It is your argument that no one is born with an innate desire to participate in anal sex, therefore homosexuality is a choice:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You all are still missing the point. Whether someone is hetero/homo..anal sex is an "un-natural" sexual act. Those who engage in it, are choosing to do so, knowing that the function of the anus was not meant for reproduction.I'm sorry fellas, but no one is born being attracted to the idea of inserting objects into the rectum of another human being. Nor do I believe that one is born wanting to put their mouth on another human beings colon/genetalia...be they male or female.
Your premise, "that anal sex is limited to male homosexuals," commits the logic fallacy of Hasty Generalization.
As BackFire pointed out, not all male homosexuals participate in anal sex:
Originally posted by BackFire
Not all gay men have anal sex, just a sloppy assumption/generalization you're making, one that is false. You can be gay without wanting to stick your ding dong in a man's poopshoot.I remember taking a Human Sexuality class a few years back, and we had a gay man come in as a speaker, talking about his lifestyle and asking questions. He said that most gay people that he knows don't engage in anal sex regularly, and that many have never even tried it.
And as I pointed out, many heterosexuals do participate in anal sex:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Another sloppy assumption/generalization of whobdamandog is that heterosexuals do not participate in anal sex as frequently as homosexuals do.According to a Playboy magazine study, 45% of heterosexual men report participating in receptive anal sex.
Furthermore, your argument commits the logic fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion. Even if we presume that the premise, "no one is born with an innate desire to participate in anal sex," is correct, this premise does not logically support the conclusion, "homosexuality is choice," but rather, "participating in anal sex is a choice."
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I only know about two studies..which were found to be rather inconclusive in linking homosexuality to genetics.
In the most comprehensive study ever conducted, researches at the University of Illinois at Chicago combed the entire human genome for determinates of sexual orientation and found them on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
One study that was conducted a bit back, suggested that homosexuals actually had two "X" chromosomes..as opposed to the standard male "XY" combination. I believe this kind of started the whole "genetic theory." This was fed to the public by the media for many years..and continues to be done so today, even though it has been found that many males who were "heterosexual", also were born with two X chromosomes.The other study involved exposing male "phermones" to gay males..and observing the different chemical reactions that their brains/bodies produced after being exposed to them. This was really a silly experiment, seeing as how the participants had been practicing homosexuals for many years, and were obviously accustomed to having interactions with such phermones.
To put things in perspective..it would be like if I was to wave a pizza in front of an individual who ate pizza for 20 years. When the person responded to wanting the slice of pizza, I could then state that the endorphins released from their bodies after seeing the pizza..were the reason as to why they desired it. Silly stuff.
Anyway..there is no conclusive evidence linking homsexuality to "genetics"...and I doubt there ever will be any.
The problem lies not with the studies, but with your understanding of them.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Argumentum ad ignorantiam..🙄This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
As BackFire pointed out, this is not the correct use of the fallacy:
Originally posted by BackFire
You misused the fallacy (shocker).He isn't assuming something is true because it hasn't be proven false, he's assuming something is FALSE because it hasn't been proven to be true. He didn't say WHAT caused homosexuality, as such he isn't assuming anything to be true, simply that the statement of "it's a choice" doesn't have any evidence to support it, he didn't deem anything to be true.
Besides, weren't you the one complaining when Adam Poe (properly) pointed out fallacies in YOUR arguments, and now you're (trying) to do the same thing.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving on..there is proof..that many homosexuals/lesbians have been molested as children, grown up in abusive environments/or ones without fathers. Regardless of the circumstances, one is still responsible for their actions.
According to the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, "Many people suffer from all types of abuse and neglect as children, yet grow up to be heterosexual. Many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, have had bad experiences with a person of the opposite sex. There is no correlation between any of these occurrences and homosexuality."
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Example of using a fallacy to dodge a question with an obvious answer.
Ex
Does the Buddhist Government state that Buddhism is a "religion" on their website?
answer: Fallacy of appeal to authority...the government is not an "authority" on Buddhism.
Silly stuff.
But I'm glad you gave me an opportunity to educate you once again. 😉
First, there is no "Buddhist government." Second, to assert that a government is a greater authority on a belief system than the leader of the belief system is preposterous. Then again, you also believe that the government is a greater authority on Catholism than the Pope. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
And I've provided evidence. As mentioned in the previous post.
-Functions of the anus, colon, and mouth.
-Scientific studies which were inconclusive regarding homosexuality being related to "genetics."
-those who engage in homosexuality having experienced child/emotional/sexual abuse. As well as coming from broken homes.
What more do you want. I can provide links to sites if you would like. Now..why don't you all give me some substantive evidence supporting why it is "genetic." No more semantics. Just give me some hardcore evidence.
Ready..set..Go!!
[list][*]Sexual orientation is characterized by an enduring emotional, physical, and psychological attraction to members of a particular sex, not by sexual behavior.
[*]There is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence which indicates that sexuality is an immutable characteristic. I cited the most recent and comprehensive study in this post, as well as a multitude of others earlier in this thread.
[*]Not according to the American Psychiatric Association, the America Psychological Association, or the American Academy of Pediatrics.[/list]
Originally posted by Lana
I'm not saying it's genetic; simply that it's not a choice.
But see..that's just an opinion. That's not supported by any evidence. Just because you say it is not choice. Does not make it so.
Functions of the mouth/anus are irrelevant.
Why are they irrelevant. These are common organs used to engage in homosexual activity. I think it's relevant to the point of the sexual acts being natural, particularly since as I have stated many times..the "natural" functions of these body parts are not "reproduction."
It isn't something that has been extensively studied. And many heterosexual people had abusive childhoods and/or came from a broken home.
Abuse effects everyone in different ways. Some people are able to move on and lead normal lives..others become abusers themselves, others become prostitutes, strippers, etc. I have never alluded to abuse being the sole reason for one becoming gay. I do believe that genetics possibly could play a part..but a very small one.
Nurture over Nature tends to be the philosophy I ascribe to in life. Even the environment argument can only be taken so far. Ultimately..I truly believe that it all boils down to choice. At some point, people have to take responsability for their actions.
None of your points prove anything.
I believe they do. There's no point in repeating them though..because they've already been stated many times.
But see..that's just an opinion. That's not supported by any evidence. Just because you say it is not choice. Does not make it so.
So what I say is only opinion, but what you say is fact? Your position has no evidence for it. I am in a much better position to make the claims I do - it's called experience.
Why are they irrelevant. These are common organs used to engage in homosexual activity. I think it's relevant to the point of the sexual acts being natural, particularly since as I have stated many times..the "natural" functions of these body parts are not "reproduction."
And they are also used in heterosexual activity as well. Therefore that point is irrelevant to the argument. The natural function of your hands aren't reproduction either, but people - gay and straight - use them during sex as well.
Originally posted by Tex
Too busy raking in those Benjamins girl! diva
But I'll always find time to defend the fabulous glamorous gays! 🤺
I mod your former forum now, biatch queen
Seeing as how I've already covered the whole anal/oral/attraction/fallacy/chromosomal arguments exstensively on the previous pages..I see no reason in repeating myself again...Moving on..
According to the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, "Many people suffer from all types of abuse and neglect as children, yet grow up to be heterosexual. Many people, both heterosexual and homosexual, have had bad experiences with a person of the opposite sex. There is no correlation between any of these occurrences and homosexuality."
Repeat:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Abuse effects everyone in different ways. Some people are able to move on and lead normal lives..others become abusers themselves, others become prostitutes, strippers, etc. I have never alluded to abuse being the sole reason for one becoming gay. I do believe that genetics possibly could play a part..but a very small one.Nurture over Nature tends to be the philosophy I ascribe to in life. Even the environment argument can only be taken so far. Ultimately..I truly believe that it all boils down to choice. At some point, people have to take responsability for their actions.
Originally posted by Adam Poe
First, there is no "Buddhist government." Second, to assert that a government is a greater authority on a belief system than the leader of the belief system is preposterous.
As we both clearly know..from having debated this point ad infinitum in the Evolution thread. The "Tibetan Goverment" is primarly "Buddhist." Therefore..that would primarly make it a "Buddhist Government." You clearly knew that this was what I was referring to, based on our exstensive debate about the "Tibetan Governments" authority in the other thread, however you choose to pull that argument out..in a silly attempt to damage credability..which sad to say. Has already failed.
Moving on..as it was stated to you in the Evolution thread multiple times..the chief priest of a belief system..has no more "authority" to classify his "belief system" as a religion, then the Government who allows him practice it. If you can not understand this..then you are a lost cause my friend.
Then again, you also believe that the government is a greater authority on Catholism than the Pope. 🙄
So the Pope calls the shots on where he can practice his "belief system" and what his "belief system" is classified as. I don't think so my friend. But if you want to further debate this point. Open up a thread about it. It's silly to even continue debating it in this one.
As far as your other points go..we'll just have to agree to disagree. You believe you have evidence supporting your position, I believe that I have evidence supporting mine. Obvioiusly we're not going to change each others opinions. So I believe it's appropriate just to leave it at that.
Originally posted by Lana
So what I say is only opinion, but what you say is fact? Your position has no evidence for it. I am in a much better position to make the claims I do - it's called experience.
Plenty of facts have been given, but you refuse to except them. Moving on.
At what point did you realize that you were attracted to women..was it when you were 3, 4, 5, 6, 7? I find it hard to believe that you were even thinking about this type of attraction, at this young of an age.
And they are also used in heterosexual activity as well. Therefore that point is irrelevant to the argument. The natural function of your hands aren't reproduction either, but people - gay and straight - use them during sex as well.
Doesn't make it irrelevant..it actually validates it. It's deemed un-natural behavior..regardless of what the gender is of one who engages with in it.
But the bottom line is that the primarly purpose of sex is for reproduction..two men/two women engaging in such activities..are clearly going against what would be considered their "natural" sexual roles. "Procreation" does not equate to "recreation."
Based on yours/others life philosophies, Nature would have "evolved" for men/woman to "procreate" with one another..if they were indeed meant to do so. This isn't the case my dear.
Case in point..as I stated to Draco..homosexuality is either an unnatural behavior that one chooses to engage in or...
it is a genetic defect. Those are your only two choices..either way,
You all can't equate it to being "natural"
No one thinks about sexual attraction at that age. I first started realizing it when I was in my early teens, and figured out what it meant when I was around 15.
And as has been said - so if someone chooses to be gay, then people also choose to be straight. It works both ways. So when did YOU choose to be straight?
You do not seem to be able to differentiate between attraction and actions. If you seriously think that you can decide who you are attracted to, then I challenge you to make yourself attracted to another guy.
Having the attraction is not a choice, nor is it anything you can control, anymore than a straight person can. It's acting on that attraction that is a choice.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Plenty of facts have been given, but you refuse to except them. Moving on.At what point did you realize that you were attracted to women..was it when you were 3, 4, 5, 6, 7? I find it hard to believe that you were even thinking about this type of attraction, at this young of an age.
Doesn't make it irrelevant..it actually validates it. It's deemed un-natural behavior..regardless of what the gender is of one who engages with in it.
But the bottom line is that the primarly purpose of sex is for reproduction..two men/two women engaging in such activities..are clearly going against what would be considered their "natural" sexual roles. "Procreation" does not equate to "recreation."
Based on yours/others life philosophies, Nature would have "evolved" for men/woman to "procreate" with one another..if they were indeed meant to do so. This isn't the case my dear.
Case in point..as I stated to Draco..homosexuality is either an unnatural behavior that one chooses to engage in or...
it is a genetic defect. Those are your only two choices..either way,
You all can't equate it to being "natural"
Subjective definition of "natural" to suit your desired manipulation. Presumption that if homosexuality is genetic it is a "defect". Both based upon your personal preconceptions/prejudices that homosexuality is "wrong".
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Post menopausal sex = unnatural?Subjective definition of "natural" to suit your desired manipulation. Presumption that if homosexuality is genetic it is a "defect". Both based upon your personal preconceptions/prejudices that homosexuality is "wrong".
For that matter, does that make sex while using protection unnatural? Masturbation unnatural?
Originally posted by Lana
No one thinks about sexual attraction at that age. I first started ealizing it when I was in my early teens, and figured out what it meant when I was around 15.
Ahh..but you are "bi sexual" correct..so doesn't that invalidate your whole argument? Either way..I'd be interested in knowing what specific environmental factor you had going on during that age. I seriously doubt you just one day said..
"ya know what..I like women"
Perhaps you had some bad experiences with males..trauma..stress, etc..that caused you to make this decision.
And as has been said - so if someone chooses to be gay, then people also choose to be straight. It works both ways. So when did YOU choose to be straight?
I believe feceman covered that one rather well. I could choose to be "gay" if I wanted to, however, to be quite honest with you..the thought never crossed my mind.
You do not seem to be able to differentiate between attraction and actions. If you seriously think that you can decide who you are attracted to, then I challenge you to make yourself attracted to another guy.
To the contrary..I believe you are completely seperating attraction and sexual actions..something you should not do. Sexual attraction has much to do with sexual action. If one is not attracted to performing some sort of sexual act, then more than likely they're not going to engage in it.
Having the attraction is not a choice, nor is it anything you can control, anymore than a straight person can. It's acting on that attraction that is a choice.
Being attracted to something is indeed a choice. One can choose who they are and not attracted to. Are women who like tall men..born wanting to marry tall men? Are men who like big behinds..born wanting a woman with a big behind? I don't think so..through a combination of environmental and societal factors, many develop these preferences.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Seeing as how I've already covered the whole anal/oral/attraction/fallacy/chromosomal arguments exstensively on the previous pages..I see no reason in repeating myself again...Moving on..
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Abuse effects everyone in different ways. Some people are able to move on and lead normal lives..others become abusers themselves, others become prostitutes, strippers, etc. I have never alluded to abuse being the sole reason for one becoming gay. I do believe that genetics possibly could play a part..but a very small one.Nurture over Nature tends to be the philosophy I ascribe to in life. Even the environment argument can only be taken so far. Ultimately..I truly believe that it all boils down to choice. At some point, people have to take responsability for their actions.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
As far as your other points go..we'll just have to agree to disagree. You believe you have evidence supporting your position, I believe that I have evidence supporting mine. Obvioiusly we're not going to change each others opinions. So I believe it's appropriate just to leave it at that.
In other words, you deny the proper conclusion of an inductive argument despite evidence to the contrary. Congratulations on committing the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
As we both clearly know..from having debated this point ad infinitum in the Evolution thread. The "Tibetan Goverment" is primarly "Buddhist." Therefore..that would primarly make it a "Buddhist Government." You clearly knew that this was what I was referring to, based on our exstensive debate about the "Tibetan Governments" authority in the other thread, however you choose to pull that argument out..in a silly attempt to damage credability..which sad to say. Has already failed.
You are the one who brought the argument in question into this thread in an attempt to damage my credibility:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Example of using a fallacy to dodge a question with an obvious answer.
Ex
Does the Buddhist Government state that Buddhism is a "religion" on their website?
answer: Fallacy of appeal to authority...the government is not an "authority" on Buddhism.
Silly stuff.
But I'm glad you gave me an opportunity to educate you once again. 😉
Furthermore, while many people in Tibet practice Tibetan Buddhism, Tibet does not have a "Buddhist government." Tibet is not an independent country, but a part of the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government regards the practice of Buddhism and religion to be obstacles to the views of the state, and seeks to curtail such activities.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moving on..as it was stated to you in the Evolution thread multiple times..the chief priest of a belief system..has no more "authority" to classify his "belief system" as a religion, then the Government who allows him practice it. If you can not understand this..then you are a lost cause my friend.
You are conflating the power of a government to regulate religious activity, with the authority of a leader to define his belief system. A Muslim nation may have the power to restrict the open practice of Christianity, but does not have the authority to dictate to Christians what is and is not Christian doctrine.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So the Pope calls the shots on where he can practice his "belief system" and what his "belief system" is classified as. I don't think so my friend. But if you want to further debate this point. Open up a thread about it. It's silly to even continue debating it in this one.
"The Pope is the bishop of Rome and the unquestioned authority of the Roman Catholic Church on earth."
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Case in point..as I stated to Draco..homosexuality is either an unnatural behavior that one chooses to engage in or...it is a genetic defect. Those are your only two choices..either way,
You all can't equate it to being "natural"
Your argument commits the logic fallacy of False Dichotomy; the premise that "homosexuality is an un-natural behavior," is false as sexual orientation is characterized by attraction, not behavior; and you have failed to substantiate the positive claim that "[homosexuality] is a genetic defect."
Moreover, the fact that homosexuality exstensively occurs in nature is evidence that it is natural.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEBut.. but..
In other words, you deny the proper conclusion of an inductive argument despite evidence to the contrary. Congratulations on committing the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction.You are the one who brought the argument in question into this thread in an attempt to damage my credibility:
Furthermore, while many people in Tibet practice Tibetan Buddhism, Tibet does not have a "Buddhist government." Tibet is not an independent country, but a part of the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government regards the practice of Buddhism and religion to be obstacles to the views of the state, and seeks to curtail such activities.
You are conflating the power of a government to regulate religious activity, with the authority of a leader to define his belief system. A Muslim nation may have the power to restrict the open practice of Christianity, but does not have the authority to dictate to Christians what is and is not Christian doctrine.
"The Pope is the bishop of Rome and the unquestioned authority of the Roman Catholic Church on earth."
Your argument commits the logic fallacy of False Dichotomy; the premise that "homosexuality is an un-natural behavior," is false as sexual orientation is characterized by attraction, not behavior; and you have failed to substantiate the positive claim that "[homosexuality] is a genetic defect."
Moreover, the fact that homosexuality exstensively occurs in nature is evidence that it is natural.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I believe feceman covered that one rather well. I could choose to be "gay" if I wanted to, however, to be quite honest with you..the thought never crossed my mind.Being attracted to something is indeed a choice. One can choose who they are and not attracted to. Are women who like tall men..born wanting to marry tall men? Are men who like big behinds..born wanting a woman with a big behind? I don't think so..through a combination of environmental and societal factors, many develop these preferences.
If you believe sexual attraction to be a choice, then let us test your hypothesis with an experiment. I challenge you to get sexually aroused by and to bring yourself to orgasm thinking exclusively about another man, or while watching gay pornography.
Ahh..but you are "bi sexual" correct..so doesn't that invalidate your whole argument? Either way..I'd be interested in knowing what specific environmental factor you had going on during that age. I seriously doubt you just one day said.."ya know what..I like women"
How does it invalidate my argument that it's not a choice? I did not actively choose to be attracted to other females as much as I am to guys.
Perhaps you had some bad experiences with males..trauma..stress, etc..that caused you to make this decision.
Nope, not at all...for one thing, I'm still attracted to guys. And it wasn't a decision; more of a realization.
I believe feceman covered that one rather well. I could choose to be "gay" if I wanted to, however, to be quite honest with you..the thought never crossed my mind.
Then I challenge you to try it.
To the contrary..I believe you are completely seperating attraction and sexual actions..something you should not do. Sexual attraction has much to do with sexual action. If one is not attracted to performing some sort of sexual act, then more than likely they're not going to engage in it.
You can have attraction without action, just as you can have action without attraction. Happens all the time.
Being attracted to something is indeed a choice. One can choose who they are and not attracted to. Are women who like tall men..born wanting to marry tall men? Are men who like big behinds..born wanting a woman with a big behind? I don't think so..through a combination of environmental and societal factors, many develop these preferences.
But see, a preference is NOT a choice. You don't choose to like something. I don't see why you think it has to be cut and dry, black and white - genetic or choice. It doesn't. There are certain things about guys that I find attractive, same with girls. I didn't one day go "well gee, I think I'm going to like guys with dark eyes."
And if you really think it works that way, then as I said. Go out and make yourself become attracted to someone you usually wouldn't. REAL attraction. Not just "well I think they look kinda nice so I'll just make myself think I like them until I actually do."
And as I have said before - were it a choice, why would people choose to be something that they know will get them ridiculed? Why would they hide who they are, pretend to be something they aren't?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, you deny the proper conclusion of an inductive argument despite evidence to the contrary. Congratulations on committing the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction.
This is why debating with you becomes a ridiculous affair. You rarely ever directly answer questions..but just throw out debate logic, when the argument doesn't seem to swing your way. Moving on..as stated before..we both have our opinions and "evidences' on stated topics.
You are the one who brought the argument in question into this thread in an attempt to damage my credibility:
Actually blame it on Backfire. He made a statement about me using logic fallacy..and how hypocritical it was for me to use one and then criticize you for doing so in another thread. I then stated to him, that unlike yourself...the sole method to my debate style, is not to throw out silly debate terms. I generally adress arguments directly, unlike yourself. You tend to throw out a "logic fallacy" when your point has been inevitably proven wrong and defeated, and when you have no more substantive evidence supporting it.
Furthermore, while many people in Tibet practice Tibetan Buddhism, Tibet does not have a "Buddhist government." Tibet is not an independent country, but a part of the People's Republic of China. The Chinese government regards the practice of Buddhism and religion to be obstacles to the views of the state, and seeks to curtail such activities.
Brief history of the "Tibetan Government in Exile"
Tibet, an independent country with a history dating back to 127 B.C., was invaded in 1949/50 by the People's Republic of China. The invasion and occupation of Tibet was an act of aggression and a clear violation of international law. Today, Tibet is under illegal and repressive Chinese occupation.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Tibet's head of state and spiritual leader, a firm believer in non-violence, tried for eight years to coexist peacefully with the Chinese. But China's systematic subjugation of Tibet's territory and its people led to a cycle of repression. On 10 March 1959, Tibetan resistance culminated in a national uprising against the Chinese. The People's Liberation Army crushed the uprising, killing more than 87,000 Tibetans in central Tibet alone.His Holiness the Dalai Lama, members of his government and some 80,000 Tibetans escaped from Tibet and sought political asylum in India, Nepal and Bhutan. Today there are over 120,000 Tibetans in exile including more than 5,000 living outside of the Indian sub-continent. Large numbers of Tibetans continue to arrive from Tibet to escape Chinese persecution.
Currently Tibet is occupied by China, however, that doesn't change the fact that it's "exiled" government..is indeed made up of those practicing the "Buddhist" Religion. Tibet still remains a predominantly "Buddhist" country..regardless of China's occupation.
You are conflating the power of a government to regulate religious activity, with the authority of a leader to define his belief system. A Muslim nation may have the power to restrict the open practice of Christianity, but does not have the authority to dictate to Christians what is and is not Christian doctrine.
Your just getting into semantics my friend. 2 Dictionaries, both Meriam Webster..and Dictionary.com, The Tibetan Government, The US Government, the British Government..and clearly every other "authority" that "Buddhists" are subjected to recognize the "philosphy" as being a "religion"..simple stuff to understand bud.
"The Pope is the bishop of Rome and the unquestioned authority of the Roman Catholic Church on earth."
Doesn't give him the ability to determine what is and what isn't a Religion. Italy is governed by a Parliament I believe..much like England. Not by the Pope. They have the "authority" to determine which belief systems are deemed "religions" and which ones are not my friend. I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand this Adam. But again, let's continue discussing this in another thread. I'll open up one if you like. So we do not continue to diverge from topic on this one.
Your argument commits the logic fallacy of False Dichotomy; the premise that "homosexuality is an un-natural behavior," is false as sexual orientation is characterized by attraction, not behavior; and you have failed to substantiate the positive claim that "[homosexuality] is a genetic defect."Moreover, the fact that homosexuality exstensively occurs in nature is evidence that it is natural.
Sexual orientation and sexual attraction are related my friend. You can't completely seperate..one from the other. You must have an attraction to engaging in a sexual act, before even actually partaking in it. Case in point..one must have an "un-natural" attraction to sticking their penis in another individuals rectum, mouth, hand, etc..before they decide to do it.
As far as the homosexuality occuring "exstensively" occuring in nature argument goes. Give me examples..descriptive ones. I asked Draco to do the same thing..but he never provided any. Again..much of what is deemed "homosexual" behavior in animals..is very subjective. So it's important to for one to be very descriptive when they give examples of it occurring.