Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[Manonthestreet]

Not what the link says.......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OK

How about this?

A little of both. Some may be wired homosexual and some may choose it

But what difference does the cause make?

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

Yet we have a constitutional amendment that states, and I quote, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Thus with due process of law the states shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property. Disadvantaging particular Americans for the common good is constitutional, since the passing of this clause.

And to disadvantage gay Americans as a consequence of their sexual orientation denies them their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

The states are at liberty to enact all manner of restrictions and prohibitions, provided they're applied consistently and do not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Yet they can and do for certain classes of persons. For example, classes of persons who have more money than others get higher taxes for the common good. As another example, classes of persons who live in the path of a public road get to sell their land and homes for the common good.

Thus the issue of whether said actions based on said laws are allowed clearly comes to whether the SCOTUS rules yay or nay when said issues of common good fly in the face of said issues of equal protection. For clearly, the law does not always side with equal protection when the common good would suffer.

Tying this track tighter to the OP. One can, under the current Constitution, argue that whether or not homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or some combination of both can be specified by the states, so long as these states successfully argue that equal protection of the law has been applied when the law harms said individuals by taking their life, liberty, and property.

Gay Americans constitute a protected class of persons, entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from disadvantage by the state. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil rights are for the most part subject to a heightened level of intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny as is the case with a suspect class of persons such as African-Americans, but a level of judicial review at the threshold of strict scrutiny (see Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

Not all groupings of persons are recognized by the Constitution as classes entitled to constitutional protections, such as people with 'more money,' land owners, or stamp collectors, for that matter. Individuals in these groups are entitled to procedural due process, for example, as are property owners pursuant to the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause.

But the issue of the protected liberty afforded gay Americans concerns substantive due process as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, prohibiting the states from disadvantaging homosexuals motivated solely by animus toward that protected class, regardless whether one is a homosexual by birth or choice. Indeed, the Court has already held that measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to state laws fail to pass even a rational basis level of judicial review, where no state can successfully argue adversely effected homosexuals have been afforded their due process and equal protection rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Evolution would suggest that this flaw would be eventually excised from the human genomic structure altogether, because without these artificial means, the homosexual population would eventually die out."

Incorrect.

As already noted, heterosexuals give birth to homosexuals, the genetic trait can manifest in any human, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual.

Homosexuals are no more likely to 'die out' than any other variation of the human theme.

 

[Pop23]

Nah ... I didn't miss the point.

You either cannot understand how the Structured Debate Section works (which I seriously doubt is the case) ... Or just haven't realized how the thread is contained within.
I don't have a problem with what you are trying to suggest ... Wouldn't mind expounding on it more.
It just doesn't fit the parameters of the thread as defined by the OP ... And I gave you a link to where you can start a thread, set your parameters and discuss all you want.

Let me know if you need any more help ... Glad to assist.

.

OK

How about this?

A little of both. Some may be wired homosexual and some may choose it

But what difference does the cause make?

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

Yet we have a constitutional amendment that states, and I quote, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Thus with due process of law the states shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property. Disadvantaging particular Americans for the common good is constitutional, since the passing of this clause.

And to disadvantage gay Americans as a consequence of their sexual orientation denies them their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

The states are at liberty to enact all manner of restrictions and prohibitions, provided they're applied consistently and do not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Clayton, why do you consistently make statements in. STRUCTURED DEBATE outside the debate point?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It doesn't because gay men don't screw women. Artificial insemination is relatively new. There would have been no gays left to breed more

Incorrect. Gay men do screw women.

Then one would question that homosexuality was genetic in nature given that statement; or the fact that the man was in fact "gay" as is defined by the LGBT community. If the sexual desire (or compulsion) to mate with the opposite gender still exists in the gay man, he is in fact not gay, but a heterosexual as he was designed to be--in theory.

Incorrect.

As a consequence of the fear, hate, and ignorance that manifests in society with regard to homosexuality, it is not uncommon for a gay man to attempt to conform to what is perceived to be a 'real man' by society, and pursue heterosexual relationships, often marrying and fathering children. This is an occurrence for the most part among very young men.

In time these men come to terms with the truth of their sexuality, that they are in fact gay.

 

[JoeMoma]

It doesn't because gay men don't screw women.

Do you have a link to back you up? I have known of homosexual men that have married heterosexual women and had children only for the woman to find out later and divorce them. You are so out of touch.

Artificial insemination is relatively new. There would have been no gays left to breed more

Just post some links.....we don't need baseless opinions.

That's a situation that seems to occur frequently. Unless thes men did not enjoy having sex with their wives while they were making their children, then they are not 100% gay. Perhaps they are bisexual and are claiming to be gay because they've had it with women after a bad marriage. I don't buy it when a dude suddenly proclaims his gayness and leaves his wife after they have been having sex regularly for years and they have several kids as a result of it.

 

[RKMBrown]

It doesn't because gay men don't screw women. Artificial insemination is relatively new. There would have been no gays left to breed more

Incorrect. Gay men do screw women.

Then one would question that homosexuality was genetic in nature given that statement; or the fact that the man was in fact "gay" as is defined by the LGBT community. If the sexual desire (or compulsion) to mate with the opposite gender still exists in the gay man, he is in fact not gay, but a heterosexual as he was designed to be--in theory.

Many issues involved. For example, there is a desire to propagate and there are also lust-full desires. I venture that it is possible for one to have both types of desires for different reasons.

As an example, you may be attracted to a particular woman, but that does not necessarily mean you want to have children with her does it?

Templar, did you see post #45 yet? That post addresses this issue in a broader way and provides an argument.

 

[RKMBrown]

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

Yet we have a constitutional amendment that states, and I quote, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Thus with due process of law the states shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property. Disadvantaging particular Americans for the common good is constitutional, since the passing of this clause.

And to disadvantage gay Americans as a consequence of their sexual orientation denies them their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

The states are at liberty to enact all manner of restrictions and prohibitions, provided they're applied consistently and do not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Yet they can and do for certain classes of persons. For example, classes of persons who have more money than others get higher taxes for the common good. As another example, classes of persons who live in the path of a public road get to sell their land and homes for the common good.

Thus the issue of whether said actions based on said laws are allowed clearly comes to whether the SCOTUS rules yay or nay when said issues of common good fly in the face of said issues of equal protection. For clearly, the law does not always side with equal protection when the common good would suffer.

Tying this track tighter to the OP. One can, under the current Constitution, argue that whether or not homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or some combination of both can be specified by the states, so long as these states successfully argue that equal protection of the law has been applied when the law harms said individuals by taking their life, liberty, and property.

Gay Americans constitute a protected class of persons, entitled to Constitutional protections, immune from disadvantage by the state. Laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their civil rights are for the most part subject to a heightened level of intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny as is the case with a suspect class of persons such as African-Americans, but a level of judicial review at the threshold of strict scrutiny (see Lawrence v. Texas (2003)).

Not all groupings of persons are recognized by the Constitution as classes entitled to constitutional protections, such as people with 'more money,' land owners, or stamp collectors, for that matter. Individuals in these groups are entitled to procedural due process, for example, as are property owners pursuant to the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause.

But the issue of the protected liberty afforded gay Americans concerns substantive due process as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, prohibiting the states from disadvantaging homosexuals motivated solely by animus toward that protected class, regardless whether one is a homosexual by birth or choice. Indeed, the Court has already held that measures seeking to deny gay Americans access to state laws fail to pass even a rational basis level of judicial review, where no state can successfully argue adversely effected homosexuals have been afforded their due process and equal protection rights.

I believe the issue at hand is that gays are not "yet" specifically listed as a protect group at the federal level, with the only exception being for civil service application. Last I checked the civil rights laws did not apply generally to sexual orientation, except by a few of the states.

 

[paperview]

I can answer - for me. I firmly believe there is a genetic component to many individuals, but also a strong correlation for many gays and lesbians regarding the hormones in utero.

And my perspective is personal, but I think it's important to share in regards to the question which so many seem to be vexed over --

I have been attracted to women since some of my earliest memories. I never acted on it in any way, and even concluded to get married to a man. I decided I was going to live a lie, because that is what society told me I needed to do.

I never even imagined anything hormonal might be the basis before my late 20's.

I just knew I felt this way, and it was hard wired in me.

One day in my early thirties, I went visit my mother. When I walked in, she was crying her eyes out.

Mom, mom, what's the matter? What happened? Why are you crying??

My mom, in between sobs, was telling me how she had just seen a thing on TV about women getting cancer in their 20's and 30's because their mothers had taken a hormone during pregnancy. (DES was one concern)

She lamented that *she* had taken hormones while she was carrying me, as the doctor prescribed, and that she *sob* was worried she "might have given me cancer."

Well, after holding her close, settling her down, telling her not to worry, I told her I was fine, and would be fine.
But to allay her fears, I promised her I would go to the hospital where her medical records were kept when she gave birth to me, and look it up.

She signed a permission slip and I trucked over to the hospital. It was quite strange reading the doctors records of your mothers pregnancy for you, I'll tell you. Weights, discomforts, notes about 'the fetus....'

But there it was: throughout the pregnancy, she had taken what? Progesterone. A male hormone. That was recommended for women at that time if they had had multiple miscarriages. She'd already had a number of boys and she wanted a girl dearly, she was determined to keep that pregnancy. She took this hormone every day of her pregnancy.

After reading those records (and informing mom the hormone was not the cancer-causing one she had been hearing about) I delved deep into learning about progesterone and interactions in utero.

Puzzle pieces started coming together...and - it was the first time, some things made sense about the way my mind worked, and my orientation.

Shortly afterwords, I started reading about the studies and even contacted a few writers about the studies, encouraging more investigation into this.

Lots more studies have been done since then, and as I said, I am convinced, in my case, it was a goodly portion of what created this lesbian.

What's a little amusing about this is, I am about the most feminine looking woman you will ever find, but inside: I think like a guy, I'm all woman, but my attractions - are to women, fully.

I am convinced progesterone and the fetal environment as I was formed played a huge part in this.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can answer - for me. I firmly believe there is a genetic component to many individuals, but also a strong correlation for many gays and lesbians regarding the hormones in utero.

And my perspective is personal, but I think it's important to share in regards to the question which so many seem to be vexed over --

I have been attracted to women since some of my earliest memories. I never acted on it in any way, and even concluded to get married to a man. I decided I was going to live a lie, because that is what society told me I needed to do.

I never even imagined anything hormonal might be the basis before my late 20's.

I just knew I felt this way, and it was hard wired in me.

One day in my early thirties, I went visit my mother. When I walked in, she was crying her eyes out.

Mom, mom, what's the matter? What happened? Why are you crying??

My mom, in between sobs, was telling me how she had just seen a thing on TV about women getting cancer in their 20's and 30's because their mothers had taken a hormone during pregnancy. (DES was one concern)

She lamented that *she* had taken hormones while she was carrying me, as the doctor prescribed, and that she *sob* was worried she "might have given me cancer."

Well, after holding her close, settling her down, telling her not to worry, I told her I was fine, and would be fine.
But to allay her fears, I promised her I would go to the hospital where her medical records were kept when she gave birth to me, and look it up.

She signed a permission slip and I trucked over to the hospital. It was quite strange reading the doctors records of your mothers pregnancy for you, I'll tell you. Weights, discomforts, notes about 'the fetus....'

But there it was: throughout the pregnancy, she had taken what? Progesterone. A male hormone. That was recommended for women at that time if they had had multiple miscarriages. She'd already had a number of boys and she wanted a girl dearly, she was determined to keep that pregnancy. She took this hormone every day of her pregnancy.

After reading those records (and informing mom the hormone was not the cancer-causing one she had been hearing about) I delved deep into learning about progesterone and interactions in utero.

Puzzle pieces started coming together...and - it was the first time, some things made sense about the way my mind worked, and my orientation.

Shortly afterwords, I started reading about the studies and even contacted a few writers about the studies, encouraging more investigation into this.

Lots more studies have been done since then, and as I said, I am convinced, in my case, it was a goodly portion of what created this lesbian.

What's a little amusing about this is, I am about the most feminine looking woman you will ever find, but inside: I think like a guy, I'm all woman, but my attractions - are to women, fully.

I am convinced progesterone and the fetal environment as I was formed played a huge part in this.

Thank you for sharing.

I too agree that it is the fetal development that plays a major role. We already know that women who smoke during pregnancy give birth to underweight children. (Gee, oxygen deprivation and nicotine poisoning, who would have guessed?)

The actual process of stem cells transforming themselves into the organs, nodes, bones, etc is highly complex and yes, an outside influence like alcohol or drugs could cause the process of sexual orientation to be either a little too early or too late. Too much or too little estrogen or testosterone would probably have an impact depending upon whether or not the fetus is male or female.

So rather than a specific gene it is the epigenetic process occurring in the uterus that is susceptible to outside influences. It makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Just an observation that I would like to add. I knew that you were gay because of your posts but I had assumed that you were male from the tone of your posts too. So yes, you do come across as male even though you are actually female. Oh, and in the interests of full disclosure, my posts are often mistaken for the opposite gender as are some other posters here. It happens quite a lot around here.

 

[BlackSand]

As regards the question, post#45 is opinion.

There is plenty of scientific evidence that our sexuality is hardwired into us and no one decides to be either straight or gay. To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.


If you have a point to make, please do so. If not, I'll ask that you also keep your insults to yourself.

Thanks.

My point is that you need to provide a link to the scientific evidence you are talking about.
That is the requirement in the OP ... If you cannot figure out how to do that ... Shoot me a PM and I will explain the process.

And if you think it is an insult I think you are smart enough to understand the directions ... I don't know what to tell you.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Clayton, Ludz, you two are intent on introducing speculation into the debate,outrightly trying to steer it off topic, or simply insulting people with an opposing view. This is my one and final warning: get back on topic or I will get the moderators involved.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am convinced progesterone and the fetal environment as I was formed played a huge part in this.

That's quite a reasonable conclusion. Homosexuality can be a combination of things as can be seen from your testimonial or other opinions throughout this thread. Genetics, hormones, fetal environment, outside stimuli, or simply acting on or being compelled to because of societal trends. The real problem is that there are no defined causes, just a plethora of possible causes involved, i.e variables.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am convinced progesterone and the fetal environment as I was formed played a huge part in this.

That's quite a reasonable conclusion. Homosexuality can be a combination of things as can be seen from your testimonial or other opinions throughout this thread. Genetics, hormones, fetal environment, outside stimuli, or simply acting on or being compelled to because of societal trends. The real problem is that there are no defined causes, just a plethora of possible causes involved, i.e variables.

Correct. All human behavior is the result of variables.

 

[MaryL]

No links to back me up. Einstein was all about thought experiments that didn't have internet links to back him up. But he generally seems to have got his point across. It's pretty basic stuff, Heterosexuals carry the gene pool forward, gays don't. Gays are about broken sexuality, why all the fuss?

 

[Derideo_Te]

No links to back me up. Einstein was all about thought experiments that didn't have internet links to back him up. But he generally seems to have got his point across. It's pretty basic stuff, Heterosexuals carry the gene pool forward, gays don't. Gays are about broken sexuality, why all the fuss?

Einstein backed up his thinking with published mathematical proofs of his concepts.

How else would anyone have found out about e=mc2?

 

[RKMBrown]

No links to back me up. Einstein was all about thought experiments that didn't have internet links to back him up. But he generally seems to have got his point across. It's pretty basic stuff, Heterosexuals carry the gene pool forward, gays don't. Gays are about broken sexuality, why all the fuss?

Wrong, gays do carry the gene pool forward. In fact they do it the same way many heterosexuals do. Through surrogacy.

 

[MaryL]

No links to back me up. Einstein was all about thought experiments that didn't have internet links to back him up. But he generally seems to have got his point across. It's pretty basic stuff, Heterosexuals carry the gene pool forward, gays don't. Gays are about broken sexuality, why all the fuss?

Wrong, gays do carry the gene pool forward. In fact they do it the same way many heterosexuals do. Through surrogacy.

That is pretty weak answer. Surrogacy is a man made concept, not a biological one. Bzzz. Wrong. Try again.

 

[RKMBrown]

No links to back me up. Einstein was all about thought experiments that didn't have internet links to back him up. But he generally seems to have got his point across. It's pretty basic stuff, Heterosexuals carry the gene pool forward, gays don't. Gays are about broken sexuality, why all the fuss?

Wrong, gays do carry the gene pool forward. In fact they do it the same way many heterosexuals do. Through surrogacy.

That is pretty weak answer. Surrogacy is a man made concept, not a biological one. Bzzz. Wrong. Try again.

Has no one explained to you how men and women have sex yet?

A gay woman and a gay man have babies the same way heterosexual men and women do. Is that too complex to understand?

 

[Coyote]

No links to back me up. Einstein was all about thought experiments that didn't have internet links to back him up. But he generally seems to have got his point across. It's pretty basic stuff, Heterosexuals carry the gene pool forward, gays don't. Gays are about broken sexuality, why all the fuss?

Wrong, gays do carry the gene pool forward. In fact they do it the same way many heterosexuals do. Through surrogacy.

That is pretty weak answer. Surrogacy is a man made concept, not a biological one. Bzzz. Wrong. Try again.

For a biological one: Kin selection - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia