Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Let me guess your next response, you are going to make something else up to take away from the fact that your arguments have been thoroughly defeated. I have an idea..perhaps you can use your vast knowledge of copyright law, to counter the validity of the reference which has been given above. Or perhaps you can now tell me that the definition given above was not given from an authoritative source

Adam's Response:

Originally posted by Adam Poe
The copyright date in question is in reference to the most recent date of the copyright term, not the most recent edition of the work.

In other words, the Merriam-Webster reference works that are available online are not the most recent editions of Merriam-Webster reference works.

Moreover, what of the several definitions that have been posted that define "sexual orientation" differently than the single definition that you have posted?

I must be a psychic..😉 😆

Anyway, if the possibility of defining it in such terms did NOT exist, or if it was not used as an up to date definition, then you would have some validity to your argument. However, since it does exist and is considered "up to date"..your argument is pretty much worthless bud. Good try though...not.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Indeed, I am curious how one could define sexual orientation by sexual behavior when homosexuals do not engage in any sexual behaviors that heterosexuals do not engage in also.

If heterosexuality is defined by vaginal intercourse, then lesbians are heterosexual. Likewise, if homosexuality is defined by anal intercourse, then many heterosexuals are homosexual. Preposterous.

Simple Terms:

Homosexual vaginal sex = 0% possibility of procreation.
(ie sex with dildo's, coke bottles, spare tires, etc)

Heterosexual (natural) vaginal sex = 1% to 100% possibility of procreation.
(ie penis + vagina)

Note: Homosexual males can not engage in "vaginal sex" while performing intercourse with one another, thus making intercourse between two males primarily "anal."

Homosexual females can not engage in natural "vaginal sex" while performing intercourse with one another.

Please don't tell me that you have a degree in biology..😆

Just in case anyone missed this..😉

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

Sexual orientation CAN NOT be defined by sexual action. This has not been stated by anyone...save yourself.

Originally posted by Adam Poe

Indeed, I am curious how one could define sexual orientation by sexual behavior..

Homosexual females can not engage in natural "vaginal sex"

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

Sexual orientation CAN NOT be defined by sexual action. This has not been stated by anyone...save yourself.

Originally posted by Adam Poe

Indeed, I am curious how one could define sexual orientation by sexual behavior..

Final nail..to add to the coffin of this argument...

Homosexuality is a choice, and anyone who engages in homosexual behaviors/activities chooses to do so.

fin

So anybody that engages in homosexual sex is automatically gay?

If I would be raped by a man I would have homosexual sex, would that make me gay?

If I would have sex with another man, and then would have sex with a woman would that make me gay and then back to straight? Or would my preference decide what I am?

Because what you are saying is that I can be attracted to man, but as long as I don't sleep with them I'm not gay...

The three terms you are attempting to use in your favor are used incorrectly. Notice in your definition of "sexual orientation", it never mentions any action...only the desire or "inclination". Then you use "homosexuality" if you used the term homosexual, then it would also not talk about actions. Then you use "behavior" on it's own, like anyone has been debating the the definition of behavior.

Oh, and PS, stop fu*king up the page widths.

PSS It's too bad all this time you spend reading dictionaries hasn't taught you anything.

i like the way whob would rather argue with dictionary quotes then trying to counter the DNA evidence given by adam...

Originally posted by Fishy
Because what you are saying is that I can be attracted to man, but as long as I don't sleep with them I'm not gay...

Oh and I think that's where we found the real reason for his arguements....

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
...if you used the term homosexual, then it would also not talk about actions.

🙄 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I must be a psychic..😉 😆

Anyway, if the possibility of defining it in such terms did NOT exist, or if it was not used as an up to date definition, then you would have some validity to your argument. However, since it does exist and is considered "up to date"..your argument is pretty much worthless bud. Good try though...not.

You still have not explained why the definitions you have posted are correct, and why the definitions I have posted using the same sources are incorrect. We are all waiting.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Simple Terms:

Homosexual vaginal sex = 0% possibility of procreation.
(ie sex with dildo's, coke bottles, spare tires, etc)

Heterosexual (natural) vaginal sex = 1% to 100% possibility of procreation.
(ie penis + vagina)

Note: Homosexual males can not engage in "vaginal sex" while performing intercourse with one another, thus making intercourse between two males primarily "anal."

Homosexual females can not engage in natural "vaginal sex" while performing intercourse with one another.

Please don't tell me that you have a degree in biology..😆

If sexual orientation is defined by behavior, then there would be no such thing as "heterosexual vaginal sex" or "homosexual vaginal sex" as all acts of vaginal sex would define one as heterosexual.

Is it now your argument that sexual orientation is not defined by behavior but by the sex of the two individuals participating in a behavior?

Nice attempt at trying to switch the meaning of a term in the middle of an argument.

Moreover, I am interested to know your repsonse to following posts:

Originally posted by Fishy
So anybody that engages in homosexual sex is automatically gay?

If I would be raped by a man I would have homosexual sex, would that make me gay?

If I would have sex with another man, and then would have sex with a woman would that make me gay and then back to straight? Or would my preference decide what I am?

Because what you are saying is that I can be attracted to man, but as long as I don't sleep with them I'm not gay...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
i like the way whob would rather argue with dictionary quotes then trying to counter the DNA evidence given by adam...

Originally posted by Fishy
If I would be raped by a man I would have homosexual sex, would that make me gay?

Only if you enjoyed it..😉 😆

Seriously though..thank you for supporting my argument. Homosexuality or being a homosexual can clearly be defined by the "actions" one chooses to engage in.

Originally posted by Fishy
If I would have sex with another man, and then would have sex with a woman would that make me gay and then back to straight? Or would my preference decide what I am?

Well I think this would mean that you were fairly comfortable with sticking your penis anywhere, assuming you could achieve ejaculation and not receive injury from doing so. Society generally defines people like this as being "sexually perverted", however, I think we could just call you a "bisexual" until we figured out the extent of this sexual perversion. 😉

Originally posted by Fishy
Because what you are saying is that I can be attracted to man, but as long as I don't sleep with them I'm not gay...

The argument above already validates your argument of an individual not possessing the ability to "choose" to have these sexual "attractions."

This style of debate commits the logic fallacy of "Circulus in demonstrando"..or circular argumentation.(Man..I'm starting to sound like Adam Poe)

taken from http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Circular argumentation demonstrates itself when someone essentially uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.

For example I could easily create a circular argument by using the same type of wording, and posing the same type of question....

Example of Circular Argumentation: Are you saying that even when one can choose to be attracted to something sexually, and even if they choose to engage in that something frequently, that still means that attraction can't be chosen?

😕

Silly twisted logic. Clever...but not clever enough. Good try though.

*note: Notice how I've already validated my argument, by subtlety defining sexuality as "choice" in the question posed. This is the same way Fishy presented his argument..he already defined sexuality as an uncontrollable "attraction" before inquiring of me whether or not it was an uncontrollable attraction.

He didn't say it was "uncontrollable attraction", just "attraction" in the segment you quoted.

Regaurdless, his point stands. According to your own definition a person wouldn't be considered gay until he actually commits a sexual act. Him being attracted to a man, for whatever reason, wouldn't make him gay. Would this mean that a person isn't considered straight until they had sex with a member of the opposite sex?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You still have not explained why the definitions you have posted are correct, and why the definitions I have posted using the same sources are incorrect. We are all waiting.

Another clever word game..I'm assuming you think I'm going to answer..

"You have to prove that they're not correct Adam!!"

And then you'll respond..

"The burden of proof is on you to prove the positive..it's impossible to prove a negative....lol...😉

Good try again..not...

How about you explain to me why your definitions are correct?

Or how about you tell me why sexual attraction defines homosexuality, if one can choose to engage in behavior that is not homosexual?

Or why don't you explain to me, why homosexual intercourse is natural, without stating that you've witnessed two crap eating, butt sniffing, tail wagging animals do it.

Oh forget it. These little word games will obviously go on forever..which is obviously your intention. To confuse people into thinking you have a point. When in actuality you don't, and when it's quite obvious that once again, your arguments have been severely defeated. The bottom line is that sexuality can clearly be defined by ones actions. You have control over your actions and desires Adam, only a fool would think otherwise.

Fin

Originally posted by BackFire
According to your own definition a person wouldn't be considered gay until he actually commits a sexual act. Him being attracted to a man, for whatever reason, wouldn't make him gay. Would this mean that a person isn't considered straight until they had sex with a member of the opposite sex?

Good question! 🙂

I think the point you are intentionally missing is that the definitions you provide don't state that the terms are limited ONLY to those words they use to describe the word. Also, "OR INVOLVING" does not mean "ONLY INVOLVING".

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Another clever word game..I'm assuming you think I'm going to answer..

"You have to prove that they're not correct Adam!!"

And then you'll respond..

"The burden of proof is on you to prove the positive..it's impossible to prove a negative....lol...😉

Good try again..not...

How about you explain to me why your definitions are correct?

Or how about you tell me why sexual attraction defines homosexuality, if one can choose to engage in behavior that is not homosexual?

Or why don't you explain to me, why homosexual intercourse is natural, without stating that you've witnessed two crap eating, butt sniffing, tail wagging animals do it.

Oh forget it. These little word games will obviously go on forever..which is obviously your intention. To confuse people into thinking you have a point. When in actuality you don't, and when it's quite obvious that once again, your arguments have been severely defeated. The bottom line is that sexuality can clearly be defined by ones actions. You have control over your actions and desires Adam, only a fool would think otherwise.

Fin

In other words, you cannot explain why the definitions you have posted are correct, and why the definitions I have posted using the same sources are incorrect.

In other words, you cannot refute that sexual orientation is defined by attraction to members of a particular sex, and not by participation in certain sexual behaviors.

In other words, you cannot refute that homosexuality is definitionally natural because it is a phenomena that occurs in nature.

If my arguments "have been sorely defeated," then why are you the one who is speechless and retreating from the argument?

If your arguments are so sound, why have you been unable to answer a single question posed to you challenging your argument?

Attention Members of KMC:

According to whobdamandog, anyone who has participated in anal or oral sexual acts regardless of the gender of the participants involved is a homosexual.

According to whobdamandog, anyone how has participated in vaginal intercourse regardless of the gender of the participants involved is a heterosexual.

Go forth with the new knowledge of your true sexual orientation!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, you cannot explain why the definitions you have posted are correct, and why the definitions I have posted using the same sources are incorrect.

In other words, you cannot refute that sexual orientation is defined by attraction to members of a particular sex, and not by participation in certain sexual behaviors.

In other words, you cannot refute that homosexuality is definitionally natural because it is a phenomena that occurs in nature.

If my arguments "have been sorely defeated," then why are you the one who is speechless and retreating from the argument?

If your arguments are so sound, why have you been unable to answer a single question posed to you challenging your argument?

[b]Attention Members of KMC:

According to whobdamandog, anyone who has participated in anal or oral sexual acts regardless of the gender of the participants involved is a homosexual.

According to whobdamandog, anyone how has participated in vaginal intercourse regardless of the gender of the participants involved is a heterosexual.

Go forth with the new knowledge of your true sexual orientation! [/B]

😆 😐

STFU

You know darn well that he isn't saying that.

It is you folks (on the genetic side of the debate) who dodge things.

I ask you:

"How can homosexuality be genetic, when idetical twins (not all, but some) have the exact same DNA, and are genetically identical, are born, how come some are straight, and some gay?"

You give me the explanation that some cells will change after the initial development, which is only in some cases anyway, and then, homosexuality is a mutation, and not natural.

In any event, the change in an identical twins behavior comes from enviornmental development.

(which is why in one of the examples that someone posted, a set of twins was almost exactly alike at age 10, but vastly different at age 50)

They enjoyed/preferred different things, according to the study. (don't remember who posted this).

This only goes to support that people are not born genetically "gay" but become that way through upbringing/environmental factors.

Pick what you want mother/father loved them too much, or not enough ...

Maybe they were a n00b at life and couldn't get laid....

whatever.

They weren't "born gay."

Adam, your "studies" showing different genetics and ear structures and so on in homosexuals was not done on a majority of people, nor are they widely excepted by a majority of accredited medical proffesionals.

If they were, it would be published all around the country, indeed throughout the world, and you and I wouldn't have this debate.

Or to quote Cedric the Entertainer:

"If you goin be gay, then be gay. But don't act like I could catch it. There's no gay gene. No gay cows out there somewhere going 'heffa" to another cow."

😛

Originally posted by sithsaber408
😆 😐

STFU

You know darn well that he isn't saying that.

Oh, really?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Homosexuality or being a homosexual can clearly be defined by the "actions" one chooses to engage in.

Who should be telling whom to "shut the **** up," now?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It is you folks (on the genetic side of the debate) who dodge things.

I ask you:

"How can homosexuality be genetic, when idetical twins (not all, but some) have the exact same DNA, and are genetically identical, are born, how come some are straight, and some gay?"

You give me the explanation that some cells will change after the initial development, which is only in some cases anyway, and then, homosexuality is a mutation, and not natural.

As I stated previously, this is because no truly gene identical persons exist.

The likelihood of one being homosexual and an identical twin also being homosexual as expected by chance is 4% as compared to the 52% of cases in which this occurs. How do you explain this?

There is no gene for the expression of red hair. The expression of red hair is the result of a mutation of blonde hair genes. Red hair is a mutation, but I doubt that you consider it unnatural.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
In any event, the change in an identical twins behavior comes from enviornmental development.

(which is why in one of the examples that someone posted, a set of twins was almost exactly alike at age 10, but vastly different at age 50)

They enjoyed/preferred different things, according to the study. (don't remember who posted this).

This only goes to support that people are not born genetically "gay" but become that way through upbringing/environmental factors.

Pick what you want mother/father loved them too much, or not enough ...

Maybe they were a n00b at life and couldn't get laid....

whatever.

They weren't "born gay."

If identical twins are socialized together, i.e. raised by the same parents, educated by the same teachers, etc. then they are subject to nearly identical environmental factors. If sexual orientation is influenced by environmental factors, and identical twins are subject to nearly identical environmental factors, then both twins should have the same sexual orientation. How do you explain instances in which identical twins have different sexual orientations?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Adam, your "studies" showing different genetics and ear structures and so on in homosexuals was not done on a majority of people, nor are they widely excepted by a majority of accredited medical proffesionals.

If they were, it would be published all around the country, indeed throughout the world, and you and I wouldn't have this debate.

No scientific study is performed on a "majority of people," but on a representative sample. All of the studies I have cited have been published in accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Or to quote Cedric the Entertainer:

"If you goin be gay, then be gay. But don't act like I could catch it. There's no gay gene. No gay cows out there somewhere going 'heffa" to another cow."

😛

I did not realize that Cedric the Entertainer is an authority on human sexuality. If you are attempting to invalidate over thirty years of comprehensive scientific research, you are going to have to come up with something better than a quote from a second-rate comedian.

I will continue to pose this question to you until you answer it: If homosexuality is not genetic, then how do you explain 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?

There is no gene for the expression of red hair. The expression of red hair is the result of a mutation of blonde hair genes. Red hair is a mutation, but I doubt that you consider it unnatural.

Woohoo, I'm a mutant! 😱

But yeah, silly argument. Lactose tolerance is a mutation - people are not meant to be able to ingest cow milk. So according to this whole "gene mutations are unnatural" argument....all you people who can eat and drink dairy without getting sick? You're mutants and unnatural.

And Adam is right, there are no two people who are 100% genetically the same. Not even identical twins - which is evident in the fact that they do NOT have the same fingerprints.

Also, like everything, there is not one specific gene that controls that.

And to squash the "why do straight parents have gay kids argument" - recessive and dormant genes. Ta-da.

What's the gene for laser vision? 😕