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

[TemplarKormac]

Maybe like with evolution its a genetic mutation

And in keeping with evolution, genetic typography goes through a process of trial and error. If it weren't for medical advances, homosexuals would invariably be weeded out of the species altogether.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's be real here. Homosexuality is an anomaly. Heterosexuality, as biology dictates, is the norm.My proof? Your mother and father were heterosexuals. Gays call straights "breeders". Wow. What do gays actualy add to the gene pool?

Off topic for this thread.

I'll be the judge of that. Mary poses an argument in the form of a question, so not off topic for this thread. Leave the refereeing duties to me, please.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe like with evolution its a genetic mutation

And in keeping with evolution, genetic typography goes through a process of trial and error. If it weren't for medical advances, homosexuals would invariably be weeded out of the species altogether.

How so? What medical advances?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Incorrect. Gay men do screw women.

Figuratively, daily, but they rarely get them pregnant.

 

[MaryL]

Lets snap back to the topic. Yes, lets do that. Homosexuality is JUST like Heterosexuality. WHY? Because, heaven forbid, we question things, that is what SCIENCE is all about. OK, Prove HOMOSEXUALITY isn't a broken mentality, prove it, I don't need to show you my homework here, YOU jerks that support gay rights, prove to the rest of us that Homosexuality is equitable to Heterosexuality. Breeders make babies and you were one of them. What do gays do besides whine and bitch?

 

[Ernie S.]

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

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

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

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

What you have known is homosexual men who married and had children while they were heterosexual, which proves that homosexuality is choice/environmental rather than genetic.
One's chromosomes don't alter themselves randomly throughout life.

Post links? Why should that even enter your mind? Gay men have sex with men, not women. Exceptions? Yes, of course, but the chances of a genetically homosexual male having a child by a genetically lesbian female are so slim that the gene would be bred out of the species in under 10 generations.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

This fails as a post hoc fallacy.

Really? Can 2 men make a baby? How often do gay guys get it on with lesbians? If homosexuality was genetic, it would have been bred out of us thousands of years ago.

Why do heterosexual couples keep on having children who are gay?

Why do gay same sex parents have children who are heterosexual?

Why do heterosexual couples keep on having children who are plumbers. The kids wanted to be plumbers and maybe were influenced in part by their heterosexual plumber parents. Homosexuals don't have children. People who have children the old fashioned way are heterosexual by definition at least at the time of conception. The fact that at some time in the past or future, they had/have a same sex partner is proof that homosexuality is a choice.

 

[MaryL]

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

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

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

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

What you have known is homosexual men who married and had children while they were heterosexual, which proves that homosexuality is choice/environmental rather than genetic.
One's chromosomes don't alter themselves randomly throughout life.

Post links? Why should that even enter your mind? Gay men have sex with men, not women. Exceptions? Yes, of course, but the chances of a genetically homosexual male having a child by a genetically lesbian female are so slim that the gene would be bred out of the species in under 10 generations.

Is that scientific or anecdotal? When I do that, I get read the riot act, but when a liberal gets all weepy eye'd and pedantic, its heart touching and the world stops.

 

[Ernie S.]

OK

How about this?

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

But what difference does the cause make?

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's Clayton.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However, you may presume it implies a problem due to the historical stigmatism of homosexuality.

Preposterous. Why would I use "historical stigmatism" to motivate my argument?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ERNIE S. SAID:

“Homosexuals don't have children.”

Wrong.

They in fact have children, which is beyond dispute.

 

[MaryL]

I have known a couple of super intelligent folks that happened to be gay. Why is it Gays have this aura of artistic or intellectual prowess, that somehow makes their brand of sexual dysfunction acceptable? Is being a smart pedophile or a smart alcoholic an acceptable alternative, too?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

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

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

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

What you have known is homosexual men who married and had children while they were heterosexual, which proves that homosexuality is choice/environmental rather than genetic.
One's chromosomes don't alter themselves randomly throughout life.

Post links? Why should that even enter your mind? Gay men have sex with men, not women. Exceptions? Yes, of course, but the chances of a genetically homosexual male having a child by a genetically lesbian female are so slim that the gene would be bred out of the species in under 10 generations.

Is that scientific or anecdotal? When I do that, I get read the riot act, but when a liberal gets all weepy eye'd and pedantic, its heart touching and the world stops.

It's logical. Liberals don't do logic.

Please, no mention of political affiliation in this thread.

 

[Ernie S.]

ERNIE S. SAID:

“Homosexuals don't have children.”

Wrong.

They in fact have children, which is beyond dispute.

Sure they have some by artificial means, but by definition, homosexuals don't procreate. If they do, they are in fact, heterosexual.

I have green eyes. That is genetic. I cannot choose to have blue eyes tomorrow and go back to green the next day.

 

[TemplarKormac]

ERNIE S. SAID:

“Homosexuals don't have children.”

Wrong.

They in fact have children, which is beyond dispute.

That is in fact an unfounded argument. Back up this claim with a source or vacate the thread. You are making no effort to follow the rules set forth here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can you provide a link that substantiates your claim that gays don't breed? Gay men produce sperm, and that sperm is not any different from heterosexual sperm, in that it can impregnate.

But since said gay man is gay, his sperm cannot impregnate his male counterpart. That's the entire premise. Homosexuals, as they are, with no other alternative means of reproduction, cannot breed with each other. It is biologically impossible.

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

(whistle screeches)

Nobody may issue ad hominem in this thread. I am sick and tired of repeating myself here.

Now, why would a homosexual man marry a heterosexual woman? Wouldn't that contradict his homosexual nature?

 

[Mertex]

But since said gay man is gay, his sperm cannot impregnate his male counterpart. That's the entire premise. Homosexuals, as they are, with no other alternative means of reproduction, cannot breed with each other. It is biologically impossible.

But you cannot say they cannot reproduce. If a gay man marries a straight woman, they can reproduce. You cannot claim that such an occurrence never happens. So, saying that gay people cannot reproduce or breed is an erroneous statement. There is no way that you are going to make that a true statement.

 

[Mertex]

(whistle screeches)

Nobody may issue ad hominem in this thread. I am sick and tired of repeating myself here.

Now, why would a homosexual man marry a heterosexual woman? Wouldn't that contradict his homosexual nature?

It happens more often than you think. They do marry. Of course it contradicts their homosexual nature, and the marriage usually doesn't last.
Why they do it? Sometimes because they think they can change into heterosexual, which just proves that they can't.

Saying that it never happens is erroneous, and if you aren't aware that it happens you need to do some research instead of making erroneous statements.

 

[Mertex]

ERNIE S. SAID:

“Homosexuals don't have children.”

Wrong.

They in fact have children, which is beyond dispute.

That is in fact an unfounded argument. Back up this claim with a source or vacate the thread. You are making no effort to follow the rules set forth here.

You are the one that is making an unfounded argument. I have already told you that homosexual male's sperm is the same as heterosexual male sperm and it can impregnate. There are cases and I have already provided links. The same applies to Lesbians....they also can become pregnant and some have.

Instead of telling people that they need to vacate the thread when you haven't provided any links proving the opposite, maybe you need to vacate the thread.