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

[BlackSand]

People simply want to be happy and love whoever they want to love. What else matters if there is consent.

Uh ... No one can stop someone from loving another person ... Just like no one can make another person worship or have faith in God.
Not meaning to intentionally bring religion into the equation as a determining factor ... It is just an easy way to make a simple analogy.

.

 

[sealybobo]

How so? What medical advances?

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

And likewise if people tried to pass equal rights laws giving "extra protections to left handed
people" as an orientation, others would argue such laws are not necessary to add or change.

What extra protections? You mean hate crimes? Are you against hate crimes?

I agree. I dont know why its any worse to kill a kid adult cop or old lady. Should all be the same.

 

[sealybobo]

How so? What medical advances?

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

And likewise if people tried to pass equal rights laws giving "extra protections to left handed
people" as an orientation, others would argue such laws are not necessary to add or change.

Emily is taking this political! Breaking the rules?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Emily broke your rule. She's asking me about passing laws protecting left handed people. My left handed example was a good point and she just derailed it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

 

[sealybobo]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

Even ms piece love and understanding Emily is a bigot. Amazing. You are right. If they want it and it ain't hurting anyone else its natural for them.

I try to explain it like this. If you think being gay is a choice then that is true for YOU. Anyone who's 100% gay or straight know its not a choice.

 

[RKMBrown]

and provided irrefutable evidence

Argument of false declaration. You suggested I was biased, but this statement suggests bias all on its own.

Huh? DO YOU DENY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN ANIMALS? Why don't you just argue that the sun never rises?

Oh brother. I know for a fact there is homosexual behavior in animals. But you seem to think it means the animals are homosexual. I've already explained why this assertion is untrue. Just because the moon shines doesn't make it the sun.

What I see in my animals is that most animals from time to time exhibit both homosexual and heterosexual behavior. From this and countless other studies, I draw the conclusion that these behaviors are by choice, aided and pushed by genetic chemical based drives and desires, but still they are behaviors led by choice by thinking life forms. Some life forms are too scared to follow their sex drives, others are less afraid. If I smack my dogs when they try to engage in homosexual activity with other dogs I can teach them not to do that. Then whey will think twice about making that choice again. Thus they are thinking beings that make choices. Not unlike humans are thinking beings that make choices.

What you are asking for though Temp... is to what's wrong with gays, is it their genetics or their choices. And that's just wrong. Your question is wrong. Your question should be why do you think homosexual behavior is a bad thing, because you were told so?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

Even ms piece love and understanding Emily is a bigot. Amazing. You are right. If they want it and it ain't hurting anyone else its natural for them.

I try to explain it like this. If you think being gay is a choice then that is true for YOU. Anyone who's 100% gay or straight know its not a choice.

Hi sealybobo where am I a bigot
please explain

 

[Steinlight]

Anyone that says it is either 100% genetic or 100% environmental, is lying, there is no such evidence either way. Like most human behaviors, it is probably a combination of both genetic and environmental variation.

 

[RKMBrown]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

Even ms piece love and understanding Emily is a bigot. Amazing. You are right. If they want it and it ain't hurting anyone else its natural for them.

I try to explain it like this. If you think being gay is a choice then that is true for YOU. Anyone who's 100% gay or straight know its not a choice.

Everyone's brain is wired a little differently. I have the ability to make choices in all things. I could walk into a wall of fire to save my family. I could choose to never have sex again. I could choose to kill to defend myself. I could choose to let someone kill me to avoid killing that person. I don't make my decisions based on primal desires, not any more.

 

[RKMBrown]

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

Even ms piece love and understanding Emily is a bigot. Amazing. You are right. If they want it and it ain't hurting anyone else its natural for them.

I try to explain it like this. If you think being gay is a choice then that is true for YOU. Anyone who's 100% gay or straight know its not a choice.

Hi sealybobo where am I a bigot
please explain

We are all bigots in our own way Emily.

 

[sealybobo]

How so? What medical advances?

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

And likewise if people tried to pass equal rights laws giving "extra protections to left handed
people" as an orientation, others would argue such laws are not necessary to add or change.

Who are you worried is getting extra protections?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

Thanks RKMBrown
I agree that if we all enforce the same standard, to keep the issue out of public policy,
then we can separate these levels.

If we remove the political pressure, I think we can better address our beliefs about this freely and equally
and quit attaching fear and judgment.

It is a process of letting go of that habit, though.
People on all sides are also having to learn not to jump on people for having beliefs, one way or another,
If we first agree not to impose these on public policy.

Thank you for your extra effort. You seem so reasonable, I guess I took it for granted
there was that much frustration on your side. You seemed better able than most to stick to the points.
We need more of that, you are a good influence, thanks!

 

[sealybobo]

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

Even ms piece love and understanding Emily is a bigot. Amazing. You are right. If they want it and it ain't hurting anyone else its natural for them.

I try to explain it like this. If you think being gay is a choice then that is true for YOU. Anyone who's 100% gay or straight know its not a choice.

Everyone's brain is wired a little differently. I have the ability to make choices in all things. I could walk into a flame of fire to save my family. I could choose to never have sex again. I could choose to kill to defend myself. I could choose to let someone kill me to avoid killing that person. I don't make my decisions based on primal desires, not any more.

So there was a time you'd take it up the ass fuck a guy suck a dick or let a guy suck your dick? How gay were you?

 

[emilynghiem]

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

And likewise if people tried to pass equal rights laws giving "extra protections to left handed
people" as an orientation, others would argue such laws are not necessary to add or change.

Who are you worried is getting extra protections?

Hi sealybobo
I was making a sarcastic remark
1. about only respecting beliefs in gay marriage but not equally respecting beliefs in traditional marriage

2. also the HERO ordinances contested in Houston, where transgender people are protected from even having
questions asked to them in public restrooms and showers and other facilities. Nobody else is protected from having questions asked of them. but these policies are contested for "going too far" and penalizing people with fines up to 5,000 for harassment which can be constituted by acts as simple as asking someone questions. Nobody else has that protection which clearly goes too far. People have free speech. where is the equal protection of people not to have this ordinance abused because people weren't allowed to ask questions of certain people in the restrooms or showers?

As for marriage policies, I am saying to have consistent policies that respect all BELIEFS equally.
so either agree on the marriage policies, write them neutrally enough, or remove marriage from state laws
so it is fair to all people of all beliefs.

I am not discriminating on the basis of orientation either way; I am arguing for equal treatment of BELIEFS.
either include all equally or remove marriage from the state and keep it private so people can do what they believe.

how is that bigoted? to treat all beliefs equally
and not calling anyone a bigot because their beliefs are different?

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

Even ms piece love and understanding Emily is a bigot. Amazing. You are right. If they want it and it ain't hurting anyone else its natural for them.

I try to explain it like this. If you think being gay is a choice then that is true for YOU. Anyone who's 100% gay or straight know its not a choice.

Everyone's brain is wired a little differently. I have the ability to make choices in all things. I could walk into a flame of fire to save my family. I could choose to never have sex again. I could choose to kill to defend myself. I could choose to let someone kill me to avoid killing that person. I don't make my decisions based on primal desires, not any more.

So there was a time you'd take it up the ass fuck a guy suck a dick or let a guy suck your dick? How gay were you?

No. I'm not gay. By primal desires... I mean just taking action instinctively, I've learned to overcome my basic primal instincts. But I do still get grumpy, and impatient.

 

[sealybobo]

Dude. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are BEHAVIORS. You have now moved the goal posts of this OP to proving behaviors are genetic.

Am I not allowed to have a side in this debate? So, are you suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic?

If you have proof that homosexuality is not genetic, the same proof could be used to prove that heterosexuality is not genetic. IOW your argument is specious.

And this is a classic example of circular logic.

I don't care if you have a side.

No. I'm not suggesting homosexuality isn't genetic. Just the opposite.

All behaviors are based on genetics and choice.

I'm telling you to pick one, you can't argue that heterosexuality is genetic but homosexuality isn't. They are both sexual behavior, either both are genetic or both are not genetic.

My evidence for my opinion on this topic based on both genetics and choice would go over the heads of most people. I'm a computer scientist who happens to know by and large how the human brain works when making choices.

So I stayed within the bounds of this OP and provided irrefutable evidence in post #45 that the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."

The need for these behaviors is genetic. The choice to participate, is a choice.

RKMBrown please do not give up and ignore:
Please keep engaging and finishing the conversation with TemplarKormac
I find your arguments and explanations back and forth are very enlightening and helpful to others even if you think
otherwise. Boss also. Thanks!

If people just plain do not BELIEVE it is anything other than behavior,
this is ENOUGH to defend that belief and not impose beliefs that it is other than a behaviorial choice.

So we need to have this conversation and agree how to make a unified argument and stance,
even when and especially where we don't agree on all points. We can better defend against impositions
if we resolve any issues preventing us from enforcing a common stance, regardless of our reasons behind it.

TemplarKormac for the sake of defending equal protection of beliefs it is a choice,
it is better not to attach or impose a conflicting belief such as "homosexuality endangers natural reproduction"

It is better to unify the public on the agreement that homosexual behavior is the issue.
That is common to all views, we can all agree the choice of sexual behavior is a choice.
Nobody has to have sex, either homosexual or heterosexual. If we focus on that approach
I think we have better chances of enforcing a consistent standard of what is within public jurisdiction of govt.

ok taking off ignore... I think my head was about to explode from the frustration.

My frustration is based on the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual behavior, thus the argument to decide what causes said bad behavior so we can figure out how to enforce a solution find a cure etc. But that is just not the truth. Homosexual behavior is natural. Heck it's even more prevalent in animals who appear to be much less prudish than humans wrt sexual behavior. To be human is not be "heterosexual." This argument is not based on our "love" of people it's based on our fear of people.

Fear is the mind killer.

Thanks RKMBrown
I agree that if we all enforce the same standard, to keep the issue out of public policy,
then we can separate these levels.

If we remove the political pressure, I think we can better address our beliefs about this freely and equally
and quit attaching fear and judgment.

It is a process of letting go of that habit, though.
People on all sides are also having to learn not to jump on people for having beliefs, one way or another,
If we first agree not to impose these on public policy.

Thank you for your extra effort. You seem so reasonable, I guess I took it for granted
there was that much frustration on your side. You seemed better able than most to stick to the points.
We need more of that, you are a good influence, thanks!

Explain how exactly we get rid of the political pressure? I think we have hate crimes because we want to send a message to kids in school and to bullies in society that we won't tolerate people picking on people because they are jewish gay or black.

We also have a stiffer law for anyone who attacks a senior. Because men were walking up to seniors and knocking them the fuck out and robbing them. A mugging might get you 5 years. Do you think a person that would attack a senior should get more time?

So no you are wrong here Emily. Your shit doesnt work here. What hate crime laws do is stop people from going out and targeting people just because they are different. What do you want to give them your therapy talk? Pahleez

 

[Ernie S.]

How so? What medical advances?

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

Let me see if I can dumb this down for you. My father was left handed. My first wife is left handed. I am right handed. I had 4 children, one of whom is left handed.
Roughly 1 in 5 people are right handed. They are pretty evenly divided between men and women. Odds are good that given the way left handed peoples' brains work, there is a greater than 1 in five chance 2 left handed people will produce children, thus the prevalence of left handedness should remain fairly constant.
Now, homosexuals make up 2 to 4% of the US population. While a left handed female may be marginally more attracted to a left handed male, a Lesbian is virtually never attracted to a gay man. Genetically homosexuals, because of this lack of attraction would rarely breedYes, some gays and lesbians have heterosexual relationships. It is statistically rare. More often, people ion heterosexual relationships decide at some point to become homosexual. The fact that a 20 something man chooses to be heterosexual and fathers a kid or two before "becoming" homosexual, logically indicates that sexual preference is behavioral rather than genetic.

Uncommon genetic anomalies occur because many people don't know they carry the gene and having, let's say, Tay-Sachs doesn't cause you to be disinterested in the opposite sex.

It's logic.

 

[sealybobo]

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

And likewise if people tried to pass equal rights laws giving "extra protections to left handed
people" as an orientation, others would argue such laws are not necessary to add or change.

Who are you worried is getting extra protections?

Hi sealybobo
I was making a sarcastic remark
1. about only respecting beliefs in gay marriage but not equally respecting beliefs in traditional marriage

2. also the HERO ordinances contested in Houston, where transgender people are protected from even having
questions asked to them in public restrooms and showers and other facilities. Nobody else is protected from having questions asked of them. but these policies are contested for "going too far" and penalizing people with fines up to 5,000 for harassment which can be constituted by acts as simple as asking someone questions. Nobody else has that protection which clearly goes too far. People have free speech. where is the equal protection of people not to have this ordinance abused because people weren't allowed to ask questions of certain people in the restrooms or showers?

As for marriage policies, I am saying to have consistent policies that respect all BELIEFS equally.
so either agree on the marriage policies, write them neutrally enough, or remove marriage from state laws
so it is fair to all people of all beliefs.

I am not discriminating on the basis of orientation either way; I am arguing for equal treatment of BELIEFS.
either include all equally or remove marriage from the state and keep it private so people can do what they believe.

how is that bigoted? to treat all beliefs equally
and not calling anyone a bigot because their beliefs are different?

Ey finally a reply I understand. Just making sure you werent saying what I thought you were saying. You lean a little right sometimes and I just want to make sure. Hey did you see 50 shades of Greg yet? I did. It wasn't that good but I'm not a chick and didn't read the book.

 

[sealybobo]

How so? What medical advances?

Surrogate birthing, In Vitro Fertilization. Without those two things, the homosexual genotype would be excised from the species through the evolutionary process

How do those things excise homosexuality?

Because, if homosexuality were genetic, it would take 2 people with the "gay" gene to produce a slim chance of a genetically gay child.
Except with TK's modern options, real, honest homosexuals cannot breed. Over time, the chances of 2 people with the gay gene mating would diminish to near zero.
IF gays do engage in heterosexual relations, their sexual orientation is a choice.

They say the left hand gene should have died out but it hasn't. Is being left handed a choice?

Let me see if I can dumb this down for you. My father was left handed. My first wife is left handed. I am right handed. I had 4 children, one of whom is left handed.
Roughly 1 in 5 people are right handed. They are pretty evenly divided between men and women. Odds are good that given the way left handed peoples' brains work, there is a greater than 1 in five chance 2 left handed people will produce children, thus the prevalence of left handedness should remain fairly constant.
Now, homosexuals make up 2 to 4% of the US population. While a left handed female may be marginally more attracted to a left handed male, a Lesbian is virtually never attracted to a gay man. Genetically homosexuals, because of this lack of attraction would rarely breedYes, some gays and lesbians have heterosexual relationships. It is statistically rare. More often, people ion heterosexual relationships decide at some point to become homosexual. The fact that a 20 something man chooses to be heterosexual and fathers a kid or two before "becoming" homosexual, logically indicates that sexual preference is behavioral rather than genetic.

Uncommon genetic anomalies occur because many people don't know they carry the gene and having, let's say, Tay-Sachs doesn't cause you to be disinterested in the opposite sex.

It's logic.

How gay are you?