Is homosexuality a choice?

[Fre5h]

If you think of biology homosexuality is not natural. Humans are made to reproduce. I might not be a choice but its not natural.

 

[Sypherz]

Okay, that is a reasonable argument. But why does anyone care what's natural and what's not natural? As humans, we've gone far, far beyond our "natural" limits.

 

If you think of biology homosexuality is not natural. Humans are made to reproduce. I might not be a choice but its not natural.

Homosexuality is completely natural. Multiple legible medical associations even claimed such. By the way, dozens of animals even exhibit homosexual behavior; lions, sheep's, rhinos, etc. So, did they "choose" to be homosexual as well? It isn't a choice, and it is natural.

 

[darkorb223]

yes, it's obviously natural. take this for example, when you're in elementary school, in like 1st 2nd 3rd grade, there's always that kid in each class when you think back that was obviously gay. nothing against him, but you just knew. from the way he talked, the way he acted, the way he did everything. he wasn't even sexual yet, hadn't even entered puberty, but he was gay. that pretty much proves it for me, but yes, the fact that many animals exhibit homosexual behavior also proves it. check this kid out, he's 14 but he wants to enlighten us of his right wing religious conservative views on homosexuality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8r7SoLdKd8

 

[Snoopchicken]

I'm just going to stem this argument a little further.

If it's natural, does it mean it is right? I have given two examples before. One was that serial killers born with a psychopathic disorder are generally predisposed to committing their acts. Does that make it right?

Or what about Andrei Chikatilo, the man who can only achieve sexual pleasure through slitting other women's throats? And he's not a unique case. There are people who are BORN with necrophiliac tendencies. Are their actions right?

I can already imagine the types of counter arguments I will get. One would be, "Yes, but those men are committing violence. Gay people are harmless." This is true, in the sense that they don't commit murder. But don't think that gay people do not cause other forms of harm. You think the child who sees two gay men kissing out in San Francisco can simply forget that sight? You think the child who sees a tanned man with waxed legs in hot shorts doesn't ask his mom, "Why is that guy dressed like a girl?"

An easy refutation to my argument is to simply mention the gay men that DO NOT show such public display of affection. For this, I have nothing to say. But I do believe with a little more freedom, majority of homosexuals have these tendencies.

Don't think I'm picking one side of the argument here, I'm simply extending it. What I'm saying could be taken as my true beliefs, or an advocacy for the devil. However, it is irrelevant. Don't let bias control your arguments.

And for the record, homosexuality is not 100% natural. Twin studies have shown that approximately 52% (or 38% in some less biased sources) of identical twins (in the sense of DNA) are both gay. The rest, only one is gay. I don't think I need to elaborate. It's unarguable, homosexuality is both nature and nurture. Nurture in the sense of traumatic childhood experience. Hmm.

 

[Noam]

And for the record, homosexuality is not 100% natural. Twin studies have shown that approximately 52% (or 38% in some less biased sources) of identical twins (in the sense of DNA) are both gay. The rest, only one is gay. I don't think I need to elaborate. It's unarguable, homosexuality is both nature and nurture. Nurture in the sense of traumatic childhood experience. Hmm.

Ok then. Can you name the gay gene for me and show me at least one published scientific study noting that the gay gene does in fact exist, and that it can be accurately detected?

 

I can already imagine the types of counter arguments I will get. One would be, "Yes, but those men are committing violence. Gay people are harmless." This is true, in the sense that they don't commit murder. But don't think that gay people do not cause other forms of harm. You think the child who sees two gay men kissing out in San Francisco can simply forget that sight? You think the child who sees a tanned man with waxed legs in hot shorts doesn't ask his mom, "Why is that guy dressed like a girl?"

I don't understand how that causes "harm." Do you think homosexuality is some sort of disease, just because you see an act of it, doesn't mean you're going to turn into a homosexual. You're acting like two men kissing is like watching a beheading, and what's wrong with asking that question? When the time is right, the mother could tell him all about sexuality, and how some individuals like the same gender, there is nothing wrong with it.

An easy refutation to my argument is to simply mention the gay men that DO NOT show such public display of affection. For this, I have nothing to say. But I do believe with a little more freedom, majority of homosexuals have these tendencies.

Why? Is there a reason heterosexuals can do so, but not homosexuals?

And for the record, homosexuality is not 100% natural. Twin studies have shown that approximately 52% (or 38% in some less biased sources) of identical twins (in the sense of DNA) are both gay. The rest, only one is gay. I don't think I need to elaborate. It's unarguable, homosexuality is both nature and nurture. Nurture in the sense of traumatic childhood experience. Hmm.

Huh? You can't turn homosexual from a "traumatic childhood experience." Here, this is from the American Psychiatric Association:

Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

 

[Snoopchicken]

Ok then. Can you name the gay gene for me and show me at least one published scientific study noting that the gay gene does in fact exist, and that it can be accurately detected?

I never said it does. You're following an either/or fallacy. Saying that homosexuality is partially determined by genetics does not mean that a gene for sexual orientation exists. It could mean, however, that there are abnormal mutations of normal genes which allow a male to, for example, produce less testosterone, giving him the TENDENCY to become gay. This is where nurture plays its role.

I don't understand how that causes "harm." Do you think homosexuality is some sort of disease, just because you see an act of it, doesn't mean you're going to turn into a homosexual. You're acting like two men kissing is like watching a beheading, and what's wrong with asking that question? When the time is right, the mother could tell him all about sexuality, and how some individuals like the same gender, there is nothing wrong with it.

Wulfspade1, that's putting words in my mouth. I never said homosexuality is a disease in anyway. I never said it's "infectious". What I'm saying is that it is downright abnormal simply due to the fact that it is not highly prevalent in the society, and never will be. So obviously, when a child sees these things for the first time, they're going to stand out. The way the childs interprets them is, believe it or not, based on the way of how the parents address the child's concerns.

Let me ask you a question, how would you feel if you saw, for example, a brother and a sister making out on the street? Or a boy french kissing his dog? Yes, they sound nasty. Why? Because they're abnormal, meaning they're not highly prevalent in the society.

Why? Is there a reason heterosexuals can do so, but not homosexuals?

Heterosexuals that display flamboyancy are just as equally shunned upon as homosexuals who display it as well. An example is a street whore, who is normally shunned from the way she dresses. Additionally, seeing a homosexual dress with hot shorts and whatnot is shunned upon as well. The difference is that, take the small amount of homosexuals, and the large amount of heterosexuals in the world. The percentage of flamboyant homosexuals is, without a doubt, higher than that of the heterosexuals. Gay and proud ring a bell? Homosexuals have an extra tendency to show off their orientation. Heterosexuals are generally not like this.

Huh? You can't turn homosexual from a "traumatic childhood experience." Here, this is from the American Psychiatric Association:

Nurture doesn't necessarily mean traumatic childhood experiences. And in any case, I never said traumatic childhood experience equals homosexuality, as you simplified in your statement. On the contrary, I said the opposite. I said it could play a role alongside natural tendencies, or perhaps other nurtured tendencies.

Know that the APA is very meticulous when it comes to homosexuality. You'd be surprised how strong the LGBT community really are. Any paper the APA releases that may be against the LGBT community is immediately criticized by, you guessed it, the LGBT community.

 

Wulfspade1, that's putting words in my mouth. I never said homosexuality is a disease in anyway. I never said it's "infectious". What I'm saying is that it is downright abnormal simply due to the fact that it is not highly prevalent in the society, and never will be. So obviously, when a child sees these things for the first time, they're going to stand out. The way the childs interprets them is, believe it or not, based on the way of how the parents address the child's concerns.

Let me ask you a question, how would you feel if you saw, for example, a brother and a sister making out on the street? Or a boy french kissing his dog? Yes, they sound nasty. Why? Because they're abnormal, meaning they're not highly prevalent in the society.

I never said that's what you stated, I just asked if that is what you thought. Right, like how being left-handed back in the older days was "abnormal," you can't just assume that it will never be highly prevalent in society... I actually wouldn't find any of that "gross." But, I agree with you there, some parents can explain to the child about things like this for example, with prejudice, or without.

Heterosexuals that display flamboyancy are just as equally shunned upon as homosexuals who display it as well. An example is a street whore, who is normally shunned from the way she dresses. Additionally, seeing a homosexual dress with hot shorts and whatnot is shunned upon as well. The difference is that, take the small amount of homosexuals, and the large amount of heterosexuals in the world. The percentage of flamboyant homosexuals is, without a doubt, higher than that of the heterosexuals. Gay and proud ring a bell? Homosexuals have an extra tendency to show off their orientation. Heterosexuals are generally not like this.

Well, yeah, public displays of affection are normally shunned on both sides of the street. Also, don't think that there's a surplus of "flamboyant homosexuals," there aren't as many as you'd think

Nurture doesn't necessarily mean traumatic childhood experiences. And in any case, I never said traumatic childhood experience equals homosexuality, as you simplified in your statement. On the contrary, I said the opposite. I said it could play a role alongside natural tendencies, or perhaps other nurtured tendencies.

Like what?

 

[Snoopchicken]

I never said that's what you stated, I just asked if that is what you thought. Right, like how being left-handed back in the older days was "abnormal," you can't just assume that it will never be highly prevalent in society... I actually wouldn't find any of that "gross." But, I agree with you there, some parents can explain to the child about things like this for example, with prejudice, or without.

Oh, well no, it's not what I think.

Left handedness is still not prevalent in the society. But it doesn't have a significant influence on children. Why? Probably because of the parents again

To be honest, I'm shocked that you don't find any of those gross. It admittedly defeats my argument. But I can't deny that I myself do find it gross to contemplate the idea of a human and, for example, an animal having... well, you know.

Well, yeah, public displays of affection are normally shunned on both sides of the street. Also, don't think that there's a surplus of "flamboyant homosexuals," there aren't as many as you'd think

Well, there's more "gay and proud" people, so to say. I never see people walking around in the streets with "straight and proud" shirts. And to be honest, I don't want to.

Like what?

It's a radical one, but pretty interesting nonetheless. Read upon it in your free time, it's a really interesting read. Apparently, men who are sent to jail, may actually "realize that they're gay", due to being around men for so long. It has to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Simply, humans must fulfill their love and companionship needs. In desperate situations (such as in jail, when you're only surrounded by men), the men with gay tendencies may realize that they're actually gay.

 

Oh, well no, it's not what I think.

Left handedness is still not prevalent in the society. But it doesn't have a significant influence on children. Why? Probably because of the parents again

I'm just saying that being left-handed is generally acceptable now.

Well, there's more "gay and proud" people, so to say. I never see people walking around in the streets with "straight and proud" shirts. And to be honest, I don't want to.

Well, yeah, because heterosexuality is the majority, that's like flaunting around that you have a nose.

It's a radical one, but pretty interesting nonetheless. Read upon it in your free time, it's a really interesting read. Apparently, men who are sent to jail, may actually "realize that they're gay", due to being around men for so long. It has to do with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Simply, humans must fulfill their love and companionship needs. In desperate situations (such as in jail, when you're only surrounded by men), the men with gay tendencies may realize that they're actually gay.

There may be times where someone realizes their sexuality in jail, but just because you have homosexual sex, doesn't mean you're gay. When you're in jail, there aren't many opportunities to feel pleasure, so they just do it. This information is coming from a post I read that was originally made by someone in jail, by the way. You can read it here, if you'd like: http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?p=11087034

 

[Wisdumb]

Heterosexuals that display flamboyancy are just as equally shunned upon as homosexuals who display it as well. An example is a street whore, who is normally shunned from the way she dresses. Additionally, seeing a homosexual dress with hot shorts and whatnot is shunned upon as well. The difference is that, take the small amount of homosexuals, and the large amount of heterosexuals in the world. The percentage of flamboyant homosexuals is, without a doubt, higher than that of the heterosexuals. Gay and proud ring a bell? Homosexuals have an extra tendency to show off their orientation. Heterosexuals are generally not like this.

I think a public display of personality or affection by a homosexual is treated differently than those of a heterosexual. Heterosexuals just view homosexuals differently, because it isn't a part of their daily life... they're not used to it. What heterosexuals might view as "extra tendency to show off their orientation" is just the personality of that person. They accept who they are and embrace it. It's quite courageous actually, to act with such flamboyancy and not fear being judged upon it.

Personally, I feel homosexuality is not a choice. I haven't studied anything about the topic but my answer is based on my personal beliefs. I'm not sure if people are "born" homosexual, but they come to realize who they are naturally within time.

To those who compare a orientation to killing and how they are both "natural"... I don't understand why you think this at all. Killing is an act, and an act is a choice. Someones orientation is who they are, how they feel, it's an emotion. You can stop yourself from killing someone, but I don't believe that you can stop emotions that come naturally to you.

 

[Snoopchicken]

Well, yeah, because heterosexuality is the majority, that's like flaunting around that you have a nose.

This is not about quantity, it's about quality. To have, for example, treated cancer children walking around with shirts saying "I BEAT CANCER" is acceptable, even though they're relatively a minority in the society.

My whole point was to say that sexual orientation is not something you show off. This is why I said "[a]nd to be honest, I don't want to". Much like how, for example, the size of my penis is not something I should show off, either. Imagine people wearing shirts saying "I'M 9 INCHES". It's just not appropriate.

Excuse any inappropriateness.

Heterosexuals just view homosexuals differently, because it isn't a part of their daily life... they're not used to it.

Agree with this part.

Personally, I feel homosexuality is not a choice. I haven't studied anything about the topic but my answer is based on my personal beliefs. I'm not sure if people are "born" homosexual, but they come to realize who they are naturally within time.

I'm into the whole nature and nurture reason for homosexuality. You can read my previous posts. I believe this theory most mainly due to the results of twin studies.

To those who compare a orientation to killing and how they are both "natural"... I don't understand why you think this at all. Killing is an act, and an act is a choice. Someones orientation is who they are, how they feel, it's an emotion. You can stop yourself from killing someone, but I don't believe that you can stop emotions that come naturally to you.

This is an interesting point. The comparison to serial killers was made just to drop this whole 'it's natural, that means it's okay' vibe that was going around. You see, you say killing is a choice for the serial killers. But I could easily say "hey, that's so close minded, dude", much like how LGBT activists counter homophobic people. I doubt any serial killer can control their actions. Believe me, if Ted Bundy could, he would have no reason to kill. He came from a rich family, had a good social life, was charismatic, etc. and had no reason to kill anyone. But he couldn't help himself. He was a natural born psychopath, and would constantly feel the need to kill. This is just who he was. He was born that way.

Most serial killers will say that there are points where they're in a trance state, and feel little control over their actions. And in this state, they have one goal. To kill. And sometimes this goal IS driven by emotions, as given by the case of Andrei Chikatilo.

 

[The Red Panda]

Yeah, what Sypherz said:

Well there's the attention factor for sure, especially in younger ages. But i've found that sometimes it's just a way of finding yourself and strengthening/figuring out what you like. It's a part of growing.

 

[W77]

I believe it varies.

For the most part I believe that it's nothing we can change, and it's nothing to pass judgement about.
I feel as if the only ones who can say for certain are homosexuals themselves, but I'm 99.999999% certain they don't chose it.

As stated above there are some who do it purely for attention. (I've met a couple of girls like that.)

There are also those (namely women), who I believe have been to hurt by a lover, and feel that it's easier to live with another women. I've never met anyone like this in my life, but I've heard stories.

 

[W77]

If you think of biology homosexuality is not natural. Humans are made to reproduce. I might not be a choice but its not natural.

Though we may be a little better off with less reproducing and more homosexuals if you ask me. Our planet's being overpopulated real quick.

 

[SirMatthew]

As a closet gay myself, I can promise you that I definitely did NOT choose to be gay. I try to force myself to be hetero but I'm wired to be attracted to guys.

 

[Annex]

It is if you are bi-sexual da dum tish.

 

[ramses211]

Its a dissease nothing else

 

[FaceFalling]

I find it wierd nobody asked me if I chose to be straight.

I have personally had 2 gay friends and have asked them this question, and they both said they knew when they hit puberty, so thats what I go with.