Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[OPGhostdog]

This is MY Day for posting. I am not a supporter of Homosexuality,
but some of these cases started at birth, and grew in the later
stages of life. Why should we hate people who are born the way
that they are? Scientific studies and articles that was wrote do
not mean a damn thing.

Science is the reason why society is so screwed up like it is today.
Always expermenting on a concept that so like its worth investing
into, and it seems to always turn out a waste of money.

Homosexuality can't be blamed on the church, but I do believe that
its a genetic trace in the family tree, and one generation may appear
to be straight for years.
Then all at once the program begin to change then what?

I feel that to make a choice at the correct time is ones business.
Meaning if at birth one might have been born straight, and 30
years down the line begin to look at another man's a** that's
where and when the choice is made.

I know a guy who walks like Jennifer Lopaz, but he is strictly a
woman's man, and I also know a woman who have more Butch
in her...then Butch himself (being a man).

So either way..however or whatever way one choices to go
that's on them, and who are we to pass judgement on somebody?
As long as I am treated with respect..they will get respect, and
as long as they stay their distants I will stay mine.

Regardless to what I might think people with sexual grooves is
entitle to have whatever they choose.

 

[top gun]

It could be either.

Some people just become curious about a strange or different sex act and then act out themselves. They may even go back and forth between being straight and being gay.

Others are defiantly just born with that orientation and sexual preference preset in their mind. If that wasn't true you could just change there preference through medical science and therapy. While a small percentage might be influenced by treatment the vast, vast majority cannot/do not change.

 

[Chip]

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.

Your implication is false.

There is no "gene for" homosexuality.

This is not an area of mere "scientific" expertise.

It is a combined authority realm referred to as neuropsychology.

The truth has been thereby determined using both science and art.

But regardless of how the truth is revealed, the truth itself remains what it is.

And the truth is that homosexuality is neither genetic or a conscious choice.

It doesn't matter what method of truth denial is presently in vogue -- it doesn't matter if worshipping science, even when science has not spoken, is the new-age religion of the masses.

What matters is the truth.

Neuropsychology has revealed the truth, the truth that I have presented in my previous post: homosexuality is caused by 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.

I do not have to "prove" the truth to you.

The onus of proof otherwise against the obvious truth that I stated is upon you.

 

[numinus]

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.

The moral worth of an action does not derive from inclinations of appetite. In fact, nothing can be further from this.

To engage in sex for the SOLE purpose of personal pleasure, whether hetero or homo, is an action of NO MORAL WORTH.

 

[numinus]

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.

All actions calculated to promote DIGNITY in the human PERSON, WITHOUT regard for whatever subjective or personal ends that might simultaneously accrue from it, are not merely good, but are fundamental IMPERATIVES as well.

If you ever bothered to read ANY of the catholic church teachings, you would realize that ALL of them derive from this simple and intuitively logical principle.

Now, in what way is homo-eroticism a part of human nature, thus making it a command of human dignity?

 

[r0beph]

We as humans are born with a built in set of criteria for what we will find attractive insofar as the gender of who we find attractive. The idea that it incorporates a single or even 50 genetic markers is a bit on the low end, as its not simple as the preface makes it sound. We are clay tablets at birth as we age the writing dries and we have our hardwired neurology in place, as an adult new memories, situations, traumas, loves, losses, etc. will be filtered through these hardwired portions of the mind. This hardwiring is done akin to a blueprint for an electrician. It shows where he is supposed to route the wires, but sometimes they fudge a bit, because going through the blueprints guide is just not going to happen, and may cause problems later on. Early childhood traumas cause abnormalities in brain development insomuch as things don't follow the blueprint and may cause things to go awry. Given that, environmental homosexual is a very, very, and I cannot stress more fully, very rare case. Sexual abuse (Male-Adult > Male Child) usually ends up with a Heterosexual Relationship with male child sexual abuse predispositions. To me this is the sought after grail of proof for the "Are they born that way" argument. Why would a male who wishes male on male contact with a child/teenager, be in a heterosexual relationship. Not all of those abused ergo abusers could possibly be repressive homosexuals who are married just as a front could they? No, I do not believe this the case, I believe that the mishandling in childhood created a sexual attractant to child males (due to being a child male and suffering that at the hands of a fatherly figure, hardwiring some strange sexual/love response), the heterosexual attraction (predisposition sans environmental) is inherent. There's tons of documentation on the heterosexual male on male sexual abuser, however its not put in this scope as a definitive manner of presentation for this case, and thus is speculation of my own built with that which you may find as its foundation. There are many other reasons why I'd be led to believe it is "genetic", while it requires many things to be different from the heterosexual, the only difference would be that of the mind not of the body. We're so used to birth defects that create hideousity but how is one to tell that which effects the mind? While I'm using the word defect here with quite the loose hand, I simply am referencing its state as an anomaly for the male. It is not a "problem" and you lot who feel homosexuals threaten you, perhaps you should look at some gay porn and get over that which you're repressing so dearly. The repression and anger at homosexuality unlike homosexuality itself is an environmental affect, one that creates a suspicious element to your design. Why would one be so angry and hateful towards something that does not effect you in any manner, unless one is effected by the feeling that if one does not herald his distaste for the subject his secret may be found? Of course after a childhood of growing up with this attitude that too is now hardwired. But who knows.

homophobic are we?

 

[Napoleon]

Now, in what way is homo-eroticism a part of human nature, thus making it a command of human dignity?

Again, there have been numerous studies which demonstrate the FACT that homosexuality directly results from biological, physiological, anatomical, and possibly genetic factors. I'm also completely unaware of any generation of the human species in which homosexuality did not occur. This clearly demonstrates that homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species and therefore a part of human nature. What is not a part of human nature is celibacy; a policy enforced by the Catholic Church on it's priests and nuns.

 

[invest07]

Napoleon
You are right on the money when you say that homosexual behavior has existed in every human generation. We have historical references from several sources and the frequency of homesexual appears to be constant throughout recorded history.

This supports my assertion that there is no "gay" gene. If there were a "gay" gene, the lower birth rate among gays would insure that the frequency of the "gay" gene would diminish and within 40-50 generations, would have shrunk to a very low, maintenance level.

Anywhere from 4% to 10% percent of the US population (depending on whose numbers you believe) engage in homosexual behavior. If there were a "gay" gene, the lower birth rate over hundreds of human generations would have reduced this percent to a small fraction of one percent.

Homosexual behavior is a choice.

 

[DrWho]

Again, there have been numerous studies which demonstrate the FACT that homosexuality directly results from biological, physiological, anatomical, and possibly genetic factors. I'm also completely unaware of any generation of the human species in which homosexuality did not occur. This clearly demonstrates that homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species and therefore a part of human nature. What is not a part of human nature is celibacy; a policy enforced by the Catholic Church on it's priests and nuns.

The same has been said for pederasty. But saying it and it being a fact are two different things.

The human is complex and nothing is solely biological or solely a result of free will. But whatever the cause of a person's sexuality if they want to alter it's effect on their lives they can. If one is gay and doesn't want to have sex with same sex people one doesn't have to. If they are happy with their sexuality then they will have no motive to alter it.

 

[Napoleon]

This supports my assertion that there is no "gay" gene. If there were a "gay" gene, the lower birth rate among gays would insure that the frequency of the "gay" gene would diminish and within 40-50 generations, would have shrunk to a very low, maintenance level.

Except that all of the genetic research suggest that the "gay gene" is passed via HETEROSEXUAL mothers into their offspring. If the gene is passed through HETEROSEXUAL women, which appears to be the case, then it would not have diminished. In any case, no one really knows how large or small the truly homosexual population is.

Homosexual behavior is a choice.

Homosexuality is not a behavior; it is a state of being and the same is true of heterosexuality.

But saying it and it being a fact are two different things.

The FACT is that there are clear anatomical, biological, physiological, and possibly genetic differences between homosexual men and heterosexual men. This has been proven numerous times in decades of scientific studies and research.

But whatever the cause of a person's sexuality if they want to alter it's effect on their lives they can. If one is gay and doesn't want to have sex with same sex people one doesn't have to. If they are happy with their sexuality then they will have no motive to alter it.

Choosing whether or not to have sex and choosing your sexuality are entirely different things, the latter being impossible.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

If the New York Times said YOU didn't have a sexual orientation would you believe it? What in the world would make you think that a newspaper could speak knowledgably about half of the human race? Do you believe everything you read in the paper?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your implication is false.

There is no "gene for" homosexuality.

This is not an area of mere "scientific" expertise.

It is a combined authority realm referred to as neuropsychology.

The truth has been thereby determined using both science and art.

But regardless of how the truth is revealed, the truth itself remains what it is.

And the truth is that homosexuality is neither genetic or a conscious choice.

It doesn't matter what method of truth denial is presently in vogue -- it doesn't matter if worshipping science, even when science has not spoken, is the new-age religion of the masses.

What matters is the truth.

Neuropsychology has revealed the truth, the truth that I have presented in my previous post: homosexuality is caused by 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.

I do not have to "prove" the truth to you.

The onus of proof otherwise against the obvious truth that I stated is upon you.

When one postulates something the onus is on the postulater to prove that he or she is not just speaking through their hat. Are you a neuropsychologist? If you are then you should be able to supply some documentation from peer review journals. If you cannot support your wild claims in any way, then you are in the same catagory as all the Bible-beaters bleating like sheep about Scripture and sin.

If you can actually PROVE your claim I would be like to know about it because I will be speaking to a University class on human sexuality next week and so far I have not been able to find ANYTHING to back up what you've said. Put up or shut up.

 

[DrWho]

The FACT is that there are clear anatomical, biological, physiological, and possibly genetic differences between homosexual men and heterosexual men. This has been proven numerous times in decades of scientific studies and research.

Please post a clear anatomical difference.

Choosing whether or not to have sex and choosing your sexuality are entirely different things, the latter being impossible.

Yes they are different. But I am not the one limiting the power of the people to determine their own destiny. Just how did you determine that it is impossible for people to alter their sexual leanings?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

All actions calculated to promote DIGNITY in the human PERSON, WITHOUT regard for whatever subjective or personal ends that might simultaneously accrue from it, are not merely good, but are fundamental IMPERATIVES as well.

Could you demostrate the veracity of this statement please?

If you ever bothered to read ANY of the catholic church teachings, you would realize that ALL of them derive from this simple and intuitively logical principle.

I think that "intuitively logical" is an oxymoron. Logic specifically denies intuition, and intuition is intuition because it DOES NOT rely on logic. This is more baseless religious blather, semantically null, and logically vacant.

Now, in what way is homo-eroticism a part of human nature, thus making it a command of human dignity?

The worst thing that religion does is deny people their humanity, it denies them the existence that their Creator gave them and it does this on the basis of religious bigotry authored by human beings with overweening egos. If you are a homosexual and mutually in love, then expressing that love is a manifestation of God within you (no less than expressing the God-within in a heterosexual love) and your expression of the God within you should be trampled upon by bigots.

What "command of human dignity" made the Catholic Church torture people in the Inquisition? The Catholic Church stands out amongst the all the other Christian sects for it's violence and violation of human dignity. The baseless, senseless, unsupportable, and truly insufferable pogrom against homosexual people makes a mockery of everything for which Jesus stood. The Dark Ages were dark because of the Catholic Church more than anything else.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes they are different. But I am not the one limiting the power of the people to determine their own destiny. Just how did you determine that it is impossible for people to alter their sexual leanings?

If you are stating that a person can change their sexual orientation, then I think you should pony-up and change yours to prove your point. Anything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do it. So far you appear to be a poser with nothing to back up anything you've said.

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

Could you please explain this peculiar sentence? How can sex between consenting adults have victims? If it was heterosex I can see where unwanted children could be seen as "victims", but that can't be the case in homosexual liasons.


Here's a website with an interesting talk by Dr. Cynthia Chappell (who has one gay and one straight son) speaking on A BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I recommend that you do not watch it because it won't matter to you since you are arguing from an emotional position and facts don't count.