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

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
44,878
Reaction score
9,484
Points
2,040
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

The rules are as follows:

1. No ad hominem (personal attacks)
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera).
3. No anti-Gay or anti-Christian commentary.
4. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources.
5. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
6. No discussion regarding religious or non religious views of Homosexuality. Let the science (or your interpretation therein) do the talking.
7. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively reported to forum staff.
8. This thread will be governed under "Zone 1" regulations.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
3,479
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
1. Not genetic or not genetic alone, because studies on identical twins
do not show 100% match where the twins are the same orientation.
I think the chances are slightly over 50% of being the same orientation,
something like 53% to 47%. Since this is not random either, but there
is a slightly greater chance of matching orientations than not matching,
it could be argued that genetics may predict a "tendency" but that other factors are involved.

Source: "Homosexuality: Can it be healed" by Francis MacNutt

2. In some cases homosexuality may be able to change by choice to undergo spiritual therapy. If you look at real cases of people who changed, this can either be interpreted as "changing orientation as a choice,"
or as "going back to one's original orientation that is natural and not a choice"
(where the other conditions were not natural but were not chosen either).

This is based on faith in people's reports and interpretations.

Regardless if different people look at these changes as natural or unnatural,
the fact is that there are REPORTS of both people changing and people saying they could not change.

Examples: People Can Change - An alternative healing response to unwanted homosexual desires.
De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
How To Defeat Homosexual Activists 101 A Real Education Page 4 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

3. NOTE: Because this is faith-based, and cannot be proven either way without more scientific research, where I find people can agree to avoid arguing is that these changes or conditions are SPIRITUALLY determined.

This is also completely faith-based, but at least it covers all the cases and interpretations,
and allows for explanations either way. People still report either changing or not changing.
There is no need to argue, if we can agree it is a spiritual process that determines if people change or not.
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
  1. When did the OP choose to be heterosexual?
  2. Can the OP tell us in his own words how he felt attraction to both males and females and made the choice as to which gender he would engage in sexual relations?
  3. What factors influenced the OP's choice?
  4. How old was the OP when he made this choice?
  5. Did the OP seek the advice and counsel of anyone when it came to making his personal choice?

None of the above is be construed as a "persona attack" on the OP. They are intended as a purely fact finding exercise. To prove that there is no malice intended towards the OP I will provide my own answers to the questions above.

  1. I never made the "choice" to be heterosexual.
  2. I was never attracted to males, only females.
  3. I am not aware of any factors since I never made a choice.
  4. Around puberty.
  5. I asked no one and no one gave me any counsel, I was just naturally attracted to females.

The OP is demanding that I provide "proof" that I made a "choice" that I never made.

So isn't the onus on the OP to first provide proof that he made a "choice" first?

Isn't that the whole basis of the OP that there has to be a "choice" of some kind? So where is the OP's case that homosexuality is a "choice"?

Unless the OP can provide scientific substantiation that he made a "choice" there is nothing to discuss here.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
3,479
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
  1. When did the OP choose to be heterosexual?
  2. Can the OP tell us in his own words how he felt attraction to both males and females and made the choice as to which gender he would engage in sexual relations?
  3. What factors influenced the OP's choice?
  4. How old was the OP when he made this choice?
  5. Did the OP seek the advice and counsel of anyone when it came to making his personal choice?
None of the above is be construed as a "persona attack" on the OP. They are intended as a purely fact finding exercise. To prove that there is no malice intended towards the OP I will provide my own answers to the questions above.

  1. I never made the "choice" to be heterosexual.
  2. I was never attracted to males, only females.
  3. I am not aware of any factors since I never made a choice.
  4. Around puberty.
  5. I asked no one and no one gave me any counsel, I was just naturally attracted to females.

The OP is demanding that I provide "proof" that I made a "choice" that I never made.

So isn't the onus on the OP to first provide proof that he made a "choice" first?

Isn't that the whole basis of the OP that there has to be a "choice" of some kind? So where is the OP's case that homosexuality is a "choice"?

Unless the OP can provide scientific substantiation that he made a "choice" there is nothing to discuss here.
You may have a point:
If you look at how Chirlane McCray talks about finding love
it is more about ACCEPTANCE:

De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
  1. When did the OP choose to be heterosexual?
  2. Can the OP tell us in his own words how he felt attraction to both males and females and made the choice as to which gender he would engage in sexual relations?
  3. What factors influenced the OP's choice?
  4. How old was the OP when he made this choice?
  5. Did the OP seek the advice and counsel of anyone when it came to making his personal choice?
None of the above is be construed as a "persona attack" on the OP. They are intended as a purely fact finding exercise. To prove that there is no malice intended towards the OP I will provide my own answers to the questions above.

  1. I never made the "choice" to be heterosexual.
  2. I was never attracted to males, only females.
  3. I am not aware of any factors since I never made a choice.
  4. Around puberty.
  5. I asked no one and no one gave me any counsel, I was just naturally attracted to females.

The OP is demanding that I provide "proof" that I made a "choice" that I never made.

So isn't the onus on the OP to first provide proof that he made a "choice" first?

Isn't that the whole basis of the OP that there has to be a "choice" of some kind? So where is the OP's case that homosexuality is a "choice"?

Unless the OP can provide scientific substantiation that he made a "choice" there is nothing to discuss here.
You may have a point:
If you look at how Chirlane McCray talks about finding love
it is more about ACCEPTANCE:

De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
Sexual attraction is a spectrum in my opinion. The two ends are heavily weighted but there is room for in the middle for a variety of alternatives.

Perhaps the most telling evidence of all comes from nature itself. Do animals "choose" same sex mates or does the attraction occur naturally?

BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals

There is plenty of evidence of homosexual behavior in the wild so it isn't merely something found exclusively amongst humans. If it is as common as the scientific data collected to date suggests then there is probably some evolutionary benefit to be gained. Obviously we still need a great deal more before any definitive conclusions can be reached.
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,851
Reaction score
7,126
Points
1,840
My case is that there is no scientific reason why homosexuality need be either genetic or a choice

Among the potential options:
  • Genetic
  • Epigenetic
  • Environmental(pre-natal)
  • Environmental(post-natal)
  • Conditioned(such as family environment or perhaps abuse)
  • 'Choice'- this option I put down as a wobbler- since homosexuality is by definition 'sexual attraction to a person of the same gender- I am doubtful anyone actually ever chooses who they are attracted to- but I do believe that people have made conscious choices to live their lives as heterosexuals or homosexuals
In addition- I also believe that humans do not necessarily fall easily in A or B- is the boy who fools around with his 14 year old best male friend once, but figures out he prefers girl a homosexual or a heterosexual?

And finally- I don't think the reason why is as important as treating people fairly. Anymore than I need to know why someone is a Christian or why someone is Jew.
 

Syriusly

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
54,851
Reaction score
7,126
Points
1,840
1. Not genetic or not genetic alone, because studies on identical twins
do not show 100% match where the twins are the same orientation.
.
This is actually a very good point- I have seen people from both sides of the situation point to twin studies- IF it was purely genetic- then the match should be closer to 100%- IF there was no genetic component, then the match should be exactly the same as non related parties- but instead twin studies show something in the middle.

Epigenetics could possible account for that- or possibly a genetic component that is only activated by a distinct environmental or social exposure.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
3,479
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
  1. When did the OP choose to be heterosexual?
  2. Can the OP tell us in his own words how he felt attraction to both males and females and made the choice as to which gender he would engage in sexual relations?
  3. What factors influenced the OP's choice?
  4. How old was the OP when he made this choice?
  5. Did the OP seek the advice and counsel of anyone when it came to making his personal choice?
None of the above is be construed as a "persona attack" on the OP. They are intended as a purely fact finding exercise. To prove that there is no malice intended towards the OP I will provide my own answers to the questions above.

  1. I never made the "choice" to be heterosexual.
  2. I was never attracted to males, only females.
  3. I am not aware of any factors since I never made a choice.
  4. Around puberty.
  5. I asked no one and no one gave me any counsel, I was just naturally attracted to females.

The OP is demanding that I provide "proof" that I made a "choice" that I never made.

So isn't the onus on the OP to first provide proof that he made a "choice" first?

Isn't that the whole basis of the OP that there has to be a "choice" of some kind? So where is the OP's case that homosexuality is a "choice"?

Unless the OP can provide scientific substantiation that he made a "choice" there is nothing to discuss here.
You may have a point:
If you look at how Chirlane McCray talks about finding love
it is more about ACCEPTANCE:

De Blasio s wife Chirlane McCray talks about lesbian past - NY Daily News
Sexual attraction is a spectrum in my opinion. The two ends are heavily weighted but there is room for in the middle for a variety of alternatives.

Perhaps the most telling evidence of all comes from nature itself. Do animals "choose" same sex mates or does the attraction occur naturally?

BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals

There is plenty of evidence of homosexual behavior in the wild so it isn't merely something found exclusively amongst humans. If it is as common as the scientific data collected to date suggests then there is probably some evolutionary benefit to be gained. Obviously we still need a great deal more before any definitive conclusions can be reached.
Not sure you can compare animals to humans,
as the key issues people are trying to address are inherently the human factors.

Humans can carry psychological and/or "spiritual" patterns from past generations
that may or may not be the same as how animals function.

I don't know how far science can measure or quantify these factors,
so until then, this area remains "faith-based"
* there are people who believe humans and animals operate the same and are only separated by intelligence
that evolves and can change later on
* there are people who believe humans and animals operate differently and cannot be compared in this case

all faith based,
so to be purely objective and neutral means not to assume one way over the other.
but to act unconditionally, regardless which way it may be.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,381
Reaction score
17,267
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
"Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?"

Neither.

It's irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional law it makes no difference whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of choice or birth, the condition of being gay is entitled to Constitutional protections, to the right of due process, and the right of equal protection of the law.

Proof:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, the 'argument' that gay Americans are not entitled to Constitutional protections fails, as does the notion that to be gay is a mere 'lifestyle preference,' and that if gay Americans don't want to be subject to discrimination they need only 'stop being gay.'

While science might someday be able to prove or disprove that homosexuality is a result of biology and birth, it will forever be immaterial, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty afforded gay Americans.
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
I don't know how far science can measure or quantify these factors,
so until then, this area remains "faith-based"
* there are people who believe humans and animals operate the same and are only separated by intelligence
that evolves and can change later on
* there are people who believe humans and animals operate differently and cannot be compared in this case

all faith based,
Not in the least "faith-based".

Animals are mammals as are we. Sexual attraction is not based upon intelligence. There is scientific evidence that animals have the same emotions that we do and yes, they most certainly have the same sex drive.

So the science exists and there is nothing "faith-based" about that evidence. What there is are "faith-based" people who refuse to accept the scientific evidence because it upsets their "faith-based" beliefs. But they are not who gets to make the decisions on scientific evidence because they have disqualified themselves.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
3,479
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
"Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?"

Neither.

It's irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional law it makes no difference whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of choice or birth, the condition of being gay is entitled to Constitutional protections, to the right of due process, and the right of equal protection of the law.

Proof:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, the 'argument' that gay Americans are not entitled to Constitutional protections fails, as does the notion that to be gay is a mere 'lifestyle preference,' and that if gay Americans don't want to be subject to discrimination they need only 'stop being gay.'

While science might someday be able to prove or disprove that homosexuality is a result of biology and birth, it will forever be immaterial, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty afforded gay Americans.
C_Clayton_Jones
Similar to other practices that are faith based and personal choice,
yes you have equal rights and protections to exercise that in private.

But do not have rights to abuse govt or laws to IMPOSE "faith based beliefs and values" on the public.
If people AGREE and choose to implement such policies, yes, even religious practices can be incorporated
into govt like prayer or symbols like God in oaths or pledges or on money. But only if people freely AGREE
since faith based BELIEFS are involved.

Do you agree that beliefs on both sides of the homosexuality issues are equal under law?
Since neither side is proven to or chosen by people of the opposing beliefs?
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
3,479
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
I don't know how far science can measure or quantify these factors,
so until then, this area remains "faith-based"
* there are people who believe humans and animals operate the same and are only separated by intelligence
that evolves and can change later on
* there are people who believe humans and animals operate differently and cannot be compared in this case

all faith based,
Not in the least "faith-based".

Animals are mammals as are we. Sexual attraction is not based upon intelligence. There is scientific evidence that animals have the same emotions that we do and yes, they most certainly have the same sex drive.

So the science exists and there is nothing "faith-based" about that evidence. What there is are "faith-based" people who refuse to accept the scientific evidence because it upsets their "faith-based" beliefs. But they are not who gets to make the decisions on scientific evidence because they have disqualified themselves.
Derideo_Te
You cannot be serious.
You think it is proven by science why humans are attracted as mates? Really?

Does your science include or "prove" the influences of past life karma or spiritual development
in stages from one generation to the next in humans?

Can your science prove that is NOT an influence in why people are attracted to each other?

So if I cite studies or cases, similar to people I met who said they had past life memories of
being in the same love triangle in two other lives before this one,
then you can cite science that either proves or debunks this,
or shows that animals do or do not go through these same spiritual experiences or patterns as humans?

You can prove this? The Buddhists trying to research this cannot prove it. They recognize it remains faith based, but the researchers intend to show the prevailing patterns as too commonly reported to ignore as not being factors.

How does your science account for these spiritual patterns that people are reporting as affecting their attractions?
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
30,923
Reaction score
6,934
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
Several people I have known since first grade are openly homosexual. That includes people of both "birth genders". I will discount the female-born as I never did notice anything about them until, much later in life, they adopted masculine dress and rhetoric. Thinking only of the male-born, universally they were of a gentle, more feminine nature even at that young age. About half of those acquired more obvious mannerisms by mid high school.

That suggested to me that they might not have been "born gay" but perhaps somehow had more gender flexibility, from birth, than average. But did that just develop naturally? Or was there an active choice? Again, just by observation, it seems like there WAS a choice - but only about how openly to accept and allow others to, in effect, be told how it was.

I do recall one who was aggressively masculine from about junior high level who later "came out" in rather spectacular fashion. But only one.

If you want to toy with predisposition/choice try this:

Some men's eyes go immediately to a woman's breasts and stay there.
Some men's eyes go immediately to a woman's legs and stay there.
Some men's eyes go immediately to a woman's ass and stay there.

So, did each choose a preference? Or was it predisposition?

Are any of those three "abnormal"? Ideally it might seem more logical to start at the top and work down or start at the feet and work up. But then you get into what's last and what's looked at most interestedly.

Ladies, how has that worked for you.....observe anything like that over the years for your gender?
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
  1. When did the OP choose to be heterosexual?
  2. Can the OP tell us in his own words how he felt attraction to both males and females and made the choice as to which gender he would engage in sexual relations?
  3. What factors influenced the OP's choice?
  4. How old was the OP when he made this choice?
  5. Did the OP seek the advice and counsel of anyone when it came to making his personal choice?
None of the above is be construed as a "persona attack" on the OP. They are intended as a purely fact finding exercise. To prove that there is no malice intended towards the OP I will provide my own answers to the questions above.

  1. I never made the "choice" to be heterosexual.
  2. I was never attracted to males, only females.
  3. I am not aware of any factors since I never made a choice.
  4. Around puberty.
  5. I asked no one and no one gave me any counsel, I was just naturally attracted to females.

The OP is demanding that I provide "proof" that I made a "choice" that I never made.

So isn't the onus on the OP to first provide proof that he made a "choice" first?

Isn't that the whole basis of the OP that there has to be a "choice" of some kind? So where is the OP's case that homosexuality is a "choice"?

Unless the OP can provide scientific substantiation that he made a "choice" there is nothing to discuss here.
I never made a choice.

By four, I knew there was something Julie across the street had that I wanted.

Wasn't sure exactly what it was, but, didn't have any choice in the matter either.

A simple two answer poll for gays would be interesting.

Do you feel you were always gay?

Did you choose to be gay later in life?
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
3,479
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Several people I have known since first grade are openly homosexual. That includes people of both "birth genders". I will discount the female-born as I never did notice anything about them until, much later in life, they adopted masculine dress and rhetoric. Thinking only of the male-born, universally they were of a gentle, more feminine nature even at that young age. About half of those acquired more obvious mannerisms by mid high school.

That suggested to me that they might not have been "born gay" but perhaps somehow had more gender flexibility, from birth, than average. But did that just develop naturally? Or was there an active choice? Again, just by observation, it seems like there WAS a choice - but only about how openly to accept and allow others to, in effect, be told how it was.

I do recall one who was aggressively masculine from about junior high level who later "came out" in rather spectacular fashion. But only one.

If you want to toy with predisposition/choice try this:

Some men's eyes go immediately to a woman's breasts and stay there.
Some men's eyes go immediately to a woman's legs and stay there.
Some men's eyes go immediately to a woman's ass and stay there.

So, did each choose a preference? Or was it predisposition?

Are any of those three "abnormal"? Ideally it might seem more logical to start at the top and work down or start at the feet and work up. But then you get into what's last and what's looked at most interestedly.

Ladies, how has that worked for you.....observe anything like that over the years for your gender?
Dear HenryBHough
Your example seems to address the level that reads people by gender
while homosexual relations between people are not always based superficially
but can be motivated by "those particular people" being attracted to each other, regardless of gender.

I find some people see relations as between people
and others see them superficially for what they gain out of them, such as the sex.

I also find that the more people are forgiving and accepting,
the deeper they can see into people for who they are individually.

But you cannot force all people to be this aware, forgiving and accepting.
That certainly cannot be forced by law.

Until and unless people agree on a spiritual/personal level how to address these things,
they remain faith based and a personal choice how to look at it, and how to treat people.

Your example illustrates the difference in how people look at people.
We are not all operating at the same level in the first place.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
3,479
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
  1. When did the OP choose to be heterosexual?
  2. Can the OP tell us in his own words how he felt attraction to both males and females and made the choice as to which gender he would engage in sexual relations?
  3. What factors influenced the OP's choice?
  4. How old was the OP when he made this choice?
  5. Did the OP seek the advice and counsel of anyone when it came to making his personal choice?
None of the above is be construed as a "persona attack" on the OP. They are intended as a purely fact finding exercise. To prove that there is no malice intended towards the OP I will provide my own answers to the questions above.

  1. I never made the "choice" to be heterosexual.
  2. I was never attracted to males, only females.
  3. I am not aware of any factors since I never made a choice.
  4. Around puberty.
  5. I asked no one and no one gave me any counsel, I was just naturally attracted to females.

The OP is demanding that I provide "proof" that I made a "choice" that I never made.

So isn't the onus on the OP to first provide proof that he made a "choice" first?

Isn't that the whole basis of the OP that there has to be a "choice" of some kind? So where is the OP's case that homosexuality is a "choice"?

Unless the OP can provide scientific substantiation that he made a "choice" there is nothing to discuss here.
I never made a choice.

By four, I knew there was something Julie across the street had that I wanted.

Wasn't sure exactly what it was, but, didn't have any choice in the matter either.

A simple two answer poll for gays would be interesting.

Do you feel you were always gay?

Did you choose to be gay later in life?
Roadrunner Let's not discriminate now.
We'd also need a poll for people who were gay but came out straight.

Do you feel you were always straight?

Did you choose to be/accept being straight later in life?
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
  1. When did the OP choose to be heterosexual?
  2. Can the OP tell us in his own words how he felt attraction to both males and females and made the choice as to which gender he would engage in sexual relations?
  3. What factors influenced the OP's choice?
  4. How old was the OP when he made this choice?
  5. Did the OP seek the advice and counsel of anyone when it came to making his personal choice?
None of the above is be construed as a "persona attack" on the OP. They are intended as a purely fact finding exercise. To prove that there is no malice intended towards the OP I will provide my own answers to the questions above.

  1. I never made the "choice" to be heterosexual.
  2. I was never attracted to males, only females.
  3. I am not aware of any factors since I never made a choice.
  4. Around puberty.
  5. I asked no one and no one gave me any counsel, I was just naturally attracted to females.

The OP is demanding that I provide "proof" that I made a "choice" that I never made.

So isn't the onus on the OP to first provide proof that he made a "choice" first?

Isn't that the whole basis of the OP that there has to be a "choice" of some kind? So where is the OP's case that homosexuality is a "choice"?

Unless the OP can provide scientific substantiation that he made a "choice" there is nothing to discuss here.
I never made a choice.

By four, I knew there was something Julie across the street had that I wanted.

Wasn't sure exactly what it was, but, didn't have any choice in the matter either.

A simple two answer poll for gays would be interesting.

Do you feel you were always gay?

Did you choose to be gay later in life?
Roadrunner Let's not discriminate now.
We'd also need a poll for people who were gay but came out straight.

Do you feel you were always straight?

Did you choose to be/accept being straight later in life?
I am straight, had no choice.

I am also genetically monogamous.

Also very inconvenient to a lot of people.
 

MaryL

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
17,052
Reaction score
6,302
Points
350
Location
Midwestern U.S.
Common now. Who chooses to be straight, I mean really. Biology 101, procreation isn't about fucking anything you want. It's about...gasp...reproduction. Male and female, basic stuff going on here people. What ? Prove it? XXXXXXXXX

Mod Edit: No ad homs, no insults - review the OP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,521
Reaction score
3,479
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Common now. Who chooses to be straight, I mean really. Biology 101, procreation isn't about fucking anything you want. It's about...gasp...reproduction. Male and female, basic stuff going on here people. What ? Prove it? You must be an idiot.
Hi MaryL and Roadrunner
What about the link to the interview of Chirlane McCray the New York Mayor's wife.
She had come out as lesbian and even wrote a book about her experiences.

So when she later accepted her loving soulmate, and they married as a heterosexual couple,
what do you call that?

Would you say she was "always heterosexual" to begin with?
Then what were her lesbian relationships where she IDENTIFIED as lesbian.

How do you describe that change?

Was she always bisexual? Does this depend on the people and relationships
so it isn't about the person?

If it's about the relationships that defines it, then is orientation about
the person or about their relations and behavior with others?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top