Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[9sublime]

So a man that finds the idea of sex with a woman repulsive, but is aroused by the idea of sex with a man, is not gay?

 

[Bunz]

I have come into this way late and have avoided this thread by and large. Has anyone mentioned my theory.

Some people are born gay.
Others for any number of reasons choose to be gay.
Then there are those who arent picky and are attracted to both sexes. I wont even make a 9sublime mum joke here on that one.

I guess I can say of these three, I know examples of all of them.
Has this been covered here?

 

[vyo476]

You define a person based on his actions, not appetites. It really is that simple. You couldn't call me a murderer for simply wanting to break your neck until you are dead, now, could you?

So you'll admit that these "appetites" exist, and won't dispute that some people have an "appetite" only for people of the same gender, and yet still won't define these people as homosexuals?

"Homosexual" refers to the orientation as well as the action. Look it up if you'd like. Or better yet, I'll do it for you.

American Heritage Dictionary
adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
n. A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

WordNet
adjective
1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]
noun
1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

 

[r0beph]

You define a person based on his actions, not appetites. It really is that simple. You couldn't call me a murderer for simply wanting to break your neck until you are dead, now, could you?

That is plain and simple a fallacious comparison. In fact, you're not even defining the definition correctly. No it's not. However if you serious consider murdering someone, not a fleeting or joking response, and feel no moral repercussions, one could rightly say you are a sociopath. a Murderer is a definition BASED on action, sociopath, homosexual, socialist, liberal, conservative, those are all based on an idealistic criteria not action. Thus one can be a homosexual without ever committing an action in line with such a standard. Eg. A man who marries for the social implications, or perhaps he loves the woman however misaligned and remains not sexually attracted to her due to his attraction to men.

 

[r0beph]

I have come into this way late and have avoided this thread by and large. Has anyone mentioned my theory.

Some people are born gay.
Others for any number of reasons choose to be gay.
Then there are those who arent picky and are attracted to both sexes. I wont even make a 9sublime mum joke here on that one.

I guess I can say of these three, I know examples of all of them.
Has this been covered here?

I believe there are many variables to sexuality. For example, a person sexually abused as a child, male on male, will likely find a sexual appetite in young male children, while still being sexually attracted to women of his age. This is due to sexuality being thrust on him at a young age by his abuser and causing an incorrect link in his brain as to attraction/love. In this it proves there is an environmental aspect to sexuality. As such one can assume that it exists on other levels to a lesser degree. Someone could use sex as an outlet for stress and while being heterosexual (or homosexual) may cross over their sexuality line to assert this behavior of stress relief. There's the obvious genetic linkage, why someone would ever begin to assume that a genetic predisposition COULD not exist is beyond me, if genetics is the basis of our being and everything is written in that codex one has to assume our sexuality is as well, if genetic templates can give us hare lips, blue eyes, black hair, facial hair, no facial hair (native american's etc), why not our sexual attraction, if it isn't predefined by our genetic template, what do you suggest defines it? In this there will always be varying degrees of sexuality, from the urges, to what we find attractive, to what we find NOT attractive. This combines with social expectations, environmental variable, will determine our final outcome and level of assertion.

 

[numinus]

So you'll admit that these "appetites" exist, and won't dispute that some people have an "appetite" only for people of the same gender, and yet still won't define these people as homosexuals?

"Homosexual" refers to the orientation as well as the action. Look it up if you'd like. Or better yet, I'll do it for you.

American Heritage Dictionary
adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
n. A homosexual person; a gay man or a lesbian.

WordNet
adjective
1. sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual]
noun
1. someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

The dictionary defines words as they are often used. And if anyone is to apply any intellectual rigor to this definition, then it would be necessary to differentiate between a homosexual in thought, a homosexual in action and a homosexual in both thought and action.

And what is the thread actually asking? Choice has an element of action. Without action, one can not be said to have chosen, no?

 

[numinus]

That is plain and simple a fallacious comparison. In fact, you're not even defining the definition correctly. No it's not. However if you serious consider murdering someone, not a fleeting or joking response, and feel no moral repercussions, one could rightly say you are a sociopath. a Murderer is a definition BASED on action, sociopath, homosexual, socialist, liberal, conservative, those are all based on an idealistic criteria not action. Thus one can be a homosexual without ever committing an action in line with such a standard. Eg. A man who marries for the social implications, or perhaps he loves the woman however misaligned and remains not sexually attracted to her due to his attraction to men.

This is rubbish.

A sociopath is a BEHAVIORAL disorder - which means it must manifest in some action before one can be so.

Thought is inseparable from action, althought the rational relationship between the two may not always be obvious. And if, for arguments sake, a thought may be divorced completely from action, then there is no point to call a person such.

 

[vyo476]

The dictionary defines words as they are often used. And if anyone is to apply any intellectual rigor to this definition, then it would be necessary to differentiate between a homosexual in thought, a homosexual in action and a homosexual in both thought and action.

And one would have to recognize that all three are, in fact, homosexuals. Will you do so?

And what is the thread actually asking? Choice has an element of action. Without action, one can not be said to have chosen, no?

The thread is asking if it is genetic or if it is a choice. The choice option implies action; the genetic option (while not widely regarded as correct) implies a state-of-being. Without formulating an opinion prior to answering the question, the role of action in determining whether someone is a homosexual or not is only half the point, the other half being determining his state-of-being.

You're using circular logic. By assuming one answer, you justify your answer by excluding the other answer. Nice try.

If you really don't believe that there are homosexuals who don't engage in homosexual acts, then perhaps you haven't ever heard of "closeted" individuals.

 

[numinus]

And one would have to recognize that all three are, in fact, homosexuals. Will you do so?

Certainly not.

To do so, one must necessarily accept that a thought divorced from its corresponding action has any meaning.

I have always tried to imagine what homosexuals feel, in an effort to understand. That doesn't make me a homosexual, does it?

The thread is asking if it is genetic or if it is a choice. The choice option implies action; the genetic option (while not widely regarded as correct) implies a state-of-being. Without formulating an opinion prior to answering the question, the role of action in determining whether someone is a homosexual or not is only half the point, the other half being determining his state-of-being.

Homosexuality has NO 'state-of-being' separate from human nature.

Remember ockham's razor? Try applying it to the 'state-of-being' of an individual.

You're using circular logic. By assuming one answer, you justify your answer by excluding the other answer. Nice try.

Please expound.

I'd love to hear this.

If you really don't believe that there are homosexuals who don't engage in homosexual acts, then perhaps you haven't ever heard of "closeted" individuals.

Everyone has appetites. They manifest in one form or another.

The point of civilization is to subvert human appetites to a discernable good through the operations of logic.

In this regard, we are all 'closeted' humans.

 

[r0beph]

Certainly not.

To do so, one must necessarily accept that a thought divorced from its corresponding action has any meaning. I have always tried to imagine what homosexuals feel, in an effort to understand. That doesn't make me a homosexual, does it?

Trying to perhaps, think as you think, a homosexual would think, differs GREATLY from thinking as a homosexual thinks, being heterosexual, how could you EVER even BEGIN to assume you may know HOW they think? People to often associate homosexuality as a "sexual" status, (prompted by the reference in the name, homoSEXUAL) however this is not the case, in truth it means they are attracted to others of the same gender, which in itself does not mean that sex is necessitated. Just as you may have a girlfriend and never have sexual relations with her (religion, assumed moral state, whatever drives you to not, perhaps low testosterone, doesn't matter why is arbitrary) and yet could date her for years, a homosexual needn't "Act" upon "sexual urges." The fact remains, when they see a man (or woman for lesbians) they find attractive, they'd get the same butterflies, or the same smile at the sight of the person, as we would seeing someone of the opposite sex we have a crush on. This is NOT an "appetite" and I REALLY would love you to stop using that pseudo-buzzword, it's ridiculous sounding and really stupid. But no, unless you ACTUALLY have a crush on another man, you cannot be truly "feeling" what a gay male feels. Just as a homosexual can NEVER feel what a heterosexual feels unless he garners feelings for someone of the opposing gender. (which would be that he's not homosexual, because to be defined as such requires justly that he/she be attracted to their SAME gender, anything else is OUTSIDE of this classification.)

Homosexuality has NO 'state-of-being' separate from human nature. Remember ockham's razor? Try applying it to the 'state-of-being' of an individual.

Pet peeve 2; STOP WITH THE NEWLINES, make paragraphs, don't hit enter at the end of every sentance...it makes replying a real *****, as I spend way to much time trying to format your crap.

Homosexuality is as heterosexuality is. It's a human nature. Programmed in majority by our dna (like everything else is, unless you wish to convince me that homosexuality is a spontaneous occurrence of human sexuality morphism ) And I'm highly confused by your logic. If it is genetic, the state (of the sexuality of the person) of being ( is as is) which is as it is for someone who is homosexual, it is there state of being (of their sexuality) it is as it is, go look up the defintion of that phrase, it is simply defining the state of a presence, the presence is sexuality, the gender bias is that of the individuals same gender. Occam's Razor, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, Occam's Razor, Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. However, this does not mean the SIMPLEST solution is correct, nor does it postulate such, in reality the idea is that if all solutions are equal, then the one with the least number of assumptions is likely the correct one; or better still If you say A+B+C= 4 and I say A+2+1 = 4, the chances that I am correct in my assumption that A = 1, are much greater than those of you assuming the quantities of 3 unknowns... In this case the cater to genetic predisposition is much stronger in fact, and all your basis is on assumption, since you cannot HOPE to know how a homosexual thinks in his mind, you may only assume. Yet it is quite easy to surmise that since sexual orientation of men to like women, is a built in factor in our dna (to induce propagation) thus sexual orientation itself is based on dna, thus in the case of the homosexual, his dna states he is to be attracted to men. The reason for the existence of homosexuality (genetic mutation, a species survival trait in overcrowded colonies to reduce propagation) does not matter as it's arbitrary, because it is assumed.

Everyone has appetites. They manifest in one form or another. The point of civilization is to subvert human appetites to a discernable good through the operations of logic.

Pet Peeve 1; see first quote reply.
Ok, you're WAY wrong on what civilization is for. In fact, Civilization I assume you're using in the definition meaning civilized defined as "To bring out of a savage, crude state" Human "drive" needn't be subverted to be "civilized" I have no drive to be a criminal, no drive to do anything "uncivilized" I never have, and while THIS is because of my civilized nature, being civilized does not stop me from being with my girlfriend, which I have a drive to do. Your assumption here is that homosexuality is something that is to be modified by civilized culture because it is "wrong" but your assumption of wrongness is baseless, outside of some inapt religious ideology. ie. Fail.

In this regard, we are all 'closeted' humans.

You perhaps. However I have never, cultured or otherwise, ever had ANY drive to seek out male companionship in a love like realtionship, it simply isn't something I have ever found appealing, I have no ability to find a male attractive. If asked if a guy is cute (by a girl for example) I'd have to make an assumption based upon what other guy qualities in the person in question, I've seen to be attractive to other females, and make a broad assumption as to whether these qualities create "cute." it'd be a difficult judgment and one I'd usually refer to someone who could speak from experience. Your whole argument is silly, as usual.

 

[vyo476]

Certainly not.

Let's run down the list:

You accept that people have certain "appetites." (Sexual orientation).

You accept that some people have these "appetites" exclusively for the same sex. (Homosexual orientation).

You are able to read and comprehend the dictionary definition of "homosexual," in that it states that a homosexual may refer to a practitioner OR one with an orientation for homosexuality, yet you reject this due to its status as vernacular. ("The word is defined as it is used.")

You would insist on differentiation between homosexuals in thought, homosexuals in practice, and homosexuals in both, yet in your next statement deny that you would refer to all three as homosexuals. (As it would be "divorcing thought from action.")

To do so, one must necessarily accept that a thought divorced from its corresponding action has any meaning.

Self-identity is entirely thought-based; actions are then reflected by those thoughts. Fear, however, is an especially powerful motivator in suppressing the self-identity of those society considers "bad" for whatever reason.

A homosexual in, for instance, the Middle Ages would have been too terrified of the consequences of engaging in what would have otherwise been natural for him to do so. Is he not a homosexual, then, because he was frightened into not acting on his desires?

Were Jews during the Holocaust no longer Jews simply because many were frightened into feigning Christianity to avoid persecution?

I have always tried to imagine what homosexuals feel, in an effort to understand. That doesn't make me a homosexual, does it?

If the definition had been "attempting to consciously understand attraction to the same sex," then yes, it would. Since that isn't the definition, no, it doesn't.

Homosexuality is not a thought that can be turned on or off; it's an ingrained predilection, no more voluntary than pain. Do we discuss the "action" of being in pain? No, you simply are, due to whatever circumstances have precipitated that pain.

Homosexuality has NO 'state-of-being' separate from human nature.

Remember ockham's razor? Try applying it to the 'state-of-being' of an individual.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Occam's Razor tells us to eliminate unnecessary assumptions. That "homosexual" refers to a sexual orientation is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. You were attempting to oversimplify the issue, and now you're attempting to obfuscate the facts by likening them to "assumptions."

Please expound.

I'd love to hear this.

I already did. I will again, if necessary.

One option is choice. This option implies that homosexuality is an action. One option is "genetic." This option implies that homosexuality is involuntary.

When you stated this:

And what is the thread actually asking? Choice has an element of action. Without action, one can not be said to have chosen, no?

You excluded the second option entirely in order to justify your position on the first. This is circular logic.

Everyone has appetites. They manifest in one form or another.

The point of civilization is to subvert human appetites to a discernable good through the operations of logic.

In this regard, we are all 'closeted' humans.

So perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to how anti-sodomy laws "subvert human appetites to a discernible good."

 

[numinus]

Let's run down the list:

You accept that people have certain "appetites." (Sexual orientation).

Yes.

You accept that some people have these "appetites" exclusively for the same sex. (Homosexual orientation).

Some people have the same appetites for exclusively blonde, or large chested, or what not. Are you inclined to classify them in a particular category of 'existence' as well?

You are able to read and comprehend the dictionary definition of "homosexual," in that it states that a homosexual may refer to a practitioner OR one with an orientation for homosexuality, yet you reject this due to its status as vernacular. ("The word is defined as it is used."

)

Correct. Usage does not imply intellectual rigor. While the definition may be sufficient for everyday meaning, it may not stand the scrutiny of debate.

You would insist on differentiation between homosexuals in thought, homosexuals in practice, and homosexuals in both,

I do not insist on differentiating them. I am merely demonstrating its absurdity in the context of everyday language. A homosexual who does not practice homosexuality is meaningless, in the same way that a murderer who killed no one is meaningless, in the same way that a sociopath who does not manifest any sociopathic behavior is meaningless.

yet in your next statement deny that you would refer to all three as homosexuals. (As it would be "divorcing thought from action.")

That would be the logical conclusion of the argument.

Self-identity is entirely thought-based; actions are then reflected by those thoughts.

And a self-identity that does not manifest in one's being is meaningless.

Fear, however, is an especially powerful motivator in suppressing the self-identity of those society considers "bad" for whatever reason.

The operation of logic and natural law is more powerful.

A homosexual in, for instance, the Middle Ages would have been too terrified of the consequences of engaging in what would have otherwise been natural for him to do so.

Fear is not a condition conducive to human existence.

There is nothing natural about indulging all concieveable appetites. And it is precisely the function of the reasoning faculty to subvert the appetites that accrue to no concieveable good.

Is he not a homosexual, then, because he was frightened into not acting on his desires?

You premise your argument by stating that he IS a homosexual, and subsequently ask if he is not, in fact, a homosexual.

What do you want me to say?

Were Jews during the Holocaust no longer Jews simply because many were frightened into feigning Christianity to avoid persecution?

You have already demonstrated, and I agreed, that fear is not a condition of human existence. And when a human person lives in a condition not conducive to such an existence, it normally results in logical inconsistencies.

That does not make the inconsistent consistent. It does however, define the imperatives of the human condition.

Understand?

If the definition had been "attempting to consciously understand attraction to the same sex," then yes, it would. Since that isn't the definition, no, it doesn't.

This line of argument is clearly going nowhere.

You say that homosexuality is thought-based, and yet, one cannot be a homosexual by simply trying to empathize. You need to actually 'feel' it.

But the rational relationship between a feeling and its corresponding action may not always be clear. One may be a homosexual for want of, say, paternal love - or one may sublime a sexual inclination for the same sex.

In the end, you have a definition that is utterly ambiguous for the purpose of any intelligent discussion.

Homosexuality is not a thought that can be turned on or off;

Same can be said with most thoughts. That's no reason to give vent to all thoughts.

it's an ingrained predilection, no more voluntary than pain.

And if you simply listen to your own urges, then you would realize that you are saddled with a great many 'predilections'. One cannot simply cast you in a mold of your predilection, nor are you obliged to satisfy all of them.

Do we discuss the "action" of being in pain? No, you simply are, due to whatever circumstances have precipitated that pain.

Pain is an inevitable part of the human condition. One cannot be excused for all actions simply because one feels pain.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Occam's Razor tells us to eliminate unnecessary assumptions. That "homosexual" refers to a sexual orientation is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. You were attempting to oversimplify the issue, and now you're attempting to obfuscate the facts by likening them to "assumptions."

Ockham's razor, originally, is a principle in the reductionist philosophy of nominalism. It suggests parsimony in the assumption of MODES OF EXISTENCE.

In your previous argument, you are assuming a MULTIPLICITY IN THE STATE-OF-BEING of an individual human being. A certain inclination for this or that appetite IS NOT a reason for you to assign a different set of logical rules for an individual.

I already did. I will again, if necessary.

One option is choice. This option implies that homosexuality is an action. One option is "genetic." This option implies that homosexuality is involuntary.

When you stated this:

You excluded the second option entirely in order to justify your position on the first. This is circular logic.

No.

Genes do not preclude the fundamental operation of choice - regardless of any statistical correlation between genes and behavior. Choice is the natural and logical consequence of free will.

That has always been my position since the beginning.

So perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to how anti-sodomy laws "subvert human appetites to a discernible good."

Did I say anything about anti-sodomy anything?

 

[ArmChair General]

I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it.

 

[r0beph]

Genes do not preclude the fundamental operation of choice - regardless of any statistical correlation between genes and behavior. Choice is the natural and logical consequence of free will.

holy **** you're stupid. No offense to your parents, but wow. What do you think makes us who we are on core drives? DNA, yep, we eat cos we're hungry we're hungry because we're made to get that way when we need to eat. We choose foods based on different criteria, most of which, is programmed by dna. Did you know that people in general will find gross looking things inedible, because it looks "sickly or rotten" for example, green slimy looking jello, although tasty, is still tough to eat for many, THIS IS A BUILT IN (there was a study at oxford I think that showed this to be the case, I'd have to find the paper if it's necessary but you can look it up.) . Some people like fish, some don't. It's a genetic predisposition. A homosexual is a person who is attracted to people of the same gender. Now, you needn't have sex to be homosexual, you need only be attracted to your same gender. THAT IS THE DEFINITION. END OF STORY STOP BEING SO ILLITERATE AND STUPID, MOVE NORTH OF THE PANHANDLE...SOMETHING...before I snap from reading your nonsense...you've not an ounce of logic and a ton of misinformation.

 

[Coyote]

The only choice is whether or not to act on ones inate proclivities to have a sexual relationship with an equally consenting partner. People expect homosexuals to have the "free will" to make the "choice" to not act on it but somehow heterosexuals are free from this expectation.