Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

I really don't feel like arguing this because it's gotten so tiresome repeating myself over the 130+ pages in this thread, but basically what I think of it comes down to this.

I don't necessarily think it's genetic, maybe a mix of that and environment. I think (I cannot remember for sure) that they did find a few genes that are linked to homosexuality; also I remember reading something about hormone levels differing. But I do no in any way, shape, or form think that homosexuality is a choice. I simply don't think you can decide who you're attracted to. Now, ACTING on this attraction is different. That is a choice - just like when you're attracted to someone of the opposite sex you have the choice whether to act on it or not. But in that case you can't decide who you like, so why would it be any different if you find yourself attracted to someone of the same sex?

Not to mention the fact that, considering how much discrimination homosexuals are met with, I do not see why anyone would actively chose to be homosexual. And that is also why so many people keep it a secret and stay in the closet.

I could go more in-depth as to why I think all this but yeah.....explained it just far too many times throughout this thread.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are correct..I don't believe in Neo Darwinism. However I know that you do, so that is why I framed the question using the word "evolve."

Okay....But I really don't BELIEVE in evolution. If you've read my posts, particularly in the intelligent design debates, I've said that in more in favor of intelligent design. I don't believe the universe is just one big cosmic jackpot that just happened for no reason. I believe that the universe is a clock and there is a clockmaker out there somewhere. Science doesn't sway me from this belief, but in fact only seeks to strength it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You stated that the anus is used for the purpose of excreting waste. Many homosexuals use the anus to engage in sexual acts. The practice of homosexuality has been around for 1000's of years..Correct?

As it has been just as frequently by heterosexuals. But it actually varies by culture. There are numerous African societies that prefer other rituals. But that's besides the point. Again, you're ignoring the lesbians...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You/others have stated that homosexuality is based on one's genetics.

Actually, I haven't explictly said "homosexuality is caused by genetics" I've actually said that the cause looks to be biological in nature. Not purely genetical because there have been studies involving the brain, hormones, pre-natal chemicals, etc.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
My question to you was..why hasn't the function of the anus "evolved" to accomadate to this "genetic" condition? Perhaps the question should have phrased the question in this fashion, since you are having difficulty understanding what I am asking. Here ya go..try this one..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Why hasn't the function of the anus evolved into something capable of reproduction?

This is a rather interesting question. Particularly from you. You don't believe in evolution because you believe it to be false and mythical and yet for this discussion you're willing to use the the theory of evolution to make your case. You believe homosexuality to be a genetic disorder because if it was natural, then by your logic evolution would have never allowed it to exist. Yet you don't believe in evolution. So why do you believe it to be a genetic disorder.

Once again, you equating sexual acts with sexual orientation. I'm going to take your question and edit it a little: Why hasn't the function of the mouth evolved into something capable of reproduction? The anus and the mouth are regularly used by humans has a means of sexual activities. More so on the mouth actually because they have found rather lewd cave drawings pertaining to these activities. By your logic, evolution should have made the mouth into an alternative means of reproduction. But it hasn't.

Also you're ignoring one critical piece. Again. That piece is lesbians. Think about it. If evolution TRULY wanted the best means of reproduction it would have been with lesbians. They're the ones who actually have the means to produce offspring. So why not evolution go down that path? Two lesbians can make two babies or more in one sitting.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't perceive it to be a disorder, however, Science has not come up with any practical use for homosexuality/lesbianism..other than for sexual gratification. I believe you will find that I am correct about this, unless you are able to provide some examples/theories as to how fellatio, anal sex, etc..perform some sort of specific "evolutionary function"

Actually there are many theories on this. The most popular, which I'm sure you heard of, is population control or detriment to breeding.

In the animal kingdom, homosexuality as a form of population control for specific species has worked. For sheep or grazing mammels for example, scientists have discovered when the population exceeds a baseline number, the number of homosexual activities have thusly increased. Mating season for a prior year with a smaller herd had low homosexual activities and high mating rate. But for a year where the population expanded past a baseline number, the mating rate was significantly reduced with of course a higher than normal homosexual activity rate.

For humans, of course this simply doesn't work. Why? Because our societal/religous/economic/etc. deters humanity from committing same-sex behavior. Homosexuals are still gay. But unless they want to be ostrazied/stoned to death/hanged/or sent to jail than they sure as hell better act straight, get married and have kids. Now you might say this is evidence for homosexuality being a disorder because it doesn't work. That would be faulty logic because time and again, our societal norms have gotten in the way of our natural biological needs. Take obesity for example. Obesity is a way for people to store fat in their body during cold weather and stay warm. And yet people are told being even the slightest bit obese is bad. So people exercise to death and deny what would be a natural body function to conserve heat and delay hunger.

Another theory is actually on the opposite side of the spectrum. Homosexuality as means to ENCOURAGE reproduction. This as occured in many animal species such as monkeys, apes but primarily birds. Gay animals are shown to be primarily monomogous with each other in the environment and refuse the advances of the opposite sex. When mating season comes around, both the gay animals would attempt to mate with a single opposite sex animal. Let's say the gay animals are both male. They would seek out a female. They would both impregnate her. When the animal either gives birth or lay the egg, well...the poor female is sent away. The males would then raise the egg/infant as their own. The female would than find another mate. Now you might ask how does this improve reproduction rates? Let's think. In the animal kingdom, who is often saddled with taking care of the children? The female. The female would only be allowed to mate at certain intervals at her life because she would be taking care of the child.

Let's go back to the the gay animals taking care of the child. The female is gone. What's she doing? Looking for another mate. She finds one. A straight one this time. She has a cub. She spends a year raising the damn cub. If she HADN'T met the gay animals, she would have only produced ONE child, not TWO because she would be busy taking care of the first batch. For birds this DRASTICALLY improves their reproduction rate. The gay birds would fertilize their eggs, scare off the female, and the female would find another mate to fertilize her eggs. Instead of a female producing let's say six hatchlings, she produces twelve. Also, let's think about survival. Who has a better chance defending a cub lion? ONE normally unaggressive female lioness or TWO big, strong, scary-ass aggressive male lions? Yeah the gay lions would be a better choice. The cub has a MUCH better chance of survival in the wild. Why? Because A) it's being protected by TWO big, strong males instead of only one female and B) the males have a much better chance of capturing food for their young. Not to mention, one male can hunt and the other can protect the child whereas the female would have to make the choice of either feeding or protecting her young.And believe it or not this HAS been observed in nature and only serves to indicate there may be a evolutionary/natural purpose for homosexual animals.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So what is the difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual engaging in sodomy/fellatio for sexual purposes? Wouldn't it be just as much of a choice for the hetero as it would for the homo?

Yeah...that's what I'm saying.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are correct. The root of both problems stems from personal "choices"..not genetics.

Again (why does everyone make this mistake? Is is THAT mind-boggling) Sexual orientation is not defined by sexual acts or the choice to ACT on sexual desires.

I'll make it simple:

Sexual behavior - The gender of the people one has committed sex acts with.

Sexual orientation, preference, or inclination - The gender of the people one has a spontaneous sexual and/or attraction to.

BIG difference. Let's say I'm heterosexual. I'm sexually and romantically attracted to women. I choose to have sex with my gay male boss so I can get a raise. Am I gay? No, I had gay sex. But in no way did it alter my sexual orientation.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Never stated that it was..just don't know why it's deemed "genetic" when they engage in it.

Who ever told you that was clearly under the influence of drugs. A sexual position is not genetic any more than the Kama Sutra or missionary style is...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again..never stated that is wasn't for sexual pleasure. But it's primary purpose is for reproduction. The human anus, mouth, and large intestine are not used for the purpose of reproduction.

And that's all true. But we still engage in it nonetheless. AGAIN. For some reason, you're equating anal sex with homosexuality. It's a sexual position. That's it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
True. Still doesn't negate choice. I can be attracted to do a lot of things..such as kill, eat feces, and jump off of a cliff. Doesn't mean that I was born wanting to do those things...nor does it make it any less of a choice when I partake in them

Eat feces? 🤨

Jumping off a cliff is not "attraction". That's simply a human desire. Do you get an erection? Does your brain start pumping out sexual hormones? No. Because it's a human desire not a biological desire. Your body reacts and/or stimulates references to sex. Just like hunger. The need to sleep.

You can CHOOSE to stave off hunger or sleep. But it doesn't mean you're meant to.

Equating the unusual desire to eat feces with human sexual attraction is rather faulty....

Originally posted by Lana
1. Anal sex is not exclusive to homosexual males.
2. Sex is not just for reproduction, it is also for pleasure.
3. There is a difference between being attracted to someone and chosing to act on that attraction.

Oooh! I like your new sig! 😄

Originally posted by Lana
I really don't feel like arguing this because it's gotten so tiresome repeating myself over the 130+ pages in this thread, but basically what I think of it comes down to this.

I don't necessarily think it's genetic, maybe a mix of that and environment. I think (I cannot remember for sure) that they did find a few genes that are linked to homosexuality; also I remember reading something about hormone levels differing. But I do no in any way, shape, or form think that homosexuality is a choice. I simply don't think you can decide who you're attracted to. Now, ACTING on this attraction is different. That is a choice - just like when you're attracted to someone of the opposite sex you have the choice whether to act on it or not. But in that case you can't decide who you like, so why would it be any different if you find yourself attracted to someone of the same sex?

Not to mention the fact that, considering how much discrimination homosexuals are met with, I do not see why anyone would actively chose to be homosexual. And that is also why so many people keep it a secret and stay in the closet.

I could go more in-depth as to why I think all this but yeah.....explained it just far too many times throughout this thread.

Just an aside: Where did the closet analogy come from?

I'm not seeing a correlation between receding into a piece of wooden furniture, and being attracted to males secretly.

-AC

"In 1993, Michelangelo Signorile wrote Queer In America (re-released in 2003 by University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 0299193748) in which he explored in depth the harm caused both to the closeted individual and to society in general by being in the closet."

Originally posted by Draco69
"In 1993, Michelangelo Signorile wrote Queer In America (re-released in 2003 by University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 0299193748) in which he explored in depth the harm caused both to the closeted individual and to society in general by being in the closet."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just an aside: Where did the closet analogy come from?

I'm not seeing a correlation between receding into a piece of wooden furniture, and being attracted to males secretly.

-AC

The original meaning of "closet" is "a closed space or small enclosure." The first recorded use of "closet" in the modern sense meaning "a small side-room for storage," was in 1616.

Originally from "skeleton in the closet," or "the source of secret shame to a person or family," popularized by Thackery in 1842, "in the closet" meaning "something secret or unknown," was first recorded in 1952, in reference to alcoholism. The phrase "come out of the closet" meaning "to admit something openly" was first recorded in 1963, and by the 1970s, both phrases would be in common use in reference to homosexuals .

Originally posted by Draco69
As it has been just as frequently by heterosexuals. But it actually varies by culture. There are numerous African societies that prefer other rituals. But that's besides the point. Again, you're ignoring the lesbians...

Regardless of "culture"..the purpose of the anus has always been excretion of waste. As you have stated..the purpose of the mouth has always been for ingestion of food, breathing, etc. I'd be delighted to hear as to how other "cultures" performed these functions..without using the mouth and anus.

Actually, I haven't explictly said "homosexuality is caused by genetics" I've actually said that the cause looks to be biological in nature. Not purely genetical because there have been studies involving the brain, hormones, pre-natal chemicals, etc.

You are assuming that the "emotional/sexual responses" are the by products of the "chemical reactions" in the body..rather than the "chemical reactions" being the by product of our emotional/sexual responses.

Our bodies react chemically to all different types of emotional stimuli. For example..when we laugh..endorphins are released into the bloodstream..enabling our body to become more relaxed. Does this mean that "laughter" is a "biological" condition or that we can't adjust or sense of humors..or control the things that make us laugh? I don't think so. Silly logic.

This is a rather interesting question. Particularly from you. You don't believe in evolution because you believe it to be false and mythical and yet for this discussion you're willing to use the the theory of evolution to make your case.

You believe homosexuality to be a genetic disorder because if it was natural, then by your logic evolution would have never allowed it to exist. Yet you don't believe in evolution. So why do you believe it to be a genetic disorder.

Never stated I don't believe in EVOLUTION. I just don't believe in the type of EVOLUTION that "Neo Darwinism" preaches..specifically "Macro Evolution" or "Speciation." I have no problem believing in variation or adaptation of animals/plants etc. However, I don't believe in animals turning into men..or lizards turning into birds. To me..that particular aspect of the Neo Darwinism(as well as many others) does sound a bit "mythical"

Anyway..my believing or not believing in "Neo Darwinism" has nothing to do with the argument being presented. You can address that with me in one of the Evolution threads if you would like..but I don't believe it is appropriate for us to address it in this one.

Why hasn't the function of the mouth evolved into something capable of reproduction? The anus and the mouth are regularly used by humans has a means of sexual activities. More so on the mouth actually because they have found rather lewd cave drawings pertaining to these activities. By your logic, evolution should have made the mouth into an alternative means of reproduction. But it hasn't.

Thank you for rephrasing my point. You actually put it in much better words than I did. Again..I don't understand why the mouth, anus, and other parts of the body..have not "evolved" into reproductive organs over the past 100 thousand years or so. Can you explain to me why they have not?

Also you're ignoring one critical piece. Again. That piece is lesbians. Think about it. If evolution TRULY wanted the best means of reproduction it would have been with lesbians. They're the ones who actually have the means to produce offspring. So why not evolution go down that path? Two lesbians can make two babies or more in one sitting.

lol. This is obviously an opinion you've developed on your own. I'd be interested in hearing what scientific basis you have supporting it.

Actually there are many theories on this. The most popular, which I'm sure you heard of, is population control or detriment to breeding.

In the animal kingdom, homosexuality as a form of population control for specific species has worked. For sheep or grazing mammels for example, scientists have discovered when the population exceeds a baseline number, the number of homosexual activities have thusly increased. Mating season for a prior year with a smaller herd had low homosexual activities and high mating rate. But for a year where the population expanded past a baseline number, the mating rate was significantly reduced with of course a higher than normal homosexual activity rate.

I've only seen the "Population Control" theory mentioned on this forum. Anyway it all really boils down to how you define "homosexual behavior" when referring to animals. Much of the "alleged" evidence of "same sex union in animals"..can be interpreted a multitude of different ways. Perhaps you should give me some examples of how the term "homosexuality" is defined within the animal kingdom..and then we can go from there.

For humans, of course this simply doesn't work. Why? Because our societal/religous/economic/etc. deters humanity from committing same-sex behavior. Homosexuals are still gay. But unless they want to be ostrazied/stoned to death/hanged/or sent to jail than they sure as hell better act straight, get married and have kids. Now you might say this is evidence for homosexuality being a disorder because it doesn't work. That would be faulty logic because time and again, our societal norms have gotten in the way of our natural biological needs. Take obesity for example. Obesity is a way for people to store fat in their body during cold weather and stay warm. And yet people are told being even the slightest bit obese is bad. So people exercise to death and deny what would be a natural body function to conserve heat and delay hunger.

You're making big assumptions Draco..that really have no scientific basis to them. Fat is stored in the body for the purposes of energy and protection. Having excessive amounts fat in one's body..can lead to a multitude of health problems. I've never heard of "Obesity" having a specific "Evolutionary purpose" of keeping our bodies warm. Sounds a bit like you are making stuff up bud.

Another theory is actually on the opposite side of the spectrum. Homosexuality as means to ENCOURAGE reproduction.

As stated before..it all really depends on what you define as being "homosexual behavior" in the animal kingdom. Give me some examples of this type of behavior..and we'll go from there.

Again (why does everyone make this mistake? Is is THAT mind-boggling) Sexual orientation is not defined by sexual acts or the choice to ACT on sexual desires.

I'll make it simple:

Sexual behavior - The gender of the people one has committed sex acts with.

Sexual orientation, preference, or inclination - The gender of the people one has a spontaneous sexual and/or attraction to.

BIG difference. Let's say I'm heterosexual. I'm sexually and romantically attracted to women. I choose to have sex with my gay male boss so I can get a raise. Am I gay? No, I had gay sex. But in no way did it alter my sexual orientation.

You are making broad assumptions based off of speculative theories you have studied Draco. Nothing that you've stated is set in stone. I could just as easily state that many environmental/cultural factors, are the cause of sexual behavior. Many studies have supported this assertion. You have even alluded to this yourself. Refer to example below

Originally posted by Draco
As it has been just as frequently by heterosexuals. But it actually varies by culture.

No one has the definitive answer as to what causes one to engage in certain sexual activities. Personally..I believe that choice, is really the definitive reason. However..equating it to being a "natural" process that serves some specific purpose..is a broad un-scientific assumption..supported by subjective evidence at best...and contradictory at worse.

Originally posted by Draco69
Who ever told you that was clearly under the influence of drugs. A sexual position is not genetic any more than the Kama Sutra or missionary style is...

Sodomy/Cunninglingus(sp?)/Fellatio are not just "sexual positions" Draco. They are sexual ACTS. Sounds a bit like you are making stuff up again bud.

And that's all true. But we still engage in it nonetheless. AGAIN. For some reason, you're equating anal sex with homosexuality. It's a sexual position. That's it.

Anal sex is a SEXUAL ACT...not just a POSITION. I have no idea where you received this bit of information from, however, I'm glad you have given me the chance to educate you on this topic.

Eat feces? 🤨

Jumping off a cliff is not "attraction". That's simply a human desire. Do you get an erection? Does your brain start pumping out sexual hormones? No. Because it's a human desire not a biological desire. Your body reacts and/or stimulates references to sex. Just like hunger. The need to sleep.

It's possible for one to get an erection..or receive a boost of endorphins in their bodies from doing such things. You ever heard of the term "thrill seeker"...many people engage in such activities..because it makes them feel good. Some even get a sexual thrill from it. Are we to equate the chemical release of endorphons when engaging in these acts..as being the cause of an individual doing these acts? I don't think we should..but you are welcome to make that silly illogical assumption.

You can CHOOSE to stave off hunger or sleep. But it doesn't mean you're meant to.

Same logic can be applied to anal sex Draco. One can also choose to engage in anal sex..doesn't mean that they were born wanting to do so.

Equating the unusual desire to eat feces with human sexual attraction is rather faulty....

Not faulty..actually logical. The anus is used for the excretion of feces. If one knows this before they engage in some sort of "oral sexual stimuli" to the anus..then what could it imply about an individuals desire to engage in such an act?

whob, why are u so sure we are not born this way and we cannot change the way we are?
I think us gay people know about this a little better than you?

Originally posted by Eis
whob, why are u so sure we are not born this way and we cannot change the way we are?
I think us gay people know about this a little better than you?

Everyday we make choices...some choices are more difficult to make then others..but engaging in a particular activity that you've made a choice to engage in..doesn't make it any less of a choice.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Everyday we make choices...some choices are more difficult to make then others..but engaging in a particular activity that you've made a choice to engage in..doesn't make it any less of a choice.

I'm not sure I'm following the logic here.

I don't see why nature would, through evolution, purposefully thwart an activity, and then create a counter-balance to stop that happening.

Originally posted by Eis
I did not choose to be gay. Simple as that.
You can keep going on and on about sodomy, sins, population control, homosexual behavior, etc.
But end of the day is us gay people who know whether we chose to be gay or not...

Can you control your sexual behavior? The answer is yes. Is it difficult to do so? Yes very difficult to do so..but not impossible. Simple as that.

Deciding whether to be gay or not seems like a rather difficult choice, don't you think I'd remember deciding I'd be gay?

Each time you engage in a sexual act with another man..you make a conscious choice to do so. No one is pointing a gun at your head forcing you to do it. Stating that you were born wanting to engage in this type of behavior is a rather ridiculous broad based assumption..and there is no concrete evidence out their to support this assumption.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Can you control your sexual behavior? The answer is yes. Is it difficult to do so? Yes very difficult to do so..but not impossible. Simple as that.

Each time you engage in a sexual act with another man..you make a conscious choice to do so. No one is pointing a gun at your head forcing you to do it. Stating that you were born wanting to engage in this type of behavior is a rather ridiculous broad based assumption..and there is no concrete evidence out their to support this assumption.

Do you not perceive a difference between desire and action though?

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent

as it were.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'm not sure I'm following the logic here.

I don't see why nature would, through evolution, purposefully thwart an activity, and then create a counter-blanace to stop that happening. [/B]

And using reverse logic..I could state that I don't understand how "Nature"..would purposefully encourage certain "activities", particularyly ones that don't seem to provide any clear genetic/biological benefits.

In fact..Sodomy, Oral sex, and related behaviors are actually linked to the start and the spread of many STD's. Such as Herpes, HIV, Syphlis, Hepatitus, etc.

Anyway..please provide for me as to why "homosexuality" would be any more effective over population control..over let's say.."sterilization."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And using reverse logic..I could state that I don't understand how "Nature"..would purposefully encourage certain "activities", particularyly ones that don't seem to provide any clear genetic/biological benefits.

In fact..Sodomy, Oral sex, and related behaviors are actually linked to the start and the spread of many STD's. Such as Herpes, HIV, Syphlis, Hepatitus, etc.

Anyway..please provide for me as to why "homosexuality" would be any more effective over population control..over let's say.."sterilization."

Maybe nature doesn't encourage it. I am not of that particular view.

Although your second paragraph possibly answers your third.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Can you control your sexual behavior? The answer is yes. Is it difficult to do so? Yes very difficult to do so..but not impossible. Simple as that.

Each time you engage in a sexual act with another man..you make a conscious choice to do so. No one is pointing a gun at your head forcing you to do it. Stating that you were born wanting to engage in this type of behavior is a rather ridiculous broad based assumption..and there is no concrete evidence out their to support this assumption.

I have never engaged sexual acts with another man. And even if I did, yeah it'd be my choice to do so, but it wouldn't be my choice to want to do so.