Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[USMC the Almighty]

There were never any scientific studies which demonstrated a flat Earth.

Right, but that was the scientific "consensus". See a parallel? I do.

 

[Coyote]

Right, but that was the scientific "consensus". See a parallel? I do.

No.


Science at that time was very different then it is today. In addition, it wasn't just science - it was religion.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Science at that time was very different then it is today. In addition, it wasn't just science - it was religion.

I was just using that as an example of how just because it's scientifically accepted doesn't mean that it's absolutely infallible. Another example of this would be eugenics in the early 20th century.

 

[Coyote]

I was just using that as an example of how just because it's scientifically accepted doesn't mean that it's absolutely infallible. Another example of this would be eugenics in the early 20th century.

Agreed. That is a better example.

However - the problem isn't scientific consensus. It's attempting to apply scientific findings (ie genetics) to other social issues.

For example: scientific consensus agrees that certain diseases are inherited by a simple recessive and if individuals carrying that recessive trait did not breed, the trait may die out.

Another group of people - generally not scientists - might take that consensus and carry it further by stating these people should not be allowed to breed therefore we will legislate laws to prohibit it.

Science is pretty much amoral and impartial. It's what people choose to do with it that gives it value.

Kind of like the lyrics to this Tom Leher song...


Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

 

[DrWho]

But that's exactly what this whole argument is about. Defining someone's entire existance by their sexuality. What difference does it make to anyone but the consenting adults involved? This is not pedophilia. There are no "victims".

Asking them to "choose" to be heterosexual would imply the same as asking you to "choose" to be homosexual. You'd be fighting inate built in biological drives. Could you do it and live a happy fulfilled life?

In comparison to the vast hordes of heteros there are not victims. The crimes of heterosexuals are just as numerous as the crimes of homosexuals.

If heteros did what they were supposed to do then in comparison homosexuality would have victims.

But this is the real world, so I know of no reason for a secular america to disaprove of homosexuals. Unless the disapproval is genetic.

 

[Napoleon]

Really, have you examined all the scientific studies that were ever made?

I've examined many of the reasoning behind claiming that the Earth is flat and none of it is truly scientific. It was based on uneducated/scientifically illiterate opinion and mythology.

Here is a quote. I don't know much about the author but it appears to be from a learned person from long ago who is relying on a misinterpretation of the scientific concept of gravity to make his case.

Actually, it was written in September of 1988 by the Flat Earth Society in, their publication, The Flat Earth News as number 24 out of their article "One Hundred Proofs Earth is Not a Globe." Yeah, they're still around and I suspect that you know your quote came from them.

 

[SW85]

I could go either way on the question. My sisters were born five minutes apart and are both lesbians; my brother and I, who were born eight years apart, are as straight as arrows. That lends credence to the genetics argument. By contrast, most of my mom's friends growing up were lesbians (we lived in a little San Diego-like suburb in Maryland; we were one of the few typical nuclear families on the block) and my sisters spent a lot more time with them than my brother or I did. That could back up the environmental argument, too. More than likely it's a combination of both.

 

[ArmChair General]

I could go either way on the question. My sisters were born five minutes apart and are both lesbians; my brother and I, who were born eight years apart, are as straight as arrows. That lends credence to the genetics argument. By contrast, most of my mom's friends growing up were lesbians (we lived in a little San Diego-like suburb in Maryland; we were one of the few typical nuclear families on the block) and my sisters spent a lot more time with them than my brother or I did. That could back up the environmental argument, too. More than likely it's a combination of both.

I agree, its a combination of both.

Though I think Coyote makes a very valid point, who friggin cares.

 

[Chip]

Homosexuality is neither genetic nor a choice.

It is compelled psychologically as an unconscious idiosyncratic reaction to relationships with family-of-origin members during the first four years of post-natal life, while the brain is still forming.

Those supporting the either-or dualism have missed the truth, once again.

 

[numinus]

The act of engaging in a homosexual act is ALWAYS a choice - whether the inclination to it is present of not.

The argument for genetics is a crude way of divorcing responsibility for what is clearly one's actions.

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

Based on what I have read, sexual preference is inborn (though not necessarily genetic- it may be determined by prenatal conditions) in men, but it is, in some sense, a choice among women, who technically don't have a sexual orientation. Regardless, it isn't something that should be regulated by the government.

In reply to numinus, it is true that behavior is ultimately a choice, but the morality or immorality of sexual behavior is determined by whether a relationship is hierarchical and emotionally abusive, in which case it is immoral, or takes place between psychological equals with mutual respect, in which case it is not immoral. Since relationships of both types exist among both heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is this dynamic rather than gender that should be examined.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Homosexuality is neither genetic nor a choice.

It is compelled psychologically as an unconscious idiosyncratic reaction to relationships with family-of-origin members during the first four years of post-natal life, while the brain is still forming.

Those supporting the either-or dualism have missed the truth, once again.

So, Chip, you know this because you are gay? If so, or if not, why don't you provide some evidence to support your sweeping claims that contradict the work of a lot of scientists, please.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Based on what I have read, sexual preference is inborn (though not necessarily genetic- it may be determined by prenatal conditions) in men, but it is, in some sense, a choice among women, who technically don't have a sexual orientation. Regardless, it isn't something that should be regulated by the government.

This is an amazing statement. Do you have anything to back it up? It smacks of the early Christian Church policy stating that women didn't have souls.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The act of engaging in a homosexual act is ALWAYS a choice - whether the inclination to it is present of not.

The argument for genetics is a crude way of divorcing responsibility for what is clearly one's actions.

Anything that a human does can be considered a "choice". If the Church has a scripture that says eating is a sin, would you stop making that evil choice? Denying a person their own humanity is the worst thing that religion has done.

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

This is an amazing statement. Do you have anything to back it up? It smacks of the early Christian Church policy stating that women didn't have souls.

Unfortunately, the New York Times article detailing the scientific studies has expired for those who aren't registered subscribers, so I can't prove the statement. That is why I prefaced it with "Based on what I have read". I can't prove this either, but somehow I doubt that New York Times writers think women have no souls.