Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Coyote]

Again, nothing but fear-based off-topic ad hominem attacks from MT in an attempt to divert attention away from the truth he just can't handle.

I realize from reading your conversation with others that such is your standard M.O., but really, don't you think staying on topic shows more personal integrity?!

Now I've presented the truth in the matter, that homosexuality originates in unconscious reaction to family-of-origin relationships idiosyncratically during the first five years of post-natal life while the brain is still forming.

Now one does not rationally need to post a "proof" of an obvious reality, any more than one needs to post a proof of yours and my existence. That would be a topic-diverting truly foolish waste of time.

So if proof is supposedly what you cry for, post some real proof that proves my obvious reality statement false, because when presented with an obvious reality, as I have presented you, the onus of posting proof of the contrary is rationally upon you.

And, as for playing, if you don't stop playing the thread-derailing ad hominem game, I'm going to report you to the moderators.

Now please, stay on topic!

This is hilarious...you've presented the "truth"? What are you...like 14 or something? You and only you can possibly know the truth? This is not an Ad Hominum attack either...simply an amusing observation into your style of presenting debate.

Did you just finish a class on logical fallacies?

There is no requirement to stay on topic either.

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

For the sexual act to conform with morality, it must both be UNITIVE AND PRO-CREATIVE.

That is an insult to human love. You are stating that love between two people must serve some end other than itself. If so, it has no intrinsic value, which negates the entire basis of Christianity.

Eroticism, homo or hetero, HAVE NO MORAL WORTH IN THEMSELVES.

Whether or not it has moral worth depends on the respect and caring of the relationship in which it occurs. To state otherwise is to claim that the people involved have no moral worth in and of themselves but must be serving others (a child who might be conceived, for example) to have worth.

They only pretend to borrow the moral worth of human love and dignity, both of which can EXIST independently from human sexuality.

They can also be expressed and increased by human sexuality.

But in the meantime, you have given no rational argument for homo-eroticism other than it feels good.

It can and does express and bring about love between two human beings. If you eschew the idea that this has value, perhaps you had best explain what you believe does have value. Thank you, incidentally, for giving me yet another reason to be glad I left the Catholic Church. I am a Christian, but I must state that the fruits of Catholicism were not exactly good in my case. About 6 years ago, when I was a Catholic, I tried to hang myself because of the pain Catholic theology caused me. I was not injured, and since then leaving the Church has made it possible for me to find God. I seldom universalize about theology and I do not say that no one should be a Catholic, but I am certain that God, however one defines Him, does not want me to be one.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Kantian ethics is as SECULAR as it gets.

Secular isn't the issue, philosophy can and will be argued forever.

Axioms have NO proof other than they are INTUITIVELY TRUE.

Like: Two heads are more numerous than one.

What other moral purpose is there for human sexuality other than for unitive and pro-creative purposes, eh?
UNITIVE - as in the union of two human beings - hence human LOVE.

As I said: the expression of love.

For the sexual act to conform with morality, it must both be UNITIVE AND PRO-CREATIVE.

This is an arbitrary statement with nothing to support its truth. You simply said it, YOU said it, not God.

Would you take anyone seriously if the only way he can prove his love is by ****ing?

Would you take a person seriously who did NOT express his love by f****ng? Apparently not, because in your arbitrary statement above you REQUIRE pro-creative activity. Love can be expressed many ways, my spouse and I never have sex because I'm too physically damaged to do so--does that mean that we don't love each other? Does that mean that our relationship is profane in some way?

You're talking about debauchery and defend homo-eroticism in the same breath?

You are the only one equating homosexual love with debauchery and you have not yet demonstrated any proof of that judgmental claim.

Eroticism, homo or hetero, HAVE NO MORAL WORTH IN THEMSELVES.

Another baseless statement. Show proof. It's amazing to me how many religious folks think that they have some kind of Hotline to Heaven and they can tell everybody else in this free-will Universe how they have to act.

They only pretend to borrow the moral worth of human love and dignity, both of which can EXIST independently from human sexuality.

You have just condemned millions of people without ever having met them. Judge not lest ye be judged. It's funny how there is so little Christ in Christianity.

Is that an admission that you have read NO catholic encyclical regarding the matter?

Didn't you post a link? I read that one. Same old nonsense.

That's all well and good. But in the meantime, you have given no rational argument for homo-eroticism other than it feels good.

I have given a rational argument for the expression of love between ANY two people, you have judged the actions of others to not be moral--a judgment you are not in any position to make. This is just more of that ego-trip that allows you or your church to believe that you have the right to speak for God. Talk about something with no rational basis!

Religions setting up arbitrary standards and claiming them as God's Law is unsupportable nonsense.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Now I've presented the truth in the matter, that homosexuality originates in unconscious reaction to family-of-origin relationships idiosyncratically during the first five years of post-natal life while the brain is still forming.

Now one does not rationally need to post a "proof" of an obvious reality, any more than one needs to post a proof of yours and my existence. That would be a topic-diverting truly foolish waste of time.

Anytime you wish to report me to the mods, please do.

I know a member of the KKK, well.. knew him, he's dead now. He vociferously maintained until his dying day that "N***ers ain't human!" He said it was obvious to anybody who looked at them or had anything to do with them. I don't think he was right and he never was able to provide anything to support his wild, abusive claim. You either.

 

[vyo476]

Now I've presented the truth in the matter, that homosexuality originates in unconscious reaction to family-of-origin relationships idiosyncratically during the first five years of post-natal life while the brain is still forming.

You are contending that this statement is fact, correct? If it is indeed proven fact, then proof must exist. We are not aware of its existence. We are asking you, who has brought forth the fact, to bring forth the proof.

Now one does not rationally need to post a "proof" of an obvious reality, any more than one needs to post a proof of yours and my existence. That would be a topic-diverting truly foolish waste of time.

It is not so obvious to us. I know that grass is green and that drinking water alleviates thirst because those are naturally apparent. The inner workings of the human mind are not naturally apparent. If they were than this thread would not exist in the first place.

So if proof is supposedly what you cry for, post some real proof that proves my obvious reality statement false, because when presented with an obvious reality, as I have presented you, the onus of posting proof of the contrary is rationally upon you.

You are asking for Mare to prove a negative. Surely you understand why that is pointless.

And, as for playing, if you don't stop playing the thread-derailing ad hominem game, I'm going to report you to the moderators.

Now please, stay on topic!

Mare was (originally) asking you to prove a contention you made about the nature of homosexuality. The thread's topic is the nature of homosexuality. Mare only "attacked" you after you (rather pompously) announced that there was no need for you to prove your point. Tell me, if there really is no need for you to prove your point, why would you want anyone to "stay on topic"? To follow the path of your reasoning, you already answered the question and no further discussion is required. Just what is it that you're looking for from us?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are contending that this statement is fact, correct? If it is indeed proven fact, then proof must exist. We are not aware of its existence. We are asking you, who has brought forth the fact, to bring forth the proof.



It is not so obvious to us. I know that grass is green and that drinking water alleviates thirst because those are naturally apparent. The inner workings of the human mind are not naturally apparent. If they were than this thread would not exist in the first place.



You are asking for Mare to prove a negative. Surely you understand why that is pointless.



Mare was (originally) asking you to prove a contention you made about the nature of homosexuality. The thread's topic is the nature of homosexuality. Mare only "attacked" you after you (rather pompously) announced that there was no need for you to prove your point. Tell me, if there really is no need for you to prove your point, why would you want anyone to "stay on topic"? To follow the path of your reasoning, you already answered the question and no further discussion is required. Just what is it that you're looking for from us?

Nice post! Well said. Put up or shut up, Chip.

 

[numinus]

That is an insult to human love. You are stating that love between two people must serve some end other than itself. If so, it has no intrinsic value, which negates the entire basis of Christianity.

I said UNITIVE, didn't I. And what sort of human relationship supposes to bond a man and a woman into a single entity - if NOT LOVE, eh?

Whether or not it has moral worth depends on the respect and caring of the relationship in which it occurs. To state otherwise is to claim that the people involved have no moral worth in and of themselves but must be serving others (a child who might be conceived, for example) to have worth.

I never stated otherwise. Is there any other way to describe human love except as a CREATIVE, not DESTRUCTIVE process?

They can also be expressed and increased by human sexuality.

No. The sexual act between a prostitute and her patron is a commercial transaction - not to be mistaken as an act of conjugal love.

It cannot be viewed as a creative process since both the prostitute and the patron become commidities. Hence, human dignity is destroyed.

So, it is clear - the imperative of human love and dignity, WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANY OTHER END BUT THEMSELVES, is the basis of ANY moral good.

It can and does express and bring about love between two human beings. If you eschew the idea that this has value, perhaps you had best explain what you believe does have value. Thank you, incidentally, for giving me yet another reason to be glad I left the Catholic Church. I am a Christian, but I must state that the fruits of Catholicism were not exactly good in my case. About 6 years ago, when I was a Catholic, I tried to hang myself because of the pain Catholic theology caused me. I was not injured, and since then leaving the Church has made it possible for me to find God. I seldom universalize about theology and I do not say that no one should be a Catholic, but I am certain that God, however one defines Him, does not want me to be one.

No. Sex is merely a human action. It borrows its justification from the imperatives that drive this particular action.

While no one has the right to prohibit where and how you derive your carnal pleasures (within legal limits, of course), you have NO right, in turn, to put some form of moral imprimatur on such a thing, nor is anyone obliged to view it for what it truly is - only sex.

Oh, Im glad to hear you are at peace with your own religion. Religion is a right of thought, to begin with.

 

[numinus]

Secular isn't the issue, philosophy can and will be argued forever.

Which is more than one can say about your argument.

You are talking about the freedom to do what one wishes, aren't you?

Like: Two heads are more numerous than one.

Correct.

As I said: the expression of love.

Which is a UNITIVE PROCESS, no?

This is an arbitrary statement with nothing to support its truth. You simply said it, YOU said it, not God.

And how would you have people define it, eh? Anything that feels good is an act of morality, hence love?

Would you take a person seriously who did NOT express his love by f****ng? Apparently not, because in your arbitrary statement above you REQUIRE pro-creative activity. Love can be expressed many ways, my spouse and I never have sex because I'm too physically damaged to do so--does that mean that we don't love each other? Does that mean that our relationship is profane in some way?

Exactly. Sex has nothing to do with love - although people would like to believe so for the pleasure they get, no?

You are the only one equating homosexual love with debauchery and you have not yet demonstrated any proof of that judgmental claim.

Another baseless statement. Show proof. It's amazing to me how many religious folks think that they have some kind of Hotline to Heaven and they can tell everybody else in this free-will Universe how they have to act.

Ill repeat it for your benefit - the sexual act, by itself, whether HOMO OR HETERO, is not love. If it were so, then the prostitute would be the most loved individual on earth.

The assertion that human love is entirely interchangeable with the sexual act is simply absurd.

And do you really need proof that human sexuality is unitive and procreative in nature?

You have just condemned millions of people without ever having met them. Judge not lest ye be judged. It's funny how there is so little Christ in Christianity.

LOL.

Maybe its you who have condemned everyone - when you equate every concieveable human action as having a moral impetus just because it feels good.

Didn't you post a link? I read that one. Same old nonsense.

Nope. Try reading humanae vitae - its about human sexuality in general.

I have given a rational argument for the expression of love between ANY two people, you have judged the actions of others to not be moral--a judgment you are not in any position to make. This is just more of that ego-trip that allows you or your church to believe that you have the right to speak for God. Talk about something with no rational basis!

Rational, you say? Just because it feels good?

You need to distinguish between the faculties of REASON and the faculties of APPETITE.

Religions setting up arbitrary standards and claiming them as God's Law is unsupportable nonsense.

Correction. Your argument is the one that is arbitrary.

An action based on a rationality that any person with rudimentary mental faculties can understand - that is a statement of PRINCIPLE.

An action based on how it feels - that is arbitrary.

 

[invest07]

F-O-T
If I understand you right, you are saying that the mythical "gay" gene results in increased levels of fertility among straights?

This sounds like a huge stretch to me but I will read your link.

MareT
I don't believe comparing human with animal sexuality is a valid compsrison.
The homosexual behavior in animals that I know of is far different from human homosexual behavior.

I know that certain simians play and touch each other, seemingly with no regard to gender. But are there any animals that engage in simulated intercourse, as humans do? Are there are male animals that use other males to ejaculate?

It is my understanding of animal behavior that ALL intercourse is initiated by the female's fertility cycle. When the female is fertile, she emits telltale smells or engages in other telltale behavior to make this known to the male. The male responds to the female only during these fertility cycles.

Clearly human sexality is radically different. Many human females are unaware of where they are in their fertility cycle. Certainly the desire for sexual activity is not triggered by the female fertility cycle and fertility, if the state is known, may actually dampen human desire for sexual activity.

Human sexual activity, whether intragender or intergender, is not triggered by any direct relation to the human fertility cycle.

Everyone has had a dog hump their leg. My guess is that this behavior is triggered by a fertile female dog, somewhere within the scent range of the dog.

Dolphins will rub humans in a sexually suggestive manner in theme park petting pools. This may also be in response to a nearby female's fertility.
It may also be a characteristics of dolphins, who crave human contact, that is unrelated to sexual activity.

The fact that animals engage in activities that seem to be "gay" is often used as a justification for human gay behavior. If animals do it, it must be natural for the animal and also natural for humans since humans are only advanced animals. This has always seemed to be comparing apples to watermelons. The difference are substantial and I don't beleive a valid comparison.

Again, I'm not slamming (or endorsing) gay behavior. Just pointing out that comparing animals and humans is invalid.

And thank you a lot for the info on transexuals. I guess I am indeed a hick from the sticks as this was all news to me. I appreciate your since of humor dealing with this (puberty).

I can say that being straight with no doubts about sexual orientation or identity is no piece of cake either. But I'm sure my problems pale by comparison with what you have faced.

I don't know whether or not you are religious. I am and I take refuge from time to time in God's love. He doesn't care about problems or gay/straight orientation or height on the ladder of success. I count exactly the same as you which is the same as Donald Trump and the same as Mother Teresa.

Thanks for your posts.

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

I said UNITIVE, didn't I. And what sort of human relationship supposes to bond a man and a woman into a single entity - if NOT LOVE, eh?

But if being unitive isn't enough, then I repeat that you are placing no value on love or on persons in and of themselves apart from what they can produce (i.e. a child).

I never stated otherwise. Is there any other way to describe human love except as a CREATIVE, not DESTRUCTIVE process?

I agree, but creating love is the goal and creating a child is only one way of doing that.

No. The sexual act between a prostitute and her patron is a commercial transaction - not to be mistaken as an act of conjugal love.

It cannot be viewed as a creative process since both the prostitute and the patron become commidities. Hence, human dignity is destroyed.

Agreed. But I wrote that the sexual can express and increase love and dignity- not that it always does. Whether or not it does depends strictly on the dynamic between the couple involved. If it is egalitarian and mutually respectful, it expresses and builds love; if it is hierarchical and/or mutually destructive (e.g. prostitution), it destroys love. I assert that homosexuality is as likely to be in the former category as heterosexuality and I have been presented with nothing beyond circular reasoning in attempts to show homosexuality's supposed inferiority.

So, it is clear - the imperative of human love and dignity, WITHOUT REGARD FOR ANY OTHER END BUT THEMSELVES, is the basis of ANY moral good.

That is what I wrote, but that isn't what you actually believe. See your own words about procreation.

While no one has the right to prohibit where and how you derive your carnal pleasures (within legal limits, of course), you have NO right, in turn, to put some form of moral imprimatur on such a thing, nor is anyone obliged to view it for what it truly is - only sex.

I didn't leave the Catholic Church so that I could be libertine. I'm a 22-year-old virgin and I don't believe in premarital sex. However, I also see nothing wrong with homosexuals marrying and consummating their relationships just as heterosexuals do. No, moreover, there is nothing in it for me. I'm straight, but I also know that homosexuals do express and build love in their relationships as much as heterosexuals do.

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

F-O-T
If I understand you right, you are saying that the mythical "gay" gene results in increased levels of fertility among straights?

This sounds like a huge stretch to me but I will read your link.

Actually, I'm merely presenting that as a possibility. What is known is that men have a fixed sexual orientation whether they are gay or straight, while women have far more flexible sexual preferences. I'm no scientist, but my best guess is that sexual orientation, at least in men, is formed by a combination of genetics and prenatal conditions. You are a straight man (as am I), so consider this: Could you, by any amount of effort, make yourself physically attracted to a man? I know that I couldn't, and if your answer is the same, what better argument is there that male sexual orientation is inborn? It might be prenatal, genetic or a combination of the two, but it is clearly inborn.

 

[invest07]

F-O-T
I can't imagine myself attracted sexually to a man. But that does not mean that there is a genetic tendency if one is attracted.

My upbringing never exposed me to gays. I didn't even know a homosexual until middle school. And then it was only one. I didn't understand Liberace was gay and I thought Andy Warhol was just palin weird. Guess I am a hick from the sticks who has led a sheltered life.

A well known factor which advertisers use to introduce new products or concepts is repetition. Over time and with enough repetition, new concepts or products become acceptable to a greater percent of the population.

Today we are barraged with the gay agenda. Gay's constitute a small percent of the population but receive far more exposure than their numbers merit. Prominent gays in entertainment and the arts are celebrated, over and above what their talents merit. Movies and tv remind us daily of gays. (Remember Oliver Stones' film Alexander? Out of all this guy did, why is sexual behavior so important to Stone?)

And political correctness extends the umbrella and protection over gays.

Maybe I'm not gay because I was never exposed to gays during my formative years.

I still maintain that "gay" is a behavior and unrelated to genetics. It may very well be a learned behavior and that learning process may have been more unconscious than conscious but it is a behavior, none the less.

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

A well known factor which advertisers use to introduce new products or concepts is repetition. Over time and with enough repetition, new concepts or products become acceptable to a greater percent of the population.

Homosexuality is 100% acceptable to me. Playing along with that analogy, the "gay agenda" has successfully been "sold" to me, yet I am incapable of homosexuality. I haven't been sheltered from the existence of anything, moreover. You didn't know what a transsexual was. My signature, which I have long had on another forum, is a quote from a transsexual whose courage and tough individualism I admire. I've also read a fair amount about gay history. Yet somehow, the knowledge you consider the forbidden fruit didn't make me anything other than a boring hetero. That is because I was born straight, and having known a gay beggar very well, I can assure you that he was born gay. He could no more have had a romantic relationship with a woman than I with a man.

Gays constitute a small percent of the population but receive far more exposure than their numbers merit.

The same can be said of ethnic minorities. That is because of the political controversy that surrounds minorities of all types. Controversy sells.

Prominent gays in entertainment and the arts are celebrated, over and above what their talents merit.

If that is true, why do so many artists and entertainers stay in the closet? If it gave them a great advantage to be known as gay, they would have no reason to be anything but open.

I still maintain that "gay" is a behavior and unrelated to genetics.

Whether it is genetic or not, it is inborn among men. The bottom line is that if it were merely a behavior, you could choose to be gay. You have admitted that you could not do so, hence the debate is at an end at least where men are concerned. Whether genetic, prenatal or a combination of the two, male sexual orientation is inborn. I might add that, even if it were not so, homosexuality isn't inferior to heterosexuality in building meaningful relationships, so if, for example, a woman can choose to be straight or gay and finds her best relationship with another woman, then that relationship is to be respected as much as a heterosexual one with the same degree of bonding.

 

[palerider]

I say it is a choice but what sayest thou?

While I don't know, and neither does anyone else, I strongly suspect that true homosexuality has its basis in genetics. The number of true homosexuals is very small. Schollarly research suggests somewhere between 1 and 3 percent of the population with the number skewing more towards the lower. That is roughly equivalent to the frequency of homosexuality observed in social animals.

It seems that the vast majority of those who are viewed as, or claim to be homosexuals (beyond that 1 to 3%) have made a choice for whatever reason.

 

[numinus]

But if being unitive isn't enough, then I repeat that you are placing no value on love or on persons in and of themselves apart from what they can produce (i.e. a child).


I agree, but creating love is the goal and creating a child is only one way of doing that.



Agreed. But I wrote that the sexual can express and increase love and dignity- not that it always does. Whether or not it does depends strictly on the dynamic between the couple involved. If it is egalitarian and mutually respectful, it expresses and builds love; if it is hierarchical and/or mutually destructive (e.g. prostitution), it destroys love. I assert that homosexuality is as likely to be in the former category as heterosexuality and I have been presented with nothing beyond circular reasoning in attempts to show homosexuality's supposed inferiority.


That is what I wrote, but that isn't what you actually believe. See your own words about procreation.

The unitive and pro-creative aspects of human sexuality are INSEPARABLE from one another - in EXACTLY the same way as love and human dignity are INSEPARABLE from one another.

Is a sadist a moral person just because he is inclined to express love in a violent manner?

Is a masochist existing in a state of human dignity just because he consents to it?

Is ignorance acceptable as long as one is happily ignorant?

Expression, consent, happy - are NOT the ideas that define a MORAL GOOD, however else you pretend otherwise.

Morality dictates how a human being OUGHT to behave or be treated according to some RATIONAL PRINCIPLE discernable by all.

By definition, this excludes personal ends which are subjective by nature.

I didn't leave the Catholic Church so that I could be libertine. I'm a 22-year-old virgin and I don't believe in premarital sex. However, I also see nothing wrong with homosexuals marrying and consummating their relationships just as heterosexuals do. No, moreover, there is nothing in it for me. I'm straight, but I also know that homosexuals do express and build love in their relationships as much as heterosexuals do.

I see nothing wrong with homosexuals indulging in their preferred sexual appetites.

What is wrong is when people attach a moral, legal, social or even biological IMPETUS for what is clearly a personal choice.