Are you born gay?

[glockmail]

It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the “trait” of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.

One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?

A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.

A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.

 

[Nuc]

One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual?

Maybe you've hit the nail on the head. Everybody's bisexual. It's just a matter of percentage which way you lean.

Thanks for solving the boards most pressing and frequently debated issue.

I asked the moderators this before and I'll ask again. Since "Homosexuality" is probably the most popular topic on this forum (more than "sports" or "photography") why doesn't it have its own forum heading? Then the people who are obsessed with the issue will know where to go rather than having to jump between "Religion", "War on Terror" and all the other sections this debate rears its stupid head.

 

[glockmail]

...... Since "Homosexuality" is probably the most popular topic on this forum (more than "sports" or "photography") why doesn't it have its own forum heading? .....

Maybe because it is an ethical/ religious/ health issue, and we have a lot of people obsessed with the truth, and hate being lied to.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Therefore someone cannot have a genetic homosexual parent. Since traits are passed on through generations, it is clear that the “trait” of homosexuality is not passed on through generations, but is in fact a learned response. Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.

One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman, as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual? Further, one would not assume that a heterosexual male would venture from his instincts and become, even temporarily, aroused by another male and choose a time and place for a relation. So why would one assume a homosexual would venture from his instinct for the purpose of insemination? Moreover, if this is how a variant of the species procreates, then where is the evidence to support this? Are there a large percentage of homosexuals, greater than the incidence of homosexuality as a whole, who can claim they have a genetic parent who is also homosexual?

A second argument against my theory is that homosexuals use artificial insemination to procreate. If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.

A third argument against is that homosexuality is the result of some kind of mutation or gene interaction between male and female DNA. If this is so, would homosexuality be in fact a medical abnormality, such as a cleft palette or autism? If that is the case, then why do we have organized groups attempting to normalize and encourage homosexuality? Moreover, where is the scientific evidence to support this? Surely pro-gay groups would have found and exploited this evidence by now.

What's your response to it being a recessive trait?

 

[dmp]

What's your response to it being a recessive trait?

that's pure speculation. It's no more a recessive trait than serial killers...of course, I'm speculating, too.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

It is an obvious fact that Homosexuals cannot reproduce.

maybe not with each other but women can go to the local sperm bank and have a baby.
,

but is in fact a learned response

.so children whose family are religious are learing to be gay by their own family?

Further, since I have known several who have been homosexuals in college and then entered into a heterosexual long term relationship, it is clear that they made a poor choice during a less mature period in their lives.

non-gay people make poor choices too

One argument against this is that a gay man can have sex with and impregnate a woman. However, he would have to become, at least temporarily, a heterosexual to become aroused by that woman,

or he could be on the down low. with the hate of gays in this country i'm shocked gays every come out the closet

as well as choose the time and place for the relation. Would not that make him a bisexual, not a dedicated homosexual?

why are u so worry about one sexual liking?

 

[theHawk]

You won't get an answer because if there is one things liberals despise its when its pointed out to them that homosexuality completely contradicts their most beloved belief - Darwinism. If Darwinism was true then any homosexual traits would of been eleminated in all species long ago. Liberalism tries to instill the believe that man's sins such as homosexuality are "natural" and should be encouraged. They will say homosexuality is exhibited in other animals thus its perfectly normal for a human to do it as well. What they fail to address though, is many animals also kill their own kind....so where is the line drawn for what is acceptable for humans to do if we look to the animal kingdom for moral guidance? The answer is of course God drew the line and told us homosexuality is a sin and an abomination as is killing each other. Liberals however, will tell us that killing is bad but homosexuality is ok. But where does this guidance come from? --themselves of course. Since there is no authority in liberalism their morals can change at anytime. "Killing is bad" but some liberals will turn around and even make excuses for killers in our society, instead of promoting the idea of individual responsibility for a killers own actions liberals are quick to blame society itself...leaving the killer to do what was only "natural" in his environment. Liberals refuse to acknowlege that homosexuality in humans is largely a result of either early childhood abuse or just selfish gradification. Natural or not its still wrong.

 

[dmp]

.so children whose family are religious are learing to be gay by their own family?

Or they were molested, or otherwise sexually abused - OR were neglected.

See - here's how I think it works.

God created us. Every person has an intrinsic NEED for their Father. Their spritual Father. In a mother and father, God shows us many attributes of Himself. When either of those is lacking, our very SOULS seek out feelings of acceptance, love, importance, discipline, did I mention love? If, as kids, we do NOT get what we need from or parents we become DRIVEN to find that feeling, however perverted, from others. Little girls who don't have their daddy's love might because sluts. Little boys who never have the acceptance and attention of their mothers might become...sluts. Little boys, Seeking attention and approval will spend time in the company of OTHER men - some of who may have been abused themselves. Those men may have the little boy sit on their lap, and pretend they are driving over a bumpy road. After continued abuse, when the person becomes older they assosiate the attention they got as kids with 'love'.
Anywho - that's getting a bit off topic from my intent - which was 'EVERYONE is searching for LOVE and ACCEPTANCE from God. Apart from God, they seek it the first place they can find it. Parents. Homosexuals. Whatever. They may be ignorant of the fact, but I bet ANY homosexual who trully found Christ would no longer need to continue in his/her lifestyle, because GOD would provide all the "masculine love" they need - and HE wouldn't be HURTING THEM to show it.


Or whatever.

 

[glockmail]

What's your response to it being a recessive trait?

Researchers have searched for a long time for a "gay gene" and so far have not found one.

 

[Nuc]

Can't you guys find anything else to talk about? If the moderators used the word censor to block out the words "gay", "fag" and "homosexual" there'd be very little content left on the board.

 

[glockmail]

[1]maybe not with each other but women can go to the local sperm bank and have a baby.
[2], .so children whose family are religious are learing to be gay by their own family?
[3] non-gay people make poor choices too
[4] or he could be on the down low. with the hate of gays in this country i'm shocked gays every come out the closet
[5]why are u so worry about one sexual liking?

1. That possibility was addressed in post 1. “If that were true then homosexuality could never have existed before about 35 years ago.”
2. Children learn from others in addition to their families, ie: schools and peers.
3. Yes, like drugs, crime, and fattening foods. However there are no huge influential lobby groups to support these other poor choices.
4. I’ve not heard that term before.
5. Simple: I seek the truth.

 

[dmp]

Can't you guys find anything else to talk about? If the moderators used the word censor to block out the words "gay", "fag" and "homosexual" there'd be very little content left on the board.

I'm thinking we filter the word 'noahide' to appear as the word 'queer'

 

[glockmail]

Can't you guys find anything else to talk about? If the moderators used the word censor to block out the words "gay", "fag" and "homosexual" there'd be very little content left on the board.

Its called freedom of speech, which is a codified right. You also have the right not to pay attention, an action that actually requires less effort than participation.

 

[Nuc]

Its called freedom of speech, which is a codified right. You also have the right not to pay attention, an action that actually requires less effort than participation.

I didn't say you "shouldn't" talk about it, I asked if you have anything else to talk about. Evidentally not.

 

[Nuc]

I'm thinking we filter the word 'noahide' to appear as the word 'queer'

Or how about changing the word "masonic lodge" to "gay bar"? And "masons" to "fruitcakes"?

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the "why" someone is gay is completely irrelevant to the discussion on whether its right or not. It doesnt matter if you are born with the urges or its a choice. Its perfectly natural to be violent, dishonest, arrogant, intolerant, etc. Does that make it right?

I have always found it rather odd that the pro-homosexual people always advocate that people need to be tolerant of homosexuals because its natural to be homosexual yet you expect people to ignore their natural state of intolerance. Why should people avoid intolerance, which is perfectly natural, and not avoid homosexuality? It just doesnt make sense.

 

[Hobbit]

First off, Nuc, stop trolling. Homosexuality as a political football is one of the issues of our day and deserves to be talked about. You can either accept this or go away, but don't post in a thread if all you're going to try to do is de-rail it.

Now, back to the topic at hand. The strongest evidence currently available for homosexuality as a choice vs. born that way is a new study in pre-natal hormone levels. Apparantly, a small percentage of pregnancies feature a hormonal imbalance while the baby is still in development. Children born after these hormonal imbalances tend to behave a bit contrary to their gender (affeminate men, butch women) and are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than those without this imbalance.

However, the desire or not matters little. As human beings, we are expected to rise above our impulses to benefit us in the long run. Many people remain monogamous or even celibate against their impulses for a variety of reasons, and given the potential health problems of homosexuality, I think we would do best to discourage, not endorse, that activity, in much the same way that society discourages smoking, drinking, overeating, and other 'natural,' but harmful behaviours.

 

[glockmail]

I didn't say you "shouldn't" talk about it, I asked if you have anything else to talk about. Evidentally not.

Evidently you haven't been reading any other posts.

 

[glockmail]

Or how about changing the word "masonic lodge" to "gay bar"? And "masons" to "fruitcakes"?

FYI my marriage reception was at a Masonic Lodge, of which my father-in-law was, and still is a member. I assure you he is neither gay nor a fruitcake.

 

[Nuc]

FYI my marriage reception was at a Masonic Lodge, of which my father-in-law was, and still is a member. I assure you he is neither gay nor a fruitcake.

In-joke, DMP was referring to one of the other forum members who has a few obsessions. Among them the Masons.