Cause of Homosexuality: Does it Matter?

That makes no sense at all. And I don't know why you put "[sic]" in my quotes. I didn't spell a single word wrong.

And the fact that you deleted my part asking for evidence answers my question. You're just lying out of your bum.

Where is your evidence that gay people make other people gay and that being gay is harmful?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I guess I'm just an idiot, because I don't know what you paying taxes has to do with anything. Why don't you explain it to us morons what gay being a choice or having a biological cause makes a difference?

 

So to be enlightened then, one must recognize that sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition? Hmmm! Aristotle or Socrates?

 

There is no asterisk in the Constitution. Citizens have rights and are equal under the law, period. So even if it IS a choice--which I doubt--it's immaterial to the discussion of the law.

 

So you're saying homosexuality is genetic? Source please.

And why should we consider pedophilia a "fetish" and homosexuality an "orientation"? What objective standard can we use to separate the two? Seems you just want to call one an "orientation" to legitimize it. It all boils down to who you want to f(*)(*)(*). I fail to see the difference from a psychological standpoint.

 

There are certain elements in this society who think I should pay more taxes for people who claim to be gays. If it's physiological they will be able to convince more people than if it is merely a choice.

 

What in the world would you have to pay more taxes for? lol

 

So, you're saying that you could choose to be attracted to another man?



Over 1500 species have been observed with homosexual/bisexual behavior, including our closest relative, the Bonobo, which is almost completely bisexual.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-72574.html

 

Yes, to hold the contrarian view - that sexual orientation is entirely voluntary and that folks of whom one approves choose hetero- and perverse ones homo- is a benighted attitude.

Homophobes always seem at a loss to explain precisely when and how they considered their alternatives and made their personal decision to opt for heterosexuality.



.

 

It doesn't matter because, as conservatives should be pointing out if they actually gave a flying **** about liberty; one may do whatever he wants with his/her person and property. This includes homosexual sex.

End of story.

 

"So, does the cause of homosexuality matter to you in your opinions surrounding the social, aspects ? "

Answer; No problems the same as hetro.

The political, aspects ? Answer; Yes.

The moral aspects of homosexuality? Answer; Yes.

reva

 

No, what is abnormal (though not in the statistical sense) is the proclivity to cast aspersions on those who call a spade a spade, such as you are manifesting here.

No I do not, and the distinction is of no particular moment here anyway.

Seeing the question is based on a premise which is hopelessly divorced from reality, I'll just let it stand as a testament to the depth of your delusion.

No doubt those who are foolish enough to equate perversion with race will agree.

Without clicking I can say with absolute assurance that there is no such thing.

Bad try.

Not the same thing.

You're obviously not the sort of heterosexual male who would know love when he sees it.

Perfectly.

Prove it. And then prove that having sex with someone who doesn't understand sex is abuse.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about - and in your case one need not look very hard at all for a reason you might have to prefer ignorance in this matter.

Well then you have nothing to worry about.

I did it for bad diction, not bad spelling. The oppression, judgment and hate you perceive in others is actually your desire to do unto them what has not been done unto you.

Never said that.

Why would I tell someone who doesn't want the answer? Hmmmmm?

 

There being no such thing, the question answers itself.

Of course.

No, because implicit in their parenting will be the expectation that the child pretend he or she has been given a reasonably good start in life.

 

So, you think it's biological, but you don't want gay people to be:

Derp?

Why wouldn't you actually present scientific evidence to support your claim if you have any? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

It may not be politically correct to say it, but I think it's possible that being molested as a kid could make you gay. If a little boy's first sexual experience was with an older man, and it 'felt good' at the time, then the kid might mentally associate that feeling with having sex with a man when he reaches puberty.

 

Did I say that? No. Attempting to put words in my mouth is not very convincing.

OK, I asked for proof of your assertion that human homosexuality is genetic (and your post also implied that it was solely genetic). Your articles about animal behavior do not claim what you are claiming. At most, they speculate that this is the case. In fact, your innovations report link says outright that "homosexuality is a social phenomenon". Scientifically, no one has come out and said "it's genetic", probably because if there was a "gay gene", logic dictates that it would not survive long, with "survival of the fittest" being determined by producing offspring. The best guess so far, scientifically, is that genetic instructions are sometimes misread.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

Of course, this is just the nature side of things, and does not go into possible environmental factors.

 

I believe that, in some cases, individual self construction which is done consciously or subconsciously, and external influences are the cause of a person growing up to become homosexual. I also believe that in some cases its is entirely or mostly all due to genetic. I am for its legalization, but I find the concept of it to be disgusting, except for lesbians. Take my opinion, which has no basis for it, with a pinch of salt. On an unrelated note, I remember reading this one article which talked about homosexuality in animals. The article stated that, in this one specific species, when there were no females available the male engaged in homosexual activities, but when a female was present and available the male would choose to have sex with the female.

 

If it's a choice to be gay, then, yes, you're saying that.

Saying it is a social phenomenon is not saying it's a socialized trait. lol.

From my first article:

lol, wait, you link me to an article that says it's biological caused and then try to argue against it being biological caused by saying that maybe genetic instructions are "sometimes misread?" That's funny. Not only are you contradicting yourself, but that article says nothing about genetic instructions being misread, and actually says there is an evolutionary advantage in homosexuals which is what causes this biological trait to be passed on:

 

OK, not sure if you're trolling here, or if you're really having this much trouble understanding English, so I'll try once more.

And I never said that, either. So, again, no.

"Evolutionary continuity" could mean a continuity of society as easily as continuity of genetics. You are reading into it what you want to see. Note that it is a professor of evolutionary psychology, not molecular biochemistry.

Wow, again with the reading comprehension. I said it wasn't exclusively genetic, which the article clearly states in the part that I quoted. I never said that there were no biological factors.

If you think that, then you missed the whole point of the article. Genetics is the code. Epigenetics is the reading of the code. Again, in the quoted part of the article "These epi-marks are usually, but not always, "erased" between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased — they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son". Notice how they put "erased" in quotations. That's because the code is not actually erased, it's just supposed to be disregarded, like a programmer's note. There are many lines of DNA code which we have that are inactive. If the wrong ones are activated, then the code is "misread", like a computer trying to read a programmer's note as code.

And once again you misunderstand the text. This does NOT say that the epi-marks provide "an evolutionary advantage in homosexuals", but for the PARENTS. The homosexuality of the child is merely an unintended side effect which sometimes occurs due to the parents' attempts at keeping the proper mix of male and female hormones in their own bodies - which does provide evolutionary advantage to them.

 

If you think that gut feeling or a sense of morality that is "inborn" is an adequate way to justify your normative claims then the answer is yes. I've always felt that I've had an "inborn" sense that I shouldn't harm people unless they were directly harming myself or others, or if you want to go to really "inborn" senses of what is right and wrong then I suppose that it's okay for a man to take and to rape everything that he wants, because if you're talking about what is most natural, what we are really born with it is that, to do what we want regardless of the needs of others. Everything that your parents and those around you do to civilize you and make you empathetic is learned behavior.

Civilization comes about when men are willing to respect one another and their needs, and they aren't in a state of everlasting war and oppression over what they think others should be doing. Mutual respect is the ultimate cornerstone of civilization. The fact that you want to turn against this for what you feel is "inborn" is in its own small way a return to truest barbarism, and if such a philosophy were adopted by everyone a long time ago neither you nor I would be alive.

At any rate, the fact that you think it's inborn to believe that to people of the same sex having sex is necessarily evil and "dark", or that this is universal is dumb and without any foundation. It's also idiotic to think that inborn intuition can tell us about sin:

Especially when what the divine has had to say has varied massively throughout time and culture. At least when you say it's in the bible and it's documented you have a basis for divine law. When inborn morality is the source of divine law it appears odd exactly how many contradictory, arbitrary, and inborn renditions of this divine law have been practiced....

 

People will be increasingly pressured to pretend that "gay marriage" is not an absurdity, and to allow their children to be influenced by children raised under "SSM", which will lead to increasing moral decay, which in turn will lead, and is leading, to despotism.

The question is absurd, since what homosexuals want is not the right to marry, but the right to insist that everyone else call their unions marriages.

That would depend on what is meant by "arbitrary".

Yes.

Yes, and so does anyone else with a lick of sense, who needs only to reflect on the fact such an adoption deprives the child of the opportunity to experience parenting that is not, at least on its face, engaged in to serve the egotistical desires of the parents above all else.

Look there's only so much stupid I can take, and you are teetering on the edge.

Why the hell would I bother presenting such evidence to someone who is not only clueless about what science is, but who would blow his brains out before he ever let such a clue get within ten feet of him?

There is no such thing, hth.

Fine. If you ever find the cojones to divest yourself of this fatuous conceit, do get back to me. Until then, don't call me and I won't call you.

 

Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word.

I don't know why people think it takes anything that extreme. If the father becomes contemptible in the eyes of the child for any reason, justly or unjustly, all sorts of mischief can follow including deviant sexual desires.

 

Typical. Ridiculous claims, and then, just immature insults when asked to back up those claims with scientific evidence. That's the definition of a troll.