Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Started by DarthLazious324 pages

Both

Originally posted by Linkalicious
I would say that your choice to exercise your homosexuality is CHOSEN. Just like you can choose to be single or with someone (if they're willing)

But your sexual preference is something that is established through the environment you grow up in. It's a mix of values and culture...well...sort of.

Environment does influence your sexual preference, sure. But homosexuality is not inherited like your eye colour.

A hard on proves nothing. Nor will this thread - other than people who should know better seem to have a lot of certainties about things we obviously cant be certain about.

It could be either, it probably can be either - I could choose to **** a guy tonight* to prove a point, wouldnt make me more or less gay than I already am.

I think the question of choice vs genetics is moot - all sexuality is an aesthetic decision on some level. You might as well ask if some guy who doesn't get turned on by black women or small breasted women or redheads is acting out of choice or genetics? To limit the discussion to homosexual sexuality shows predisposed bias.

*before you all start emailing me asking if you can watch I'm actually going to bed early to it will have to be tomorrow.

Originally posted by Mr Zero

It could be either, it probably [B]can
be either - I could choose to **** a guy tonight* to prove a point, wouldnt make me more or less gay than I already am.

[/I][/SIZE] [/B]

How can it be either way? I have already said a couple times now that I think the idea of having genetic qualities that make you more prone to being gay is unlikely, as well as illogical. If anyone has a link saying anything to the contrary about the possibility of a "gay" gene I encourage you to post it. Otherwise I think it is unrealistic to even consider a scientific approach to what you said Mr Zero, a matter of aesthetics. And like you say, just because you **** a guy tonight to prove a point doesnt make you any more or less gay than you already are (although that would be pretty gay)... it shows that niether option is acceptable. Which like I said earlier means that your preferences and attractions (or what you may find aesthetically pleasing or attractive) is affected by your environment and your relationships with other people, especially your parents. This has been proven in heterosexual males. Studies have shown that heterosexual males are more likely to find themselves physically attracted to women who have similarities with their mother, ie: brown hair, brown skin, blue eyes...

I think Mr. Zero that you are agreeing with me more than you are disagreeing with me. And so far no one who has posted any argument longer than 1 or 2 words has really claimed any certainty in this. I am still open to possiblity that I am wrong here, and what I said earlier was that these are only factors which affect you sexual identity and preference, not something that will cause you to turn queer.

I think its medical, maybe genitic maybe not. but i don't think a person would wake up and say " I feel like being hated right now. . so i'm going gay!!!! yipiee!"

Chosen or genetic? Does it really matter?? Who people are attracted to is their choice and (barring paedophiles) none of our business.

A discussion like this makes it sound as if there’s something WRONG with being homosexual, and that there has to be some CAUSE for this.

It's just plain...abonormal...I mean DUH why did God not make it such that u can have kids when a guy has sex with a guy?!
It just isn't natural.

Punkyhermy> What do you mean “why did God not make it such”? What God are you talking about? What proof do you have we were created by some supernatural being.

Is a microwave oven natural? So your eating-habits are unnatural. YACK!

Yeh, and living in houses with running water and elictricity ain't natural either. In fact, homosexuality is a lot more natural than either of those things, because animals other than humans exhibit homosexuality.

edit: The Omega is a faster typist than me, apparently.

I HATE this provincial 'proof' bullshit!!!Human ignorance amazes me.Just when we THINK we know it all....How ridiculous of us to conclude that ONLY what we can tell from OUR senses is true?!
Utter Crap!Bullshit!

People had 'proof' world was square...

Which people? And you still haven't addressed my points (The Omega made them, too, but they're my points, damnit!)

That proof was obviously unfounded. Asking for evidence of something is not "bullshit" nor is it unreasonable. Just because you can't give valid evidence to someone to show that there is a God doesn't mean you should fly off the handle. It's very reasonable to base your beliefs off of evidence.

Are you for real?

believing in something that no one can prove exsists is about as close to the definition of Human Ignorance.

Uh-uh WRONG there buddy, believing in something US MERE HUMAN'S can't 'prove' is perfectly REASONABLE.

It was us who almost 'proved' that Titanic was unsinkable...

Keyword there is "Almost"

it's completely unreasonable and illogical.

and what does that analogy of the Titanic have to do with anything. SOME people claimed it to be unsinkable, but they were PROVED wrong by a gigantic ice burg.

In that analogy you're the person who believed the Titanic was infact unsinkable....and people who require proof are the ones who are ultimately correct.

Well yeah considering the fact that THEY WERE WRONG. And it was supposedly PROVED that it was unsinkable.

It was never actually proved to be unsinkable, it was believed to be unsinkable. That's right, blind belief that was based not on evidence, but on word of mouth. Sound familiar?

please explain to me how they PROVED it was unsinkable?

Did they crash it into anything before it's maiden voyage? No.
Did they attack it with any form of military weaponry? No

No one tried to prove it was unsinkable, they CLAIMED it was unsinkable.

Cant we all say its Chosogeneric and we all agree then?