Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
There's no such thing as a Bisexual [B]man. If a guy has any remote thoughts of being with another man, or has ever "experimented", then I'm sorry but that vato is just straight-up flat-out GAY. I believe in bisexual women. In fact, women have told me that they've been with other women, and it didn't change my opinion about them or cause me to question their sexuality at all. But the same applying to a man?????--Nah! [/B]

Men can be attracted to both sexes. It doesn't just apply to women. 🙄

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So those out there who freely admit to having chosen homosexuality are.... what?

Liars?

Let me put it to you this way, because you are obviously not that smart.

You are straight. Why are you straight?

Do you chose to be straight?

Or are you straight because you are attracted to people of the opposite sex?

Would you ever have sex with someone of the same sex?

If no, why? Is it because you are not attracted to members of your sex?

If yes, why?

As I have said before, and will say again, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with choice. It's about who a person is attracted to. Nothing more, nothing less. Get that through your head. 🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The basic premise of the argument of "procreation" seems to have alluded you all. The main point being thrusted forth is that same sex unions, are " unnatural" behaviors..because they are not "naturally" condusive to producing offspring. Heterosexual relationships are.

Do all heterosexual couples have the ability to produce offspring? Of course not. But the "possibility" does indeed exist within a good majority of heterosexual relationships, to "naturally" conceive children.

And as has been said, not all heterosexual relationships are conducive to producing offspring, even though one member of it might be perfectly fertile. In the sense you have put forward about about procreation being the driving and correct force between relationships then such heterosexual relationships must be incorrect - but wait, no, they are acceptable.

The possibility of "naturally" conceiving children through sexual relations with one another, does not exist within "same - sex" relationships.

Thus as reitterated post after post within this thread by multiple people..by this definition..same sex union's are not natural.

And I have seen plenty of people, post after post, produce evidence that they are perfectly natural. And the question must be asked - how then do we define IVF and adoption? If the only natural way to procreate is through heterosexual sex are those other techniques "unnatural"? No, of course they aren't. Humanity is beyond such outdated notion, and we can overcome such limitations. A heterosexual couple can use IVF, a lesbian couple can use IVF - children are conceived. It's the joys of being in an advancing civilisation. The fact we don't have to eat raw meat, drink unpasteurised milk and miss out on having babies.

Marvelous speech. You should consider getting into politics..however..you've diverged from the initial topic of the thread quite a bit my friend. The initial question posed is not whether or not "homosexuals" should be able to have children, or if they can have children through "artificial" means.

The question being posed is...

Homosexuality choosen or genetic?

Why, thank you, I do dabble a bit in politics. And you do realise it was the KMC anti-homosexual lobby that put forward the theory that "man and women were genetically designed to have babies, homosexuals can't have babies, ergo homosexuality can't be genetic or natural"

As it was responded to by showing that in todays modern world it is possible for female homosexuals to have children through artificial means, just as those heterosexual couples who aren't living up to their genetic raison detre can overcome that through artificial means. Viable.

[/QUOTE]Clearly based on all of the evidence presented to you in this thread, it has been made apparent that one does indeed "choose" to engage in sexual activities with those of the same gender. The arguments that you/others have put forth in opposition to this have been summarized below:

Arguments AGAINST Homosexuality being choice:

1. Studies were done on 64 men..which demonstrated that many of them had similar genetic compositions. This study can be used to accurately reflect and represent the general populace which consists of women..children..old people, blacks, whites, Asians, the handicapped, poor people, rich people, those who have grown up in broken homes, those who have been raped, those who have been molested, the physically abused, emotionally abused, etc, etc..etc..[/QUOTE]

Once again I point out that genetics are not effected by sociological factors - if you are GENETICALLY towards something homes, riches etc are not going to affect how you feel. And the indisputable fact also is that - since you point out gays can't have children, the majority of homosexuals come from heterosexual families - if you are advocating choice, then it is an equally indisputable fact that the heterosexual families must be the the main place of creation for homosexuals. And I would advise you to seek out any statistics which show that homosexuals where molested/physically abused/mentally abused as children - you'll find there is no link, that the majority were raised in good normal families - abuse often only starting when they revealed they were gay - as has been said, why would someone choose to be gay with such attitudes?

2. Lesbians can be impregnated through artificial means.

3. Homosexuals should be able to be happy and themselves.

4. Homosexuals should be able to adopt children who come from heterosexual broken homes.

Please feel free to correct me if I have left anything out..😉 🙄

You all have clearly failed to prove how homosexuality can be defined as natural or genetic based on the arguments above.

I was being melodramatic. 2 was saying how it's wrong to advocate incorrectness based upon the ability to procreate, when the option is now there for it to be done artificially. 3 yes, for a homosexual homosexuality is what feels right - could you enter happily into a homosexual relationship? No? Tell me in all honesty Whob, can you... could you ever choose to be gay? Tell me how you go about making your own gender attractive to you? Yes, tell me if you put your mind to it could you turn gay, go against what is natural for you? No? Then why should they be forced into what isn't natural for them. 4 - as I said, inflammatory and erroneous, but you took it seriously. Oh well.

There's no such thing as a Bisexual man. If a guy has any remote thoughts of being with another man, or has ever "experimented", then I'm sorry but that vato is just straight-up flat-out GAY. I believe in bisexual women. In fact, women have told me that they've been with other women, and it didn't change my opinion about them or cause me to question their sexuality at all. But the same applying to a man?????--Nah!

What? Why the difference between man and woman? Both can be attracted to the same sex - it's called bisexuality, which is also different in nature to just "experimenting"

As I already posted, that was ten years ago, he is now happily married to a great woman, and preaches to gay people.

Then he was either bisexual, and equally happy with both genders, or he has convinced himself that he was wrong before, and now is right, which seems wrong to me, but I guess if he is happy. And who knows, he might even still be gay. Plenty, and I mean plenty, of people through history have pretended to have perfectly straight, knowing how intolerant the world can be, living a closeted gay life. Much like a certain other anti-gay preacher that was mentioned in a thread here not to long ago.

Someone's been doing a bit of "googling" on the net today...😉

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it:

is present in or faithfully represents nature or life.

def: Homosexuality

Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

I see no mention of homosexuality representing "life" or "nature" in the definition above. The only thing I do see homosexuality being representative of is "sexual activity." Once again, someone is attempting to use their "own" definitions..in order to thrust their point across...😉

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

..is a phenomenon expressive of natural conditions.

..conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.

Illustrating that homosexuality is natural is the fact that it extensively occurs in nature; homosexuality has been documented in over 190 species and can be observed in nearly all sexually reproducing organisms, the only exception being bacteria.

This is all a matter of interpretation, as it has been pointed out to you many times, animal sexual behavior can not be equated to human sexual behavior. Listed below are but a few reasons as to why:

Things that animals "Do" and "Do not" do

They do not rationalize.

They do not have mercy on those weaker than themselves.

They do not cover themselves in clothing, to hide their nakedness.

They do not cook their food to make sure that all the contaminents have been taken out of it.

They allow their wounded kin to be devoured by predators,
when it best suites their purpose of survival.

They don't bury their kin...or perform relgious rights.

They sniff the behinds of other animals.

They sometimes eat defication.

They sometimes eat their young.

They rub their behinds against trees.

They play with their defication.

Their sole purpose in life is one of survival, not recreation.

Thus "sexual behavior" in animals, or any behavior represented by animals for that matter..can not be equated to human behavior due to the innumerable amount of differences in the general behaviors of both.

Now it's time for me to supply my googled rebuttals..😉

I made sure to include all of the sources where I received them from, seeing as how representing something that I myself didn't write..would be plagerism...😉

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Studies of human sexuality indicate that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable, and current research suggests that sexual orientation is in place before birth and is caused by genetic and biological factors:

In 1991, Simon LeVey, neuroanatomist for the Salk Institute, found that the INAH3 structure of the hypothalamus in homosexual men is twice as small as those of heterosexual men, more closely resembling those of heterosexual women.

Rebuttal:

taken from http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Researcher Simon LeVay

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

...in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Seven years later, findings published in the March edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at the University of Texas - Austin report that the cochlea structure in homosexual women more closely resembles that of heterosexual men.

In both studies, the difference in the structures of homosexuals is attributed to hormone exposure in the womb, evidence that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.

Rebuttal:

taken from http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A fingerprint study by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found that a significant percentage of homosexuals have excess ridges on their left hand digits compared to their right hand digits, a characteristic that was not shared by heterosexuals.

This study shows a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth as fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.

Rebuttal:

taken from http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A study by Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University found that if one sibling is homosexual the likelihood of an identical twin also being homosexual is 52%, the likelihood of a fraternal twin being homosexual is 22%, and the likelihood of a genetic or non-genetic sibling being homosexual is 10%.

They also found that in most instances in which identical twins are separated at birth and one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual.

This study shows that sexuality has a genetic component and is not determined by life experiences.

Rebuttal:

taken from http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute examined the DNA of 40 homosexuals and found that ALL shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.

Rebuttal:

taken from http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua - Italy found that there is no single "gay gene" but rather several genes responsible for sexual orientation. He identified that genetic components are indeed linked to the X chromosome and that there are other components likely to be on other chromosomes as well.

Findings published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics by Brian Mutanksi of the University of Illinois at Chicago in conjunction with Pennsylvania State University, the University of California - Los Angeles, the University of California - San Diego, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation report, after combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, identifying them in stretches of DNA on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.

Furthermore, according to extensive research by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association there is currently no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is learned or can be changed. [/B]

Rebuttal:

taken from http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.

What do the Professionals Think?

taken from http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

That wasn't so hard..

Perhaps we can now start presenting our own arguments relating to said topic now...😉

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well unfortunately for those folks, I have already posted that I have personally met a man who was gay for over 15 years, and was wiped clean of sexual desires/tendencies towards the opposite sex in a single event... the intense prayer sesssion that he and several men entered into, where, by his own words, the power of Christ set him free.

As I already posted, that was ten years ago, he is now happily married to a great woman, and preaches to gay people.

A second case in point, ... my old manager at the gas station I used to work at.

She was married for several years to a man, and had 2 children with him. He was a police officer, very domineering and controlling, who used to beat her and cheat on her.

She left him, and has been involved with her lesbian partner for 4 years.

Sounds to me like she just got tired of jerks, and decided to try things the other way.

On a side note, she is still atracted physically to men. I have heard her make sexual comments about plenty of men that went into the gas station, with the other cashier girls. 😛

She'll say "damn, he's fine,... look at those shoulders, ass, pecs etc....'
since she [B]is genetically predisposed to being attracted to men.

She simply prefers the gay lifestyle, and by her own admission chooses to stay that way. [/B]

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So those out there who freely admit to having chosen homosexuality are.... what?

Liars?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It can and people have done so.

So by this logic, it's not genetic. 😄

There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

The people in your examples are simply heterosexuals or bisexuals that have chosen to pursue relationships with members of the same sex for a period of time.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I see no mention of homosexuality representing "life" or "nature" in the definition above. The only thing I do see homosexuality being representative of is "sexual activity." Once again, someone is attempting to use their "own" definitions..in order to thrust their point across...😉

Homosexuality is present in nature, and is representative of behavior in nature.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is all a matter of interpretation, as it has been pointed out to you many times, animal sexual behavior can not be equated to human sexual behavior. Listed below are but a few reasons as to why:

They do not rationalize.

They do not have mercy on those weaker than themselves.

They do not cover themselves in clothing, to hide their nakedness.

They do not cook their food to make sure that all the contaminents have been taken out of it.

They allow their wounded kin to be devoured by predators,
when it best suites their purpose of survival.

They don't bury their kin...or perform relgious rights.

They sniff the behinds of other animals.

They sometimes eat defication.

They sometimes eat their young.

They rub their behinds against trees.

They play with their defication.

Their sole purpose in life is one of survival, not recreation.

Thus "sexual behavior" in animals, or any behavior represented by animals for that matter..can not be equated to human behavior due to the innumerable amount of differences in the general behaviors of both.

This does not change the fact that homosexuality is a phenomena expressive of natural conditions, or that it conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now it's time for me to supply my googled rebuttals..😉

I made sure to include all of the sources where I received them from, seeing as how representing something that I myself didn't write..would be plagerism...😉

Rebuttal:

Rebuttal:

Rebuttal:

Rebuttal:

Rebuttal:

Rebuttal:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What do the Professionals Think?

That wasn't so hard..

Perhaps we can now start presenting our own arguments relating to said topic now...😉

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality is a "non-profit, educational orginization dedicated to the research, therapy, and prevention of homosexuality." NARTH is the only orginization that advocates the use of reparative therapy which is condemned by every other mental health professional organization because of evidence that it is both ineffective and dangerous.

Try to find a single reputable scientific or mental health organization on which to base your rebuttals.

Homosexuality is natural in the sense that it:

[list][*]is present in or faithfully represents nature or life.

[*]is a phenomenon expressive of natural conditions.

[*]conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.[/list]
Illustrating that homosexuality is natural is the fact that it extensively occurs in nature; homosexuality has been documented in over 190 species and can be observed in nearly all sexually reproducing organisms, the only exception being bacteria.

Studies of human sexuality indicate that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable, and current research suggests that sexual orientation is in place before birth and is caused by genetic and biological factors:

In 1991, Simon LeVey, neuroanatomist for the Salk Institute, found that the INAH3 structure of the hypothalamus in homosexual men is twice as small as those of heterosexual men, more closely resembling those of heterosexual women.

Seven years later, findings published in the March edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at the University of Texas - Austin report that the cochlea structure in homosexual women more closely resembles that of heterosexual men.

In both studies, the difference in the structures of homosexuals is attributed to hormone exposure in the womb, evidence that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.

A fingerprint study by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found that a significant percentage of homosexuals have excess ridges on their left hand digits compared to their right hand digits, a characteristic that was not shared by heterosexuals.

This study shows a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth as fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.

A study by Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University found that if one sibling is homosexual the likelihood of an identical twin also being homosexual is 52%, the likelihood of a fraternal twin being homosexual is 22%, and the likelihood of a genetic or non-genetic sibling being homosexual is 10%.

They also found that in most instances in which identical twins are separated at birth and one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual.

This study shows that sexuality has a genetic component and is not determined by life experiences.

Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute examined the DNA of 40 homosexuals and found that ALL shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.

Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua - Italy found that there is no single "gay gene" but rather several genes responsible for sexual orientation. He identified that genetic components are indeed linked to the X chromosome and that there are other components likely to be on other chromosomes as well.

Findings published in the March issue of the biomedical journal Human Genetics by Brian Mutanksi of the University of Illinois at Chicago in conjunction with Pennsylvania State University, the University of California - Los Angeles, the University of California - San Diego, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation report, after combing the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, identifying them in stretches of DNA on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.

Furthermore, according to extensive research by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association there is currently no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is learned or can be changed.

All the same info keeps being posted over and over...🙂

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Homosexuality is present in nature, and is representative of behavior in nature.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is all a matter of interpretation, as it has been pointed out to you many times, animal sexual behavior can not be equated to human sexual behavior.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This does not change the fact that homosexuality is a phenomena expressive of natural conditions, or that it conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.

You're babbling. There is no conclusive scientific data that shows homosexuality as being a the product of one's genetics.

Nor is homosexual activity, biologically defined as being natural.

You've failed in proving your argument Adam. Although I must commend you for tenaciously and doggedly presenting your position, despite having stated position being proven erroneous multiple times throughout this thread.

Originally posted by Makedde
All the same info keeps being posted over and over...🙂

That's because Mr. Poe is trying to convince himself that he has the upper hand in this debate..😉

Originally posted by whobdamandog
There is no conclusive scientific data that shows homosexuality as being a the product of one's genetics.

Nor is there any proof that homosexuality is a choice. People like yourself can only come up with this explaination because you are at a loss to explain it.

Originally posted by Makedde
Nor is there any proof that homosexuality is a choice. People like yourself can only come up with this explaination because you are at a loss to explain it.

Well it's always been my understanding that when one doesn't choose to have sex, and when an individual then forces themselves sexually upon them, that constitues as rape. That's just my limited understanding of "choice" being involved with having intercourse though..🙄

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You're babbling. There is no conclusive scientific data that shows homosexuality as being a the product of one's genetics.

Nor is homosexual activity, biologically defined as being natural.

You've failed in proving your argument Adam. Although I must commend you for tenaciously and doggedly presenting your position, despite having stated position being proven erroneous multiple times throughout this thread.

The fact that homosexuals are biologically different from heterosexuals, i.e. the brain structure, inner-ear, and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals, and that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals, i.e. homosexuals share a genetic marker and stretches of DNA that are not shared by heterosexuals is not conclusive scientific evidence?

Homosexuality is definitionally natural, i.e. homosexuality is present in nature, representative of behavior that occurs in nature, a phenomena expressive of natural conditions, and conforms to the usual and ordinary course of the material world and its phenomena.

By asserting that homosexuality is unnatural, you are arguing that it is not present in nature, or representative of behavior that occurs in nature, and so on, when it clearly does.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well it's always been my understanding that when one doesn't choose to have sex, and when an individual then forces themselves sexually upon them, that constitues as rape. That's just my limited understanding of "choice" being involved with having intercourse though..🙄

People chose who they have sex with, about that you are correct. But, while people chose who they have sex with, they don't chose who they are attracted to. Get it now?

Originally posted by Makedde
People chose who they have sex with, about that you are correct. But, while people chose who they have sex with, they don't chose who they are attracted to. Get it now?

This has been explained to him more times than can be fathomed.

I missed this little piece..here goes..

Originally posted by Makedde
Let me put it to you this way, because you are obviously not that smart.

Or perhaps you're too dumb to realize how smart he is..😉

Originally posted by Makedde
You are straight. Why are you straight?

Because I choose to be.

Originally posted by Makedde
Do you chose to be straight?

Yep.

Originally posted by Makedde
Or are you straight because you are attracted to people of the opposite sex?

Yep. Because I choose to be.

Originally posted by Makedde
Would you ever have sex with someone of the same sex?

Nope.

Originally posted by Makedde
If no, why? Is it because you are not attracted to members of your sex?

Because I choose not to.

Originally posted by Makedde
If yes, why?

Refer to above answers..😉

Originally posted by Makedde
As I have said before, and will say again, homosexuality has NOTHING to do with choice.

And as I have said before, I will say again..homosexuality has EVERYTHING to do with choice.

Originally posted by Makedde
It's about who a person is attracted to.

It's about the choices a person makes...

Originally posted by Makedde
Nothing more, nothing less. Get that through your head. 🙄

Finally found a statement I can agree with you on..😆😆

Originally posted by Makedde
People chose who they have sex with, about that you are correct.

Good we're making progress..there's hope for you yet..😉

But, while people chose who they have sex with, they don't chose who they are attracted to. Get it now?

Incorrect. Women who like tall men..aren't born liking tall men. Men who like women with big behinds(I'm one of those)..aren't born liking women with big behinds..

Physical/Sexual attraction is predominantly based on environmental factors one has grown up with during various stages of development..but even if one was genetically predisposed to be inclined to certain sexual behavior..that wouldn't negate them from being able to choose to engage in such behavior....Get it now?..😉