Homosexuality

[wolfdaisey]

Someone said, "Assuming you believe the idea of natural selection, wouldn't they not exist anymore, if it were genetic?" Not so.... Humans are still here and are still complex and it is the complexity that has survived natural selection.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Halin

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Homosexuality is in no way genetic. Its a choice. Its a preference. How many little boys do you see kissing other boys. It is a choice made during or after puberty.

oh please, how many people want to be gay? It's not exactly fun.

True, today's social climate does not encourage it. But there are obviously plenty of people out there who enjoy a homosexual lifestyle. If you don't realize that you are either ignorant or horrifically deluded.

It is likely that homosexuality is neither genetic nor entirely social but a combination of the two...

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Homosexuality is in no way genetic. Its a choice. Its a preference. How many little boys do you see kissing other boys. It is a choice made during or after puberty.

Source?

Originally posted by: FlyLice
yes who cares. keep it to yourselves. don't invade hollywood and shove "gay rights" down everyone else's throats.

Sure, as soon as you quit shoving your "family values" down everyone else's

My source is common logic. try reading the other 2 sentences in my post.

I think your common sense is quite f'ed up. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic will be left for science to determine in the next 10 years or so with increasing research into the human genome. There is plenty of evidence and scientific articles indicating that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. The genes that make a man more likely to be homosexual survive on the X chromosome and also have the effect of making a woman more likely to reproduce (allowing these genes to be passed on despite the fact that homosexual men probably aren't going to be reproducing).

But even if genetics is not the only factor, environmental factors, especially those causing gender role confusion (from a single parent upbringing, lack of male/female role model, childhood abuse, or even experience in early teenage years with members of the same sex) can be a reason for homosexuality. I don't think that makes it a choice, and if it is, the choice is not without outside influence.

As a heterosexual, did you ever sit down and say to yourself, I'm going to have sex with women? Did you ever make that choice? I don't think anyome makes a choice as to their own sexuality, its just something that one discovers during puberty or maybe even after. Its not a sin, its not a bad choice, its just different.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Homosexuality is in no way genetic. Its a choice. Its a preference. How many little boys do you see kissing other boys. It is a choice made during or after puberty.

Source?

Originally posted by: FlyLice
yes who cares. keep it to yourselves. don't invade hollywood and shove "gay rights" down everyone else's throats.

Sure, as soon as you quit shoving your "family values" down everyone else's

My source is common logic. try reading the other 2 sentences in my post.

I think your common sense is quite f'ed up. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic will be left for science to determine in the next 10 years or so with increasing research into the human genome. There is plenty of evidence and scientific articles indicating that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. The genes that make a man more likely to be homosexual survive on the X chromosome and also have the effect of making a woman more likely to reproduce (allowing these genes to be passed on despite the fact that homosexual men probably aren't going to be reproducing).

But even if genetics is not the only factor, environmental factors, especially those causing gender role confusion (from a single parent upbringing, lack of male/female role model, childhood abuse, or even experience in early teenage years with members of the same sex) can be a reason for homosexuality. I don't think that makes it a choice, and if it is, the choice is not without outside influence.

As a heterosexual, did you ever sit down and say to yourself, I'm going to have sex with women? Did you ever make that choice? I don't think anyome makes a choice as to their own sexuality, its just something that one discovers during puberty or maybe even after. Its not a sin, its not a bad choice, its just different.

I agree with your whole post except the part about homosexuality not being a sin.

I'm not religious, and I don't think homosexuality is wrong, but the idea of "sin" is religious. All of the major religions I know of list homosexual acts as being a sin.

Therefore, homosexuality is a "sin".

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Homosexuality is in no way genetic. Its a choice. Its a preference. How many little boys do you see kissing other boys. It is a choice made during or after puberty.

Source?

Originally posted by: FlyLice
yes who cares. keep it to yourselves. don't invade hollywood and shove "gay rights" down everyone else's throats.

Sure, as soon as you quit shoving your "family values" down everyone else's

My source is common logic. try reading the other 2 sentences in my post.

I think your common sense is quite f'ed up. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic will be left for science to determine in the next 10 years or so with increasing research into the human genome. There is plenty of evidence and scientific articles indicating that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. The genes that make a man more likely to be homosexual survive on the X chromosome and also have the effect of making a woman more likely to reproduce (allowing these genes to be passed on despite the fact that homosexual men probably aren't going to be reproducing).

But even if genetics is not the only factor, environmental factors, especially those causing gender role confusion (from a single parent upbringing, lack of male/female role model, childhood abuse, or even experience in early teenage years with members of the same sex) can be a reason for homosexuality. I don't think that makes it a choice, and if it is, the choice is not without outside influence.

As a heterosexual, did you ever sit down and say to yourself, I'm going to have sex with women? Did you ever make that choice? I don't think anyome makes a choice as to their own sexuality, its just something that one discovers during puberty or maybe even after. Its not a sin, its not a bad choice, its just different.

I agree with your whole post except the part about homosexuality not being a sin.

I'm not religious, and I don't think homosexuality is wrong, but the idea of "sin" is religious. All of the major religions I know of list homosexual acts as being a sin.

Therefore, homosexuality is a "sin".

^ he's right, if you read the bible it is definitely a sin.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
No. Nothing as complex as a human being could reproduce asexually. Homosexuality has existed for thousands (and probably millions) of years. Assuming you believe the idea of natural selection, wouldn't they not exist anymore, if it were genetic?

That would depend on the pattern of inheritance, and whether or not "homosexual" people have fewer children.

1. A recent study found that females with homosexual male relatives have more children than females without male homosexual relatives:

"Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men. "

If the gene for homosexuality in males is carried by these females, and they are out-reproducing females without the genetic coding for male homosexuality, then the trait of homosexuality is able to remain in the population (even if they're gay male offspring have fewer children than the offspring of females without the genetic coding for homosexuality.)

Another possibility is that the homosexual kids provide some additional child rearing support for their siblings (this assumes they are not having kids of their own).

2. I don't think the assumption that homosexually inclined individuals will have fewer or no children would have necessarily been true for most of our evolutionary history. In fact I can see reasons why homosexually inclined males might indeed reproduce in a manner that is competetive with more heterosexually inclined individuals. For example, many gay males tend to have a very close relationship with certain women (so-called "i love you hags"). Maybe these alliances between homosexually-inclined males and gay-friendly women were more likely to have a sexual component during much of our evolutionary history (before lables like gay and straight were invented).

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Still a sin. Still have a choice not to stick it in another man's poophole.

I wonder why you are stating your opinion as if it is some kind of universal truth..?

I don't believe there is anything sinful about homosexual sex, whether you're talking about blow-jobs, anal sex, kissing, or whatever.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Homosexuality is in no way genetic. Its a choice. Its a preference. How many little boys do you see kissing other boys. It is a choice made during or after puberty.

Actually, if you spend any time with young kids, you will see plenty of little boys holding hands with or even kissing other little boys (their friends). Then, at a certain age, they get the message that they can't do that anymore or they will be called "i love you" or "Homo".

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Still a sin. Still have a choice not to stick it in another man's poophole.

Provide a non-religious argument as to why sodomy is immoral.

 

[yukichigai]

It's nature's way of keeping the race diverse: random mutations of certain key genes. In this case, those genes which control sexual orientation. We've long evolved away from the days when it was necessary to have "positive reinforcement" motivating us to procreate. (Though it still helps) Sexuality does not have to be just about survival of the species anymore, and now evolution is taking a crack at sexual orientation. I think, logically, that Bisexuality will be the one "alternative" sexual orientation which becomes overwhelmingly common in future generations. It doesn't exclude participation in the procreation process, and if it is at all genetic then the offspring will continue to pass it on.

I don't think we're heading for one sex. I think we're heading for one primary sexual orientation: Bisexual. (The other fetishes, y'know, chicks with blond hair, black hair, no hair, horsehair floggers, they'll still be around)

Get ready for it folks! An entirely new gender to turn down your lame pick-up lines!

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Homosexuality is in no way genetic. Its a choice. Its a preference. How many little boys do you see kissing other boys. It is a choice made during or after puberty.

Source?

Originally posted by: FlyLice
yes who cares. keep it to yourselves. don't invade hollywood and shove "gay rights" down everyone else's throats.

Sure, as soon as you quit shoving your "family values" down everyone else's

My source is common logic. try reading the other 2 sentences in my post.

I think your common sense is quite f'ed up. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic will be left for science to determine in the next 10 years or so with increasing research into the human genome. There is plenty of evidence and scientific articles indicating that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. The genes that make a man more likely to be homosexual survive on the X chromosome and also have the effect of making a woman more likely to reproduce (allowing these genes to be passed on despite the fact that homosexual men probably aren't going to be reproducing).

But even if genetics is not the only factor, environmental factors, especially those causing gender role confusion (from a single parent upbringing, lack of male/female role model, childhood abuse, or even experience in early teenage years with members of the same sex) can be a reason for homosexuality. I don't think that makes it a choice, and if it is, the choice is not without outside influence.

As a heterosexual, did you ever sit down and say to yourself, I'm going to have sex with women? Did you ever make that choice? I don't think anyome makes a choice as to their own sexuality, its just something that one discovers during puberty or maybe even after. Its not a sin, its not a bad choice, its just different.

I agree with your whole post except the part about homosexuality not being a sin.

I'm not religious, and I don't think homosexuality is wrong, but the idea of "sin" is religious. All of the major religions I know of list homosexual acts as being a sin.

Therefore, homosexuality is a "sin".

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: rleemhui
^ he's right, if you read the bible it is definitely a sin.

That's in the Old Testament, and I believe it's shortly before the section where God tells His followers the complex schedule of when to sacrafice animals to Him, how many, when, how they must be prepared and what oils and spices to prepare them with. Seeing as I know none of the major brands of Christianity practice animal sacrifice, I think we can safely assume that particular book was trumped by God's "Jesus is My Son" bit. Y'know, the one where whatever Jesus said overwrote anything else said before on the same topic? I'm pretty sure the laying down with another man bit was in that.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Still a sin. Still have a choice not to stick it in another man's poophole.

Provide a non-religious argument as to why sodomy is immoral.

you can't because morality has religious undertones to it. what you mean to say is whether sodomy is unethical. taken by itself, it is not.

 

[Amused]

I posit that true homosexuality (attraction to/preference for sex with the same sex) is NOT genetic, nor environmental, but a random "birth defect."

Why?

True homosexuality occurs at roughly the same rate, no matter the culture or area of the world. That rate has remained roughly constant throughout history.

Homosexuality does NOT run in families. This fact alone rules out genetics. But the fact that homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals would put a dent in the genetic theory as well.

True homosexuality is not environmental. Men may jump on men in prison, but put them in a room with a man and a women and the heterosexuals will jump on the woman no matter how long they've been playing with men in the absence of women. Situational homosexual sex is not true homosexuality as it is not the preference but the situation. The preference for women remains.

It takes just one simple hormone imbalance in utero to screw up sexual identity.

Anyhow, that's my position on the subject. It is the only objective answer I could come up with.

Subjectively I have this to say: I could no more "choose" who or what I am attracted to than I could change sexes at will. Attraction and sexual preference are so obviously not a choice, that I find it absurd so many people argue that it is in the case of homosexuality.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Anchor
You are out of your mind

The fundamental misunderstanding of evolution is what clinches it.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: rleemhui
^ he's right, if you read the bible it is definitely a sin.

That's in the Old Testament, and I believe it's shortly before the section where God tells His followers the complex schedule of when to sacrafice animals to Him, how many, when, how they must be prepared and what oils and spices to prepare them with. Seeing as I know none of the major brands of Christianity practice animal sacrifice, I think we can safely assume that particular book was trumped by God's "Jesus is My Son" bit. Y'know, the one where whatever Jesus said overwrote anything else said before on the same topic? I'm pretty sure the laying down with another man bit was in that.

You sir, are gravely mistaken. First, you comparison to sacrifice, is an attempt to throw a complete generalization on all of christianity.

You cannot compare sacrifice to homosexuality. In the christian religion(as I am sure you are aware of) God dies for our sins. In place of any sacrifice from then on. He didn't "OVERWRITE" the old testament rules. Sacrifice changed because there is no greater sacrifice than the one he gave.

And as to homosexuality not being in the new testamentulls out bible)

1st corinthians 6:9-10

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

there are more examples if you would like them, but I don't really want to talk about religion online.

 

[glorifiedg790]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Being homosexual really isn't a choice. I certainly can't control it when I find myself attracted to someone, male or female. Acting on it regardless of the consequences is a choice.

yeah thoughts ocur to people. I think everyone is a little gay actually. Just some choose to exclusively see the same sex, while only a few gay thoughts occur to straight persons.

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Still a sin. Still have a choice not to stick it in another man's poophole.

Provide a non-religious argument as to why sodomy is immoral.

you can't because morality has religious undertones to it. what you mean to say is whether sodomy is unethical. taken by itself, it is not.

Morality is philosophical, religion has no special claim to morality. I meant sin in a more broad sense, though I guess homosexuality would be a sin under the Christian definition.

In any case, I think there is nothing morally wrong with homosexaulity.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Siva

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: FlyLice
Still a sin. Still have a choice not to stick it in another man's poophole.

Provide a non-religious argument as to why sodomy is immoral.

you can't because morality has religious undertones to it. what you mean to say is whether sodomy is unethical. taken by itself, it is not.

Morality is philosophical, religion has no special claim to morality. I meant sin in a more broad sense, though I guess homosexuality would be a sin under the Christian definition.

In any case, I think there is nothing morally wrong with homosexaulity.

i agree

 

[Siva]

Originally posted by: rleemhui

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: rleemhui
^ he's right, if you read the bible it is definitely a sin.

That's in the Old Testament, and I believe it's shortly before the section where God tells His followers the complex schedule of when to sacrafice animals to Him, how many, when, how they must be prepared and what oils and spices to prepare them with. Seeing as I know none of the major brands of Christianity practice animal sacrifice, I think we can safely assume that particular book was trumped by God's "Jesus is My Son" bit. Y'know, the one where whatever Jesus said overwrote anything else said before on the same topic? I'm pretty sure the laying down with another man bit was in that.

You sir, are gravely mistaken. First, you comparison to sacrifice, is an attempt to throw a complete generalization on all of christianity.

You cannot compare sacrifice to homosexuality. In the christian religion(as I am sure you are aware of) God dies for our sins. In place of any sacrifice from then on. He didn't "OVERWRITE" the old testament rules. Sacrifice changed because there is no greater sacrifice than the one he gave.

And as to homosexuality not being in the new testamentulls out bible)

1st corinthians 6:9-10

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

there are more examples if you would like them, but I don't really want to talk about religion online.

Yes, but yukichigai was right, the first specific mention of homosexuality being immoral is found in the very boring book of Deuteronomy which deals with a large amount of rules that have become outdated and forgotten by most modern praciticing Christians and Jews. The very first mention of homosexuality I believe comes in Genesis in the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom. The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with an angel, and for that (and generally pervasive sin in the city) God destroyed Sodom. But then Lot ran off to the hills and had sex/impregnated both his daugthers. So I dunno, take the Bible with a grain of salt, esp. the old testament. The morality that the Bible offers is often contradictory or just plain f'ed up.

Love your neighbor as long as he's straight.