Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Octavius]

haha and if you still think i'm an idiot, then shame on you for not taking an initiative in educating the youth

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

yeah thats true, what do you think the probability is of the age of accountability being pushed back if those rights were recognized for child molesters?

something i need you guys to realize is that i'm just a high school debater, i really don't know that much, and most of what i say will obviously have little credibility and my logic will most likely be fallible sometimes, but thats why i'm here is to get a better grasp on things, so when you read what i say and think "wow what an idiot" please take this into account. i'm really not here to debate whats right or wrong, i'm here to see what everybody else thinks, and to be enlightened.

so again, please assume i know nothing at all and any and all explanations or help would be appreciated.

Actually a bit of life experince will cure your woes from undue negative cristism bud. Mind you that Mere Tran is just entitle to his thought as anyone... and unless you start a thread (( and don't take this the wrong way )) entitled " please don't pick on me " to ensure most of our users see that your only in high-school , don't expect many to hold punches...

if anything.. as I said in your welcome thread.. remeber .. your preception is the only thikng that is truely important in your world.. while harsh critisim might come your way... take it with a grain of salt and try to read between the lines to establish if the person is just being a prick.. or being a prick AND making a point LAWL!!!!

Might be keen of you to review our rules thread just incase someone does step out of line thou so you know the differnce.

As not to derail the thread...

I say Choice... but its only because I am prejudice .. My first puppy love was on a girl in high school who was my best-friend... she told me in confidence that she was gay and broke my poor lil heart LOL...

in real truth thou.. many variety of situations could swing it ethier way and its still to cloudy to view it with a magnifier.

I do believe that while government needs to keep its nose out of it.. a general consenus of a state (( or vote )) should I believe be enough to decide the context. Californians have consisently voted no to Gay marriage... I really don't see why the judical system is taking up this fight.. the people have spoken.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

yeah thats true, what do you think the probability is of the age of accountability being pushed back if those rights were recognized for child molesters?

something i need you guys to realize is that i'm just a high school debater, i really don't know that much, and most of what i say will obviously have little credibility and my logic will most likely be fallible sometimes, but thats why i'm here is to get a better grasp on things, so when you read what i say and think "wow what an idiot" please take this into account. i'm really not here to debate whats right or wrong, i'm here to see what everybody else thinks, and to be enlightened.

so again, please assume i know nothing at all and any and all explanations or help would be appreciated.

Fair enough, you're young. No one is going to legalize child molesting.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Actually a bit of life experince will cure your woes from undue negative cristism bud. Mind you that Mere Tran is just entitle to his thought as anyone... and unless you start a thread (( and don't take this the wrong way )) entitled " please don't pick on me " to ensure most of our users see that your only in high-school , don't expect many to hold punches...

"Mare Tranquillity, the sea of tranquillity on the Moon and "mare" as in female, my name is a play on words, a double entendre: two meanings and both of them intended.

if anything.. as I said in your welcome thread.. remeber .. your preception is the only thikng that is truely important in your world.. while harsh critisim might come your way... take it with a grain of salt and try to read between the lines to establish if the person is just being a prick.. or being a prick AND making a point LAWL!!!!

Might be keen of you to review our rules thread just incase someone does step out of line thou so you know the differnce.

As not to derail the thread...

I say Choice... but its only because I am prejudice .. My first puppy love was on a girl in high school who was my best-friend... she told me in confidence that she was gay and broke my poor lil heart LOL...

in real truth thou.. many variety of situations could swing it ethier way and its still to cloudy to view it with a magnifier.

I do believe that while government needs to keep its nose out of it.. a general consenus of a state (( or vote )) should I believe be enough to decide the context. Californians have consisently voted no to Gay marriage... I really don't see why the judical system is taking up this fight.. the people have spoken.

So it's acceptable for the majority to vote on the rights of the minority? Or is it just "sometimes" when that's okay? How do you decide when it's okay? Could black people be re-enslaved? Women have their right to vote and own property taken away? Force Mormons from their homes again? Put Japanesed people in prison camps? Ghettos for Jews? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Dr.Who]

Specious reasoning and a fallacious analogy. Our laws on sexual behavior are framed around "consenting adults" and a prohibition against hurting or damaging others. Child molesters victims are not consenting adults. We should stop regulating the sex between consenting adults.

I agree competely. Though I would add that anytime the state has a compelling need to regulate an activity even among consenting adults if it can make its case then so be it.

For example, if those two consenting adults might produce a child which needs protection or might become a burden on the state then those two adults should have their unions regulated - which is why marriage between a man and a women is regulated and unions between a man and a man are not.

I would add that if that man and a man ( or woman and woman) decide to adopt then there may be justification for regulation.

The state has not made it's case that gay men and women cause harm to society so for now they need to make no legislation regarding what they do.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I agree competely. Though I would add that anytime the state has a compelling need to regulate an activity even among consenting adults if it can make its case then so be it.

For example, if those two consenting adults might produce a child which needs protection or might become a burden on the state then those two adults should have their unions regulated - which is why marriage between a man and a women is regulated and unions between a man and a man are not.

I would add that if that man and a man ( or woman and woman) decide to adopt then there may be justification for regulation.

The state has not made it's case that gay men and women cause harm to society so for now they need to make no legislation regarding what they do.

And I would agree with you if children were the only thing for which the government sanctions marriages, but there are more than 1000 laws on the Federal books giving rights and privileges to legally married people and many of those laws have nothing to do with children. Additionally, if no gay people had children then you would also have a better argument, however there many families made up of gay parents and children produced just all the rest of the children in the world: intercourse, artificial insemination, or adoption.

 

[Dr.Who]

And I would agree with you if children were the only thing for which the government sanctions marriages, but there are more than 1000 laws on the Federal books giving rights and privileges to legally married people and many of those laws have nothing to do with children. Additionally, if no gay people had children then you would also have a better argument, however there many families made up of gay parents and children produced just all the rest of the children in the world: intercourse, artificial insemination, or adoption.

Gee, imagine that! Government getting involved where it should not.

I addressed adoption. But as you point out children are sometimes produced by parents who are/were/become gay so by all means if they are parents then the things they do that effect the children offer the state a justification for regulation.

 

[Octavius]

can anyone tell me what studies have been done on whether it is genetic or not?

 

[jrobert484]

The question is irrelevent because it isn't the homosexuals who are the enemy of America, but rather the christians. We all know that christianity is a lifestyle choice, and definitly not genetic. So, what should we collectively do about the christian problem our imperiled home land is facing?

I think this article put it very well when it described how the christians have united into an Anti-American mob in an effort to turn us into an Iraqi style theocracy.

Read on:

http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4488

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

can anyone tell me what studies have been done on whether it is genetic or not?

Yes, I can, but I have discovered much to my dismay that almost no one pays any attention to the citations I post.

What are you looking for? I cannot give you sound-bite answers from scientific journals, those answers are not yet available. The issue is complex and there is no hard and fast answer yet. All of the research I've seen in the last decade indicates a genetic basis--though different for males and females.

The best easy source I can give you is a one hour talk by Dr. Cynthia Chappell who has two sons, one gay and one straight. Living in Texas she had heard all the "common wisdom" about queers but she wanted to know what science had discovered. She researched it and made an hour long video presentation available on disc or on the net, go to: http://www.pflaghouston.org/news/headline.htm

One of the avenues of research shows that women pregnant with male fetuses have an anti-body response and the woman's body tries to feminize the male fetus. The more boys the woman has the stronger the anti-body defense is and the more likely she is to have a gay son. Another research project has shown statistically, world-wide, that a woman with at least one gay son will have more children than women without a gay son. There is the suggestion that gay sons are a side-effect of a genetic process increasing fertility in women. We also know that many man-made chemicals act like estrogens in the human body, and fetuses are extremely sensitive to even tiny quantities of pollutants during portions of their development. Fetal rats exposed to the smallest quantities of dioxin that we can measure will be far more likely to display homosexual behavior when they reach sexual maturity. PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) have similar effect, and they are ubiquitous in the eco-system.

Another source you might find fascinating if you are a reader is Bruce Bagemihl's BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE. Of the more than 1500 species of animals that we know practice homosexuality, he covers 450 in his book. Based on tens of thousands of hours of research by hundreds of people he shows that animals are practicing most of the different kinds of sex that people do--and some we don't--and that sex exclusively for procreation is only a small part of animals' sexual lives. From elephants to hummingbirds, grizzly bears, bighorn sheep, giraffes, walruses, seals, geese, and hundreds more, they are all engaging in homosexual, heterosexual, group, and bisex encounters. They practice oral, anal, masturbation, mutual masturbation, masturbation with sex toys, and every other kind of sexual activity of which they are capable. The idea that some kinds of sex are unnatural seems unlikely in light of what we find going on in the animal world. For centuries we assumed that animals had sex only for procreation--a view promulgated and supported with suppression by some of our religions--but now we know this to be completely false.

 

[Segep]

I agree competely. Though I would add that anytime the state has a compelling need to regulate an activity even among consenting adults if it can make its case then so be it.

Really? You're truly for government regulating anything it can justify?!

For example, if those two consenting adults might produce a child which needs protection or might become a burden on the state then those two adults should have their unions regulated - which is why marriage between a man and a women is regulated and unions between a man and a man are not.

That describes every union, gay, straight or whatever. My neighbors next door have a boy in first grade. They deal drugs, physically and verbally abuse each other, and steal from each other all the time (in front of the kid, naturally). They have at least six cats that they don't feed, and a pit bull that is either always chained outside, or lately for the last few months it's locked up inside. I have not seen it outside for a few months now, ever. I can't imagine where it's going to the bathroom. They have a pile of garbage in the backyard and garage that has been there for a year. Now we have rats in our house because of those idiots. No one regulates them. I don't hear outraged people (well, outside of the neighborhood anyway) screaming for their kid to be taken away or protected from them.

I would add that if that man and a man ( or woman and woman) decide to adopt then there may be justification for regulation.

What if my crack whore neighbors want to adopt? Why should they be entitled to less regulation just because they are a male and a female?

The state has not made it's case that gay men and women cause harm to society so for now they need to make no legislation regarding what they do.

Hmmm...based on this last statement, combined with your first statement, I can't quite figure out where you stand on this. It sounds to me like you may believe that gay men and women may cause harm to society, but you're just waiting for the government to "make its case". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Segep]

Actually a bit of life experince will cure your woes from undue negative cristism bud. Mind you that Mere Tran is just entitle to his thought as anyone...

Sigh...oh, never mind.

I say Choice... but its only because I am prejudice .. My first puppy love was on a girl in high school who was my best-friend... she told me in confidence that she was gay and broke my poor lil heart LOL...

Is that when you chose to be straight?

I do believe that while government needs to keep its nose out of it.. a general consenus of a state (( or vote )) should I believe be enough to decide the context. Californians have consisently voted no to Gay marriage... I really don't see why the judical system is taking up this fight.. the people have spoken.

And the people spoke about, let's see, women getting to vote, blacks getting to be full (rather than 3/5) human beings, practicing witchcraft, and even Jesus Christ. The People are not infallible. If they were, we wouldn't need a judicial system.

 

[Ejgertz]

It's a way of life, genetic or choice. The question of right or wrong will be debated for years. Bottom line: If two people love each other and want to be together, I say "so be it". Happy people improve the quality of life for those around them.

 

[Dr.Who]

Originally Posted by Dr.Who View Post
I agree competely. Though I would add that anytime the state has a compelling need to regulate an activity even among consenting adults if it can make its case then so be it.

Really? You're truly for government regulating anything it can justify?!

Yes. The role of government is to stop people from hurting US citizens. The government should regulate anyone who harms another and do no more than that.

If the government can make a compelling case that gay unions would have a great potential for hurting people then it should regulate them. It should also regulate companies that expel large amounts of pollutants from their chimneys. What it should not do is regulate those who don't cause harm; those who do not have the potential to abuse or abandon their children or to release pollutants.

Originally Posted by Dr.Who View Post
For example, if those two consenting adults might produce a child which needs protection or might become a burden on the state then those two adults should have their unions regulated - which is why marriage between a man and a women is regulated and unions between a man and a man are not.

That describes every union, gay, straight or whatever.

No it doesn't Gay unions do not produce any children. It does not describe them.

Originally Posted by Dr.Who View Post
I would add that if that man and a man ( or woman and woman) decide to adopt then there may be justification for regulation.

What if my crack whore neighbors want to adopt? Why should they be entitled to less regulation just because they are a male and a female?

Um, being regulated is a bad thing. Regulation is when the gov tells you what you can and cannot do and it is a limit on your rights. marriage is a regulations because it tells you that you cannot have sex with other people, that you must take care of your spouse financially, that you must take care of the children the marriage produces, that inheritance must take place in certain ways unless otherwise indicated, and that the only way to break up the relationship is with government approval - called divorce. (perks on the other hand are a good thing)

So if your crack head neighbors do want to adopt then they should demonstrate that they won't abuse or abandon the baby they adopt. That would be a restriction on who can adopt. And it should apply to all couples. And since non-couples can adopt too it should apply to them as well.

Originally Posted by Dr.Who View Post
The state has not made it's case that gay men and women cause harm to society so for now they need to make no legislation regarding what they do.

Hmmm...based on this last statement, combined with your first statement, I can't quite figure out where you stand on this. It sounds to me like you may believe that gay men and women may cause harm to society, but you're just waiting for the government to "make its case". Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well of course they can as individuals. Any one can cause harm. The question is whether or not there is justification to regulate all of them prior to their producing any children. Since just about all straight unions produce children their is a good case for regulation before and about how they get married. Since gay unions never produce children sexually there is no justification for limiting who they have sex with, what kind of financial arrangements they make, or how they break up.

You may not have figured out where I am coming from because you assumed I had an agenda that was like the agendas of other people you have seen. I have no need to prove that homosexuality is right or wrong or should be outlawed or not. I do want a smaller government that leaves people to retain their rights.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No it doesn't Gay unions do not produce any children. It does not describe them.

Clinging to this obviously false assertion makes you look foolish, Who, you're smarter than that I think.

If you are going to use the "children" as the litmus test for marriage, then I'm okay with that as long as it is equally applied to all people. Sterile marriages would be annulled, old people who could no longer have children would be denied marriages too.

I fail to see why a rational person such as yourself is taking this stance. Marriage is about love and committment according to the vows, it's about legal rights and responsibilities that add stability to our culture. Denying these benefits to one group of people on the basis of nothing but religious dogma seems beneath you.