Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural."

You don't get more concrete than National Geographic, when it comes to nature.

Originally posted by Lana
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.

Nope, not at all...for one thing, I'm still attracted to guys. And it wasn't a decision; more of a realization.

I'd take a stab at saying you experienced something early on in your life that begin you to start this behavior. Possibly lack of discipline from your parents, or could be other environmental/emotional factors..I'm certain it's more than what you say. But that's your personal business.

Either way..at some point..you made a "choice" to act on your "feelings." Still doesn't negate the choice aspect though. I don't know where the attraction aspect came from, but if I knew a bit more about your personal history, I'd take a gander at saying I probably could determine the source of it.

Then I challenge you to try it.

Don't need to try it. But thanks for asking...😉

You can have attraction without action, just as you can have action without attraction. Happens all the time.

That's contradictory logic there my dear. You can't have sexual attraction without being in some way shape or form attracted to certain types of sexual acts.

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."

There's a difference between finding something attractive...and being sexually attracted to it. I can look at a flower and say..hey..that's a beautiful flower..doesn't mean I want to stick my wanker in the stem..and start humping it..😆

Again..you have to be "sexually attracted" to a certain type of behavior..in order to want to engage in it.

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?

Why do people choose to be Doctors, knowing they could possible make the mistake of killing someone. Or Police officers, or stippers, or gamblers..because people make choices based on life experiences..some very good..some very poor. But the responsability of the choice, ultimately relies on the individual.

I then stated to him, that unlike yourself...the sole method to my debate style, is not to throw out silly debate terms.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam..roll eyes (sarcastic)

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.

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.

You did the exact thing you are attempting to criticize Adam Poe for. You brought a logical fallacy(incorrectly) as your sole defense against Tp saying that there is no sound evidence that it's a choice.

Because he has yet provided nothing to prove it as being false. That's Argumentum ad ignorantiam..my friend. Pretty easy to see. To make matters worse, I've actually provided evidence supporting my position, while Tpt has not.

He doesn't have to prove it to be false, the fact that you haven't proven it to be true allows others to believe it is false. Your "facts" are anything but.

You've more or less said that anal sex is a choice (and you are right, it is) and then insinuate that this somehow means that homosexuality is also a choice even though the two have nothing directly related to each other besides a false stereotype.

Again, you DID misuse the fallacy. It would have been correct had Tp said "You have not proven that homosexuality is a choice, therefor it is genetic". He didn't do that, his claim was merely that there wasn't evidence to support your side of it and nothing more. He didn't make an alternative sound true. Hell, it could have even work had Tp claimed that your side was actually false because you didn't provide evidence, he didn't even do that, he merely said that there is no evidence to support it being a choice, and then mentioned that heterosexuals raise homosexual and vice versa.

Not only that, but you attempted to put words in his mouth. A few posts later you said this -

since their is no evidence to prove that it is "not choice" then you are wrong whob

The part in bold was never said, he never said you are wrong! He simply said that there wasn't evidence to support it being a choice. I can't make this any more simplified or clear.

Meanwhile, you've again done the same thing you've attempted to attack. After you tried to use that fallacy to your advantage, you said this as "evidence" as to why homosexuality is a choice -

Scientific studies which were inconclusive regarding homosexuality being related to "genetics."

-In other words, something is one way because another side hasn't been proven. In even other words - Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because something hasn't been proven to be factual is not evidence that the opposite is true.

And now, to stay somewhat on topic. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, nor do I believe it's genetic. I don't know what it is and I believe it may be a multitude of factors. Some people may somehow be able to choose who they are attracted too, some may become gay through their environment or upbringing, or it may be genetics or any other factor. I don't know what causes, no one actually knows what causes it, and I have no problem admitting that.

But from what I can tell, it certainly isn't a choice. I've never been able to choose whom I'm attracted too, let alone the gender that I'm attracted too, so why would I assume that homosexuals somehow possess this ability?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Either way..at some point..you made a "choice" to act on your "feelings." Still doesn't negate the choice aspect though. I don't know where the attraction aspect came from, but if I knew a bit more about your personal history, I'd take a gander at saying I probably could determine the source of it.

Why do people choose to be Doctors, knowing they could possible make the mistake of killing someone. Or Police officers, or stippers, or gamblers..because people make choices based on life experiences..some very good..some very poor. But the responsability of the choice, ultimately relies on the individual.

Homosexuality would still exist, without external influences. People do not "choose" their sexuality, nor have I seen any definitive and substantiated evidences of it having purely genetic basis.

Originally posted by BackFire
You did the exact thing you are attempting to criticize Adam Poe for. You brought a logical fallacy(incorrectly) as your sole defense against Tp saying that there is no sound evidence that it's a choice.

Not really. I'm criticizing Adam for just about exclusively using debate logic as a response to every single post..huuge difference. The man never directly rebuts.

He doesn't have to prove it to be false, the fact that you haven't proven it to be true allows others to believe it is false. Your "facts" are anything but.

You've more or less said that anal sex is a choice (and you are right, it is) and then insinuate that this somehow means that homosexuality is also a choice even though the two have nothing directly related to each other besides a false stereotype.

The fallacy was clearly used correctly, and both you and Tpt have attempted to waffle around the actual definition of the term..to support your arguments.

The bottom line is that Tpt did not provide evidence to support his point, I did. However Tpt, attempted to use "my lack of being able to prove my evidence as infallible" as a retort to why my argument was wrong.
That's illogical.

His whole "Flying Reindeer" example..was actually applicable to him..not myself. He was the one asking me to provide proof for a "negative" not the other way around. Anyway..its such a moot point..and has little to do with the actual topic of the thread. As of yet..none of you have provided anything other than speculation/conjecture..supporting your beliefs.

Again, you DID misuse the fallacy.

No I didn't..but it's a moot point. What proof do you have supporting your opinion..

answer: none.

guess that pretty much shuts down that argument.

And now, to stay somewhat on topic. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice, nor do I believe it's genetic. I don't know what it is and I believe it may be a multitude of factors. Some people may somehow be able to choose who they are attracted too, some may become gay through their environment or upbringing, or it may be genetics or any other factor. I don't know what causes, no one actually knows what causes it, and I have no problem admitting that.

Let's just clarify things once again. Clearly..when anyone engages in any type of sexual activity, they are making a choice to do so. No getting around that. Environment and upbringing have been proven time and time again to have an impact on an individuals sexual preference. Their's really no refuting this. Genetics have not been proven to be linked to "homosexuality"..not even remotely so.

But from what I can tell, it certainly isn't a choice. I've never been able to choose whom I'm attracted too, let alone the gender that I'm attracted too, so why would I assume that homosexuals somehow possess this ability?

You choose who you are attracted to everyday..the type of women you like..the type of people you are friends with, etc. All of these are choices my friend..there is no getting around this.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural."

You don't get more concrete than National Geographic, when it comes to nature.

my god No matter how much you argue Whob and no matter how much logic you TRY to make. You're still wrong. Im still not sure how to explain to you how i really want my posts to come out as. But honestly..god..You jsut dont understand.

Not really. I'm criticizing Adam for just about exclusively using debate logic as a response to every single post..huuge difference. The man never directly rebuts.

Of course he does, he's directly retorted you many times. And again, in that post of yours YOU didn't directly rebut Tp, you just copy/pasted the fallacy and tried to apply it in a lazy manner without actually supporting it in any way through words of your own. I'm not saying you do this ALL THE TIME, as you are trying to do with Adam Poe, but you did do it this one time. I'll quote it again and show you if I have to.

The fallacy was clearly used correctly, and both you and Tpt have attempted to waffle around the actual definition of the term..to support your arguments.

The bottom line is that Tpt did not provide evidence to support his point, I did. However Tpt, attempted to use "my lack of being able to prove my evidence as infallible" as a retort to why my argument was wrong.
That's illogical.

Tp not providing evidence doesn't mean he committed the fallacy! He never said an alternative is true, he never said you were wrong, HE WASN'T EVEN DIRECTLY SPEAKING TO YOU. His comment wasn't aimed at you, it was just him giving his opinion on the subject. Again, had he claimed that you WERE wrong because there wasn't evidence supporting your side, OR that the opposite was true because of a lack of evidence, then it would be correct. None of this happened, he simply said that there was no evidence supporting it being a choice, and nothing more!

Look at the example you copy/pasted along with the fallacy. It even supports this. In the example, the person claiming Global warming to exist is using the fact that there is no factual proof supporting the opposite as his main argument. He's claiming an alternative is true. That's the key. Tp did NOT do this, he did not claim an alternative to be true as a result of a lack of evidence on your side, he did not claim you to be wrong. He merely said that there is a lack of evidence!

Let's just clarify things once again. Clearly..when anyone engages in anytype of sexual activity, they are making a choice to do so. No getting around that. Environment and upbringing has been proven time and time again to have an impact on an individuals sexual preference. Their's really no refuting this. Genetics has not proven to be linked to "homosexuality"..not even remotely so.

Yes, but there is more to homosexuality then engaging in sex! It's the attraction to the same sex that is in question. That is not a choice, if you believe you can choose what sex you are attracted to, then please do what Adam Poe suggested and become aroused to the point of orgasm by watching only gay porn. Or answer Tex's question of when exactly you chose your sexuality.

Your claim that engaging in sex is a choice is not something I disagree with.

However, once again, the fact that genetics has not factually been linked to homosexuality is not evidence that it's a choice, it's evidence that we simply don't know what factually causes it.

You choose who you are attracted to everyday..the type of women you like..the type of people you are friends with, etc. All of these are choices my friend..there is no getting around this.

No, I don't choose the type of women I find sexually arousing. I tend to like exotic looking women, this wasn't a choice, I just do. I can't just go "okay, I like blond women best today" and have it be so. I also can't choose what sex I'm attracted to. I'm attracted to women, I can't just "choose" to one day be attracted to men.

So again, I don't dispute that the act of sex is a choice, it is. But it's the same for heterosexuality. If homosexuality, IE, the sexual attraction to members of the same sex is a choice because of that, then heterosexuality is also a choice by using the same logic.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.
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.

Originally posted by BackFire
You did the exact thing you are attempting to criticize Adam Poe for. You brought a logical fallacy(incorrectly) as your sole defense against Tp saying that there is no sound evidence that it's a choice.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.

This does not change the fact that while many people in Tibet practice Tibetan Buddhism, Tibet does not have a "Buddhist government," but is ruled by the secular government of the People's Republic of China.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.

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.

How many times must it be explained to you that an appeal to authority is appropriate IF the person is qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject? Dictionaries are not authorities on Buddhism, they are authorities on how words are used within a language. Governments are not authorities on Buddhism, they are authorities on creating and enforcing laws. The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism, because he is qualified to have an expert opinion about it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural."
You don't get more concrete than National Geographic, when it comes to nature.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not really. I'm criticizing Adam for just about exclusively using debate logic as a response to every single post..huuge difference. The man never directly rebuts.

If every single one of your posts did not contain a logical error, I would not respond to your posts in such a manner.

Moreover, I have pointed out where your arguments are not valid, and where your premises and conclusions are false. One could not be any more direct.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The fallacy was clearly used correctly, and both you and Tpt have attempted to waffle around the actual definition of the term..to support your arguments.
The bottom line is that Tpt did not provide evidence to support his point, I did. However Tpt, attempted to use "my lack of being able to prove my evidence as infallible" as a retort to why my argument was wrong.
That's illogical.
His whole "Flying Reindeer" example..was actually applicable to him..not myself. He was the one asking me to provide proof for a "negative" not the other way around. Anyway..its such a moot point..and has little to do with the actual topic of the thread. As of yet..none of you have provided anything other than speculation/conjecture..supporting your beliefs.
No I didn't..but it's a moot point. What proof do you have supporting your opinion..
answer: none.
guess that pretty much shuts down that argument.

If the fallacy was clearly used correctly, there should not be any disagreement. The fact is, that you did not use the fallacy correctly, and refuse to accept it.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's just clarify things once again. Clearly..when anyone engages in any type of sexual activity, they are making a choice to do so. No getting around that. Environment and upbringing have been proven time and time again to have an impact on an individuals sexual preference. Their's really no refuting this. Genetics have not been proven to be linked to "homosexuality"..not even remotely so.

Again, sexual orientation is characterized by an enduring emotional, physical, and psychological attraction to members of a particular sex, not by sexual behavior. One can be heterosexual and participate in sex acts with a member of the same sex, just as one could be homosexual and never participate in any sex acts whatsoever.

Furthermore, you choose to selectively ignore the fact that researches at the University of Illinois Chicago discovered genetic determinates of sexual orientation on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You choose who you are attracted to everyday..the type of women you like..the type of people you are friends with, etc. All of these are choices my friend..there is no getting around this.

One may choose to puruse a woman or not, but he does not choose to like women. One may choose to befriend someone or not, but he does not choose to like him.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

I read the article..and as I surmised. It's not very specific about what type of "activities" they deem to be homosexual. I've actually read several similar articles..which are generally framed the same way. It's rather funny too, because a lot of simple behaviors, such as a bird climbing on top of another female birds back..are automatically related to "sexuality" rather than "dominance." But I know there's some counter articles out there..that could easily give different interpretations on this type of behavior. I'll post the counter argument sometime tommorow..seeing as how it is already passed my bedtime.

Nite...😖leep:

Good night Whob.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I read the article..and as I surmised. It's not very specific about what type of "activities" they deem to be homosexual. I've actually read several similar articles..which are generally framed the same way. It's rather funny too, because a lot of simple behaviors, such as a bird climbing on top of another female birds back..are automatically related to "sexuality" rather than "dominance." But I know there's some counter articles out there..that could easily give different interpretations on this type of behavior. I'll post the counter argument sometime tommorw..seeing as how it is already passed my bedtime.

Nite...😖leep:

Again, you show that you chose to ignore logic and facts. The article doesn't need to point out that the bird didn't just climb on the back of another female bird, and hump it...but it needs to say that the two female birds made passionate sexual gestures over and over in a hot freenzy of lesbian bird love? Please, you're ridiculous. Not only does it point out their behavior, but it says that these events take place during their mating seasons...and they ignore opposite-sex mates. Maybe now you should post a link to one of your religious websites that says that science makes up the facts that support it's argument.

Facts are facts jack, and in spite of them, you stick your head in the sand and pretend you don't understand or refuse to accept that you're wrong. And that you have been proven wrong on almost every topic in which you chose to take part.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This does not change the fact that while many people in Tibet practice Tibetan Buddhism, Tibet does not have a "Buddhist government," but is ruled by the secular government of the People's Republic of China.

How many times must it be explained to you that an appeal to authority is appropriate IF the person is qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject? Dictionaries are not authorities on Buddhism, they are authorities on how words are used within a language. Governments are not authorities on Buddhism, they are authorities on creating and enforcing laws. The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism, because he is qualified to have an expert opinion about it.

Clearly you want to get into a game of semantics, even though you've been proven wrong multiple times on this subject. Regardless of what government we're referring to..whether it be the "exiled government" the occupational government..etc..its clearly apparent..that both "governments" clearly classify Buddhism as a RELIGION my friend.
Doesn't matter what your "God" the Dalai Lama thinks..unfortunately..on this earth, his opinion does not out weigh that of the those who govern him. End of that discussion.

If every single one of your posts did not contain a logical error, I would not respond to your posts in such a manner.

They don't contain logical errors Adam..you just have little ability nor substantive evidence to rebut them.

Moreover, I have pointed out where your arguments are not valid, and where your premises and conclusions are false. One could not be any more direct.

Refer to the above.

If the fallacy was clearly used correctly, there should not be any disagreement. The fact is, that you did not use the fallacy correctly, and refuse to accept it.

More mumbo jumbo..refer to the above. The fallacy was used correctly, but regardless, that's really not the topic of the thread. Your only reason in continuing this minor argument is to take away from the fact that your points on Buddhism, Homosexuality have been so sorely whipped. But do carry on with this argument if you must..everybody's gotta feel good about something.

Again, sexual orientation is characterized by an enduring emotional, physical, and psychological attraction to members of a particular sex, not by sexual behavior. One can be heterosexual and participate in sex acts with a member of the same sex, just as one could be homosexual and never participate in any sex acts whatsoever.

I know your not going to like this..but the Ol lexicographer from the dictionary don't agree with you again..

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sexual%20orientation

Dictionary.com defintion

sexual orientation

1. The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.

2. The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.

def sexual

Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.

I don't see anything about emotions or psychological in the defintion buddy.

One's sexual orientation is something that is clearly related to "the desire to perform sexual acts"..not emotions my friend.

let me guess what's going to come next Adam..oh I know..

Logic fallacy of appeal to authority..the lexicographers are not more qualified than the Dhali Lama or Adam Poe..😆😆

Furthermore, you choose to selectively ignore the fact that researches at the University of Illinois Chicago discovered genetic determinates of sexual orientation on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.

Actually I don't know much about the study..perhaps you could go into detail and let us know exactly what their conclusions were..etc. giving chromsome numbers does little to nothing in substantiating your argument if you don't give us all the information..it just makes it seem as if you are leaving information out.

Okay..its really time for bed now..see you all in a few

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Facts are facts jack.

Anyway, yes there are numerous examples of homosexual animal behaviour.

Again, as in another thread, I'm wondering how "unnatural" is being defined (with the implication that this can be extrapolated to something being "wrong"😉.

Is something that doesn't occur in other species "unnatural"?

Homosexuality occurs in many other species.

Or is "unnatural" referring to something that occurs due to external influence?

In which case this makes almost all learned human behaviours "unnatural" but does not afaik include homosexuality because afaik sexuality is relatively innate.

"When did you choose to be gay?" and "When did you choose to be straight?" 😑 What?

I'm getting the feeling that "unnatural" is simply being used to describe what isn't considered "the norm".

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
...Pope Benedict XVI disagrees...

Please, that man is sooo gay.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Please, that man is sooo gay.

Also, don't you think he's getting so much less attention than John Paul did? It's like everyone is waiting for him to die so we can see the smoke blow again.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Please, that man is sooo gay.

Look at him getting jiggy with it:

😂

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Don't anger Pope Benedict he'll smite you...

Look at him getting jiggy with it:

😂

I went to catholic school my whole life, I know what he would like to smite.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I went to catholic school my whole life, I know what he would like to smite.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
😖 ... please don't provoke visuals... more icky than Icke...

Oh, I don't have any visuals to share. But, I mean, look at his outfit! I've seen drag queens that wear less bling.