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

[ChrisL]

Here is an interesting article that is actually on topic. It is not very scientific but sometimes we have to rely on logic and common sense with these issues. I had said previously that I believe that people who insist that homosexuality is a choice do so in order to undermine the whole idea of gays being equal and deserving of rights....by de-legitimizing homosexuality and making it seem like a frivolous fad. I still believe that is true of many people who push the idea that it's a choice, but it has also become apparent that some of them are just confused. They are not clear in their own minds about the difference between sexual orientation which, I believe is not a choice, and sexual behavior, which is.

Do prisons prove homosexuality is a choice?
I have read about Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson's statement and was wondering what people think. Ben Carson: Prisons Prove Homosexuality Is A Choice

More concretely, Ben Carson's statement proves that Ben Carson doesn't really think things through before he speaks. There is quite a bit of proof of that.

As a doctor, he might have consulted a group like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which says this about the causes of Homosexuality:

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. [...] Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.[3][145]

Or perhaps, if he believes it to be a psychological issue, the American Psychological Association:

Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.[2]

Source: Do prisons prove homosexuality is a choice? - Quora

This is a great site! I urge all who actually want to learn something here to explore it! Why would anyone think that homosexuality is a choice? - Quora

I don't really care if it's choice or not because it doesn't really matter as long as they aren't harming anyone. I don't see why people have to make such a big deal out of it.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't know what causes a person to be gay. That is still a mystery among the medical community too. Like you said, in some instances it just may be a choice and in others it may not be. It all depends I suppose, but it doesn't really matter if it's a choice or not IMO. If that is what a person wants to do with a consenting adult and isn't hurting anyone else, then it really doesn't and shouldn't matter to all the busy bodies who want to insinuate themselves into other people's private lives.

And anyone who doesn't get that is unamerican

I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies. I don't know why gay people cause them such anxiety. Is it insecurity or something? Not sure.

Dear ChrisL
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .


2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.

The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.

Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.

ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.

I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.

Truth is, religion is the thing that isn't necessary in the business of marriage. Sure if you are Catholic you want a Catholic priest to marry you but a church or religion isn't even necessary.

The important part about marriage equality is the legal benefits that come with being marriage. That means LAW and GOVERNMENT get involved. Especially when it comes to who gets what in a divorce. We as a society decide that. Not a religion. Otherwise Muslim American women would get treated like shit when they got divorced. So Emily needs religion to back off, not government.

Hm. Good points there.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Here is an interesting article that is actually on topic. It is not very scientific but sometimes we have to rely on logic and common sense with these issues. I had said previously that I believe that people who insist that homosexuality is a choice do so in order to undermine the whole idea of gays being equal and deserving of rights....by de-legitimizing homosexuality and making it seem like a frivolous fad. I still believe that is true of many people who push the idea that it's a choice, but it has also become apparent that some of them are just confused. They are not clear in their own minds about the difference between sexual orientation which, I believe is not a choice, and sexual behavior, which is.

Do prisons prove homosexuality is a choice?
I have read about Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson's statement and was wondering what people think. Ben Carson: Prisons Prove Homosexuality Is A Choice

More concretely, Ben Carson's statement proves that Ben Carson doesn't really think things through before he speaks. There is quite a bit of proof of that.

As a doctor, he might have consulted a group like the American Academy of Pediatrics, which says this about the causes of Homosexuality:

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. [...] Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.[3][145]

Or perhaps, if he believes it to be a psychological issue, the American Psychological Association:

Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.[2]

Source: Do prisons prove homosexuality is a choice? - Quora

This is a great site! I urge all who actually want to learn something here to explore it! Why would anyone think that homosexuality is a choice? - Quora

I don't really care if it's choice or not because it doesn't really matter as long as they aren't harming anyone. I don't see why people have to make such a big deal out of it.

I completely agree. The whole debate is in a way nonsensical. I subscribed because I find it interesting from an academic/ scientific perspective but it is really irrelevant from a civil rights and legal perspective. Also, I wanted to see what others are saying about it.

If anyone wants to deny gays rights because being gay is a choice, then they must also deny rights to people who chose a religion, who chose to own a gun, who chose where they work and live, who chose what they express and who chose who they associate with. Those are all clearly choices. Choice is not the criteria for who has rights.

Interestingly, the perpetrator of this thread has, apparently not been around to weigh in on the issue. Makes you wonder what his motive was in dropping this bomb. You can't access his profile because he limits who can view it. Makes you wonder.

 

[Chuz Life]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

You might not know this but "identical " twins are not 100% identical. They may have all the same genetic markers that are looked for in most genetic tests. However, there are more sophisticated tests that can detect the subtle differences between even the best matched identical twins.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

You might not know this but "identical " twins are not 100% identical. They may have all the same genetic markers that are looked for in most genetic tests. However, there are more sophisticated tests that can detect the subtle differences between even the best matched identical twins.

Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA. therefor if there were a gay gene both twins would have that gene.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

You might not know this but "identical " twins are not 100% identical. They may have all the same genetic markers that are looked for in most genetic tests. However, there are more sophisticated tests that can detect the subtle differences between even the best matched identical twins.

Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA. therefor if there were a gay gene both twins would have that gene.

No one is saying at this point that there is a gay gene. That does not mean that it is not genetic or at the very least there is a genetic disposition. Google epigenetics!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

You might not know this but "identical " twins are not 100% identical. They may have all the same genetic markers that are looked for in most genetic tests. However, there are more sophisticated tests that can detect the subtle differences between even the best matched identical twins.

Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA. therefor if there were a gay gene both twins would have that gene.

No one is saying at this point that there is a gay gene. That does not mean that it is not genetic or at the very least there is a genetic disposition. Google epigenetics!

As I posted in another thread. We are essentially biological machines. Programmed to procreate. There are three ways that doesn't happen.

1. a genetic defect that leads to the inability to procreate
2. a choice not to procreate
3. an accident that leads to the inability to procreate.


Okay you've eliminated number 2 when you say it isn't a choice, so that leaves a genetic defect or an accident in the womb????

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

Ok Dweeb, first you should recheck those numbers. Then you should google epigenetics. Yes I know, you distrust Googles because in your paranoid, delusional mind you believe that it is a liberal conspiracy that filters out conservative viewpoints and nothing that comes up is valid. That is your problem and no one else's.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

You might not know this but "identical " twins are not 100% identical. They may have all the same genetic markers that are looked for in most genetic tests. However, there are more sophisticated tests that can detect the subtle differences between even the best matched identical twins.

Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA. therefor if there were a gay gene both twins would have that gene.

No one is saying at this point that there is a gay gene. That does not mean that it is not genetic or at the very least there is a genetic disposition. Google epigenetics!

As I posted in another thread. We are essentially biological machines. Programmed to procreate. There are three ways that doesn't happen.

1. a genetic defect that leads to the inability to procreate
2. a choice not to procreate
3. an accident that leads to the inability to procreate.


Okay you've eliminated number 2 when you say it isn't a choice, so that leaves a genetic defect or an accident in the womb????

There are heterosexuals who cannot procreate either. So what is the point?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

You might not know this but "identical " twins are not 100% identical. They may have all the same genetic markers that are looked for in most genetic tests. However, there are more sophisticated tests that can detect the subtle differences between even the best matched identical twins.

Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA. therefor if there were a gay gene both twins would have that gene.

No one is saying at this point that there is a gay gene. That does not mean that it is not genetic or at the very least there is a genetic disposition. Google epigenetics!

As I posted in another thread. We are essentially biological machines. Programmed to procreate. There are three ways that doesn't happen.

1. a genetic defect that leads to the inability to procreate
2. a choice not to procreate
3. an accident that leads to the inability to procreate.


Okay you've eliminated number 2 when you say it isn't a choice, so that leaves a genetic defect or an accident in the womb????

There are heterosexuals who cannot procreate either. So what is the point?

Correct, there are heterosexual who can't procreate due to a genetic defect and or due to an accident.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You might not know this but "identical " twins are not 100% identical. They may have all the same genetic markers that are looked for in most genetic tests. However, there are more sophisticated tests that can detect the subtle differences between even the best matched identical twins.

Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA. therefor if there were a gay gene both twins would have that gene.

No one is saying at this point that there is a gay gene. That does not mean that it is not genetic or at the very least there is a genetic disposition. Google epigenetics!

As I posted in another thread. We are essentially biological machines. Programmed to procreate. There are three ways that doesn't happen.

1. a genetic defect that leads to the inability to procreate
2. a choice not to procreate
3. an accident that leads to the inability to procreate.


Okay you've eliminated number 2 when you say it isn't a choice, so that leaves a genetic defect or an accident in the womb????

There are heterosexuals who cannot procreate either. So what is the point?

Correct, there are heterosexual who can't procreate due to a genetic defect and or due to an accident.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

No! Absolutely not. I am saying that those who consider homosexuals to be defective because they cannot procreate ( although they can and do- just not in the so called "normal way") then they must also consider some heterosexuals to me defective. Do not hold homosexuals to a different standard.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA. therefor if there were a gay gene both twins would have that gene.

No one is saying at this point that there is a gay gene. That does not mean that it is not genetic or at the very least there is a genetic disposition. Google epigenetics!

As I posted in another thread. We are essentially biological machines. Programmed to procreate. There are three ways that doesn't happen.

1. a genetic defect that leads to the inability to procreate
2. a choice not to procreate
3. an accident that leads to the inability to procreate.


Okay you've eliminated number 2 when you say it isn't a choice, so that leaves a genetic defect or an accident in the womb????

There are heterosexuals who cannot procreate either. So what is the point?

Correct, there are heterosexual who can't procreate due to a genetic defect and or due to an accident.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

No! Absolutely not. I am saying that those who consider homosexuals to be defective because they cannot procreate ( although they can and do- just not in the so called "normal way") then they must also consider some heterosexuals to me defective.

Heterosexuals who can't procreate do have a defect.. No different than a person who needs eyeglasses has a defect, as an example.

That of course assumes that some sort of accident didn't prevent them from being able to procreate.

And no, homosexuals can't procreate with each other under ANY circumstances.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No one is saying at this point that there is a gay gene. That does not mean that it is not genetic or at the very least there is a genetic disposition. Google epigenetics!

As I posted in another thread. We are essentially biological machines. Programmed to procreate. There are three ways that doesn't happen.

1. a genetic defect that leads to the inability to procreate
2. a choice not to procreate
3. an accident that leads to the inability to procreate.


Okay you've eliminated number 2 when you say it isn't a choice, so that leaves a genetic defect or an accident in the womb????

There are heterosexuals who cannot procreate either. So what is the point?

Correct, there are heterosexual who can't procreate due to a genetic defect and or due to an accident.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

No! Absolutely not. I am saying that those who consider homosexuals to be defective because they cannot procreate ( although they can and do- just not in the so called "normal way") then they must also consider some heterosexuals to me defective.

Heterosexuals who can't procreate do have a defect.. No different than a person who needs eyeglasses has a defect, as an example.

That of course assumes that some sort of accident didn't prevent them from being able to procreate.

And no, homosexuals can't procreate with each other under ANY circumstances.

No, not with each other but a Lesbian can carry a child and a gay man can contribute sperm. So what the fuck is the point of all of this? It is really about love, commitment relationships and family. Yes family. Gay people have families and are parents. This whole thing about procreation and who can and who can't have children , and who is "defective" is as stupid as stupid gets and is totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

As I posted in another thread. We are essentially biological machines. Programmed to procreate. There are three ways that doesn't happen.

1. a genetic defect that leads to the inability to procreate
2. a choice not to procreate
3. an accident that leads to the inability to procreate.


Okay you've eliminated number 2 when you say it isn't a choice, so that leaves a genetic defect or an accident in the womb????

There are heterosexuals who cannot procreate either. So what is the point?

Correct, there are heterosexual who can't procreate due to a genetic defect and or due to an accident.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

No! Absolutely not. I am saying that those who consider homosexuals to be defective because they cannot procreate ( although they can and do- just not in the so called "normal way") then they must also consider some heterosexuals to me defective.

Heterosexuals who can't procreate do have a defect.. No different than a person who needs eyeglasses has a defect, as an example.

That of course assumes that some sort of accident didn't prevent them from being able to procreate.

And no, homosexuals can't procreate with each other under ANY circumstances.

No, not with each other but a Lesbian can carry a child and a gay man can contribute sperm. So what the fuck is the point of all of this? It is really about love, commitment relationships and family. Yes family. Gay people have families and are parents. This whole thing about procreation and who can and who can't have children , and who is "defective" is as stupid as stupid gets and is totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

The point is being homosexual is a CHOICE. One that I personally think is between the gay and another consenting adult, so do whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to convince me that you were born gay. You weren't.

 

[Ernie S.]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

yes most "homosexuals" were born to heterosexuals except of course for those who were born to homosexuals using the same methods that heterosexuals sometimes use when they can't have children in the "normal way".and they will most likely be heterosexual.The point is that for children to have a trait related to genetics , it is not necessary for the parents to have those traits. Google epigenetic and recessive genes

Google identical twins.

I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigenetics

Google "logic"
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know if I would go THAT far. I prefer to call them busybodies. I don't know why gay people cause them such anxiety. Is it insecurity or something? Not sure.

Dear ChrisL
1. Some ppl are called to offer Christian help and healing to anyone who is not Christian. And if such ppl refuse and reject them, they are supposed to leave them alone, even to the point where in some cases they shouldn't interact at all.
In such cases why not agree not to impose, either way; if ppl have such a disagreement in beliefs, such as Hindus and Muslims rejecting each other, then respect their differences and allow them the freedom not to be forced into relations they don't both agree to. Why judge anyone for beliefs they have, either about Christianity or LGBT issues. Keep beliefs in private, and where they cross over into public sectors such as marriage or bathroom policies, then either reach a consensus by free choice what policies to implement, or revise them to be gender neutral, or remove govt altogether and make marriage, benefits, and schools private if that's the way ppl in a state agree to set it up equally .


2. Some ppl just don't believe in gay marriage. Just like Vegans who don't eat meat. Jehovahs Witnesses who don't do blood procedures, or Muslims who refrain from pork. This issue just happens to cross the line with public and private, because marriage already crossed that line mixing govt with private affairs. Had marriage been separated before this, and kept fully private as many Constitutionalists have long argued for, then of course this issue would have stayed a private choice where it belongs.

The problem has always been that marriage and social benefits were managed through federal govt that is Constitutionally limited from such intrusions into personal matters but this was not being enforced. It was already inconsistent by crossing lines between church and state.

Instead of pulling marriage OUT so everyone can decide on their own, ppl went the wrong direction using govt to Further endorse and impose policies which is backwards.

ChrisL that would be about as logical as Christians Muslims Polygamists etc complaining that marriage laws exclude their rights and beliefs so that govt endorses Muslim marriage, Polygamist Marriage, Christian marriage etc. No, don't endorse any type of marriage which is a personal choice similar to religion. Keep it neutral. Don't endorse any version over another or it's establishing a bias where the govt is supposed to remain neutral.

I'm sure you didn't complain about government being in the "marriage business" before gays were allowed to marry.

Truth is, religion is the thing that isn't necessary in the business of marriage. Sure if you are Catholic you want a Catholic priest to marry you but a church or religion isn't even necessary.

The important part about marriage equality is the legal benefits that come with being marriage. That means LAW and GOVERNMENT get involved. Especially when it comes to who gets what in a divorce. We as a society decide that. Not a religion. Otherwise Muslim American women would get treated like shit when they got divorced. So Emily needs religion to back off, not government.

Dear sealybobo:
1. by putting SOCIAL BENEFITS through govt, sealybobo,
do you realize you are already violating "religious bounds"
by Constitutionalists, Libertarians, secularists and others who
DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT.

No you don't. You assume your values/beliefs in relying on govt
instead of charities for "social charity" SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON EVERYONE.

How are you different from someone who would take their
CHRISTIAN charity programs and impose that on everyone through govt?

You do not even see your own bias.

sealybobo: removing religion and BELIEFS from govt goes BOTH WAYS.
That means people who DON'T BELIEVE IN CHARITY THROUGH GOVT
also have the right to REMOVE that and keep it through free choice of charity,
NOT REGULATE SOCIAL CHARITIES AND WELFARE THROUGH GOVT.

Do you understand that this is a FORM of regulating
religious charity through govt?

So the SECULAR/NEUTRAL way I suggest to keep SOCIAL VALUES
AND BELIEFS OUT OF GOVT would be to run these programs
through PARTY so the taxes can still be managed like a Govt program,
BUT GIVE TAXPAYERS A CHOICE OF WHICH SYSTEM MEETS
THEIR STANDARDS AND BELIEFS.

Otherwise sealybobo imposing social benefits when people
DON'T agree on endorsing and recognizing various types of marriage
is CROSSING THE LINE AND IMPOSING BELIEFS THROUGH GOVT.

sealybobo I see you are objective enough to see that
some religion is creeping into govt.

Are you objective enough to see that BELIEFS such
as "same sex benefits" could also be separated out from govt
so this is not injecting conflicting beliefs?

Can you see that also, or not?

I can see it, and I am all for supporting same sex benefits
and marriage, but I'd recommend setting up Singlepayer
and recognizing same sex couples through compatible Party for
members who BELIEVE in that instead of imposing it through
the general public system since NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE SAME.

Currently on our tax forms, we can choose money to go to the
parties for Presidential campaigns. So why not have a choice
to manage our marriage and other social benefits by party?
And then we CAN separate who believes or doesn't believe
in funding which things, instead of disagreeing on a federal scale.

if we separate it by party, everyone can get the social programs
they believe in funding and not be forced to fund otherwise.
Advocates of:
Prochoice can fund prochoice.
Prolife can fund prolife.
Singlepayer can fund singlepayer.
Free market can fund free market.
Traditional marriage can endorse traditional marriage and manage those benefits.
Same sex marriage can endorse same sex marriage and manage those benefits.

And NOBODY has to feel forced to endorse any policy they don't believe in.
I'd separate it by party to respect people's beliefs that aren't neutral
where these cause social programs to conflict with govt neutrality and respecting all beliefs without
imposing or offending any.

Dear Emily,

Are you saying that the government shouldn't give tax breaks to married couples? Are you saying that the government/law shouldn't get involved when a couple wants to get a divorce? Who then decides how much the stay at home wife gets in the divorce? Do Libertarians want the law/government to stay out of divorce?

Dear sealybobo
Someone pointed out that this is getting off topic from the original OP about genetics vs. choice only.

Can I branch off and copy your questions to another post. I'd rather resolve this question once and for all, it came up here, but doesn't belong on this thread. OK?

 

[emilynghiem]

There are heterosexuals who cannot procreate either. So what is the point?

Correct, there are heterosexual who can't procreate due to a genetic defect and or due to an accident.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

No! Absolutely not. I am saying that those who consider homosexuals to be defective because they cannot procreate ( although they can and do- just not in the so called "normal way") then they must also consider some heterosexuals to me defective.

Heterosexuals who can't procreate do have a defect.. No different than a person who needs eyeglasses has a defect, as an example.

That of course assumes that some sort of accident didn't prevent them from being able to procreate.

And no, homosexuals can't procreate with each other under ANY circumstances.

No, not with each other but a Lesbian can carry a child and a gay man can contribute sperm. So what the fuck is the point of all of this? It is really about love, commitment relationships and family. Yes family. Gay people have families and are parents. This whole thing about procreation and who can and who can't have children , and who is "defective" is as stupid as stupid gets and is totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

The point is being homosexual is a CHOICE. One that I personally think is between the gay and another consenting adult, so do whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to convince me that you were born gay. You weren't.

Dear Fair&Balanced
Some ARE 'born' that way as part of their spiritual path in life, whether this changes or not, which is also part of their path(s).

Since this cannot be proven, but remains faith based, and is up to each person to figure out, it is not govt's business so you are right about that part.

 

[Chuz Life]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

You might not know this but "identical " twins are not 100% identical. They may have all the same genetic markers that are looked for in most genetic tests. However, there are more sophisticated tests that can detect the subtle differences between even the best matched identical twins.

Identical twins have IDENTICAL DNA. therefor if there were a gay gene both twins would have that gene.

That is not true. Like I said, identical twins are not 100% identical. There are subtle differences in not only the dna but also in how the genes are expressed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

yes most "homosexuals" were born to heterosexuals except of course for those who were born to homosexuals using the same methods that heterosexuals sometimes use when they can't have children in the "normal way".and they will most likely be heterosexual.The point is that for children to have a trait related to genetics , it is not necessary for the parents to have those traits. Google epigenetic and recessive genes

Google identical twins.

I am well aware of the fact that 100% of identical twins do not share the same sexual orientation. I am also aware of the fact that no, specific "gay gene" has been identified. None of that means that there is no genetic component. And as I have said many times, regardless of the genetic/ biological factor, to say that it is a choice is ridiculous. Again...google epigenetics

Google "logic"
But, I guess I can understand wanting to believe something you can't prove. I believe in God.

Actually, I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't need to prove anything. Neither do gay people. Gay rights have advanced nicely and will continue to do so without proving a genetic link. The issue has been inconsequential from a legal standpoint. The public,- which as you know - has been increasingly supportive of gay rights does not seem to care much either.

It is those who are less than enthusiastic about gay rights who seem to be desperate to prove it's a choice as an excuse to marginalize gay people- implying that they should not be taken seriously.

As for myself, I find it interesting from an academic standpoint. I read and weigh the evidence and the evidence - regardless of whether you or anybody wants to believe it- points to an epigenetic predisposition.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom. I actually wish a legally binding contract tying homosexual couples together akin to marriage. Just don't redefine a word to fit your lifestyle.
Think up your own name. Call it "civil union" or, hell! How about "homogenization"? Just don't call it "marriage" because it's not marriage.

Too late! Already done. It's all just "marriage" now. Marriage equality is here to stay. Civil Unions did not work . Deal with it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There are heterosexuals who cannot procreate either. So what is the point?

Correct, there are heterosexual who can't procreate due to a genetic defect and or due to an accident.

So, are you saying that homosexuality is a genetic defect?

No! Absolutely not. I am saying that those who consider homosexuals to be defective because they cannot procreate ( although they can and do- just not in the so called "normal way") then they must also consider some heterosexuals to me defective.

Heterosexuals who can't procreate do have a defect.. No different than a person who needs eyeglasses has a defect, as an example.

That of course assumes that some sort of accident didn't prevent them from being able to procreate.

And no, homosexuals can't procreate with each other under ANY circumstances.

No, not with each other but a Lesbian can carry a child and a gay man can contribute sperm. So what the fuck is the point of all of this? It is really about love, commitment relationships and family. Yes family. Gay people have families and are parents. This whole thing about procreation and who can and who can't have children , and who is "defective" is as stupid as stupid gets and is totally pointless not to mention way off topic.

The point is being homosexual is a CHOICE. One that I personally think is between the gay and another consenting adult, so do whatever makes you happy. Just don't try to convince me that you were born gay. You weren't.

You say that it is a choice with such assertiveness and assurance while offering no evidence to support that claim, and making no attempt to refute the evidence to the contrary. It is apparent that you have a deep emotional investment in believing that it’s a choice to the point where it drowns out any possibility of an intellectual inquiry into the subject. Why is that?

I had said previously that I believe that it is largely the same people who are- to varying degrees – opposed to gays having full and equal rights that also need to believe that being gay is a choice. I also said that I think that is done as a way of justifying the marginalization of gays and of homosexuality as something frivolous that need not be taken seriously. It would appear that I was pretty much on the mark with that.

Another possibility is that people who say that it’s a choice are confused about the difference between sexual orientation- who people are attracted to- and the act of having sex. There is no reason to believe that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice. That is just logical. However, who you have sex with is a choice. A choice, I might add, that everyone has a right to make.

So what exactly is your problem? Why does this choice thing matter to you and what are the implications- in your mind- for the trajectory of gay rights? The whole issue of “choice” as well as that of “procreation” is so over with these days that you might as well get over it too. Few care about it and regardless- it will change nothing.

PS: Your right in saying that I was not born gay. I'm heterosexual .Can you possibly get your head around that?