]
Just wait the newest and latest thing is disassociative identity disorder. And I'm willing to bet people that identify this way will want to fit in this lgbtqaibbtyTBB bullshit.

 

preference still infers choice. My preference is to have a filet mignon rather than a salmon steak. And when it comes to gay, straight, bi, etc, I think we need to stop thinking in the paradigm of choice, preference, optimal outcomes etc. Have to think differently here

 

Based on what I've seen of twin studies and other research, there seems to be a strong "nature" component, but I'm sure there's also "nurture." Seems like there is probably a genetic predisposition, but that learned behavior has an impact. There are probably people with the predisposition that don't end up homosexual and people without the predisposition who do. But I don't see how it matters when it comes to ethics or the law. What two (or more) consenting, informed people choose to do with one other doesn't matter to me. Have fun. The Puritans can go **** themselves (or . . . maybe they can't . . . and that's why they are mad).

 

I think you need to focus mostly on great people failing to provide optimal outcomes since they are the biggest offender.

Bringing this up in a discussion about gay people seems to be fiddling while Rome Burns.

 

Yes. They were executed because of superstitious, tyrannical idiots who were far more deserving of execution themselves than their victims were.

There are always murderous dictators who will use religion as an excuse for murder, ever since the time of Moses . . . and including Moses. Always have been. There's a reason why people with a sliver of morality and reason outgrew such barbarity.

 

Bullshit.

I've looked at number of articles and studies, over the years, and where they disagree on many points, they all seem to agree on this one point:

There is no simplistic answer to the concept of why nature produces homosexuals. For every theory, the exceptions occupy too large of a percentage to make the theory true.

https://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/bsspapers01/christiana.html

 

Vacuous drivel, unsubstantiated by any facts. There are few bad apples in any barrel, straight or gay, the many stories of female teachers exploiting young male students for sex, come to mind.

IF poisoned water food etc causes homosexuality, there shouldn't be many gay vegans, but, there are.

https://www.curvemag.com/blog/health/why-are-so-many-lgbt-people-vegan/

There is nothing immoral about being gay.

 

vague allegations unsubstantiated by evidence.

I will, agree, however, that sexual identity, on any level, should not be taught to children. It's a subject for a more mature audience, in my view. The reason is is that children, 8 or younger, tend to be homosexual, (becoming hetero at about 8 -12 ) and teaching the subject will be confusing to them. Sexuality should be taught, in my view, at 13 or older.

But, with children, let me clarify that a child's 'sexuality' really is non existent, in a sense, (up to the age of 8. maybe higher) , children are curious about themselves, and it's natural for little boys to play games that appear sexual, but they are just kids with curiosity.

 

Trans folks are less likely to commit suicide when they aren't treated like trash. If only we could get the fringe right on board with that.

 

I think it matters a great deal- and I think it has been both misunderstood and abused a great deal. Most of my understanding comes from having a family member of very high intelligence and talent, that is gay. It's important to understand that gay and pedophilia are not at all the same things; being gay does not mean you are attracted to children; pedophilia does.

This person, whom I have had extensive discussions with, has said that being gay is the only thing that provides him any level of satisfaction. I know he's dated many women, but never found one that he actually responded to sexually. He's also told me that if there was any choice- he would have opted out, and that he wouldn't wish gay status on anyone, because of the extreme levels of conflict it creates, both with the individual, within relationships, and with society. High level of mental anguish within the gay population. This individual eventually decided he would have none of it, and would be celibate. Thus- I have to believe that it is a natural aspect of persona, not a choice. One thing for sure- it brings a troubled life that nobody would want if they had a choice. Some of that is social pressure and abuse, some seems to come with the territory. Now I have no idea if the definitive factor is a gene or something deeply embedded elsewhere- but I am convinced it's no conscious choice for most, and not one that a person can be "educated" out of feeling.

So- I have a sympathy for the condition; I believe society should accept it as one of the variants of life- and learn not to discriminate solely on that status. Beyond that, neither should it promote a gay agenda in any way. They deserve the same protections and rights as anyone else- and that is related to conduct. Respectable conduct gets respect from me, regardless of the sexual model- disrespectful conduct does not. Either way- when a person chooses to wave it around and especially push sexuality on children or in schools- I am offended by that action.

 

The divorce rate in hollywood is several times higher than in the country as a whole. My brother and his son have been divorced Five times between them my sister and her husband were married nearly fifty year, before he passed away my wife and I will celebrate 49 this year mom and dad fifty years before he passed wife's mom and dad sixty. The point of course is that a relative few people drive the divorce numbers through the roof. Hell the Gabor sisters alone, along with their mom were well into double digits. They only difference between h'wood then and now is they are more likely to just shack up than get married.