are people born gay? Options

[LuvsDogs387]

Actually my Anthropology teacher told me that in males there is a certain gene found in homosexual men believed to be the source. So yeah, I guess men are born gay. Girls are another story. They havent found a specific gene in women...yet.

[lKVNiiKINKYl]

Agreed.

I do believe that people are born gay. I mean, with all of this negativity towards homosexuals, why would someone CHOOSE to be that way?

Do I want to be called a chink or any other racial term? No I don't, but I still am happy with being Chinese.

My view on this?
I think that people were born with both because to some extent, there is at least the tiniest bit of attraction. For me, I just prefer one like ten times more than the other. (I am gay if you haven't figured it out)

[*Girthy*]

I think what she meant was that there is nothing wrong with being gay. But, by choosing to be gay, you are basically asking for hate when you could be not treated as bad if you were straight.

[*Uronacid*]

Omg, im probobly going to piss alot of people off in this topic, but first off i would like to make a disclaimer. I have many lesbien and gay friends... infact i have a lesbien grandmother who i happen to love very much (there is a difference between loving someone, and loving what they do). I love homosexuals, but i hate homosexuality. Being homosexual is not normal. Not from a societal stand piont (If more than 50% of the population was homosexual it would be.) or a Scientific stand point (we are biologicaly designed to show affection and have sex with the opposite sex.).

Here are some reasons i believe that its a psycological disorder:

- In many cases, homosexuality appears after experiencing severe emotional truama. (examples: My friend jesse, expeirencing extreme pressure in the locker room at his school was threatened with teabagging... after being teabagged he decided he was homosexual, and began a gay relationship. My grandmother after being beaten by her husband could not trust men any longer and looked to be accepted by the opposite sex.)

- If homosexuality is within your genes, then why don't people gravitate towards the same sex as children.

- Also, why do people have to question their sexual orientation if it's in their genes.

I believe being homosexual is a choice. We live in a feel good society. People teach that whatever feels right you should do. This makes the choice easy if you're under pressure to make that choice. I stand here, there’s nothing wrong with homosexuals, but there is indeed something wrong with homosexuality. Homosexuals should be shown the same respect and humanity that any straight person should be shown.

Do I want to be called a chink or any other racial term? No I don't, but I still am happy with being Chinese.

My view on this?
I think that people were born with both because to some extent, there is at least the tiniest bit of attraction. For me, I just prefer one like ten times more than the other. (I am gay if you haven't figured it out)

1. homosexuals are not a race. they are a sexual orientation.

2. it seems your agreeing with ellie that homosexuals are born gay, yet you say in your post that we are born with a little bit of an attraction to both sex's. You are contradicing yourself. If you are born with the attraction to both, then you must ahve made the choice to be homosexual at one piont.

[*mipadi*]

- Also, why do people have to question their sexual orientation if it's in their genes.

There are a lot of misconceptions with genetics, the biggest one being that, if a trait is programmed into one's genes, then he automatically displays that trait. This is not true. A genetic program merely predisposes one to a certain trait, but often times it still takes an environmental trigger to make that trait manifest itself.

[NoSex]

Being homosexual is not normal.

What about the apparent and observed existence of homosexuality in over 450 non-human species?

Your story is highly anecdotal, and because of this it is wildly shortsighted.

Or, do you want to move on to propose that animals exhibit homosexual behavior only because of extreme trauma?

In either case, your summation is weak.

Not from a societal stand piont (If more than 50% of the population was homosexual it would be.)

As irrelevant as this point may be, I'll humor you anyways. Are you saying that anything that less than half the population subscribes to is not normal?
A recent Gallup poll placed Bush's approval rating at 34%. Does that mean that it is not normal to approve of George W. Bush?

Scientific stand point (we are biologicaly designed to show affection and have sex with the opposite sex.).

Most scientific circles agree that sexual orientation is not a choice. These same circles also agree that biological selection is not a sentient force or an ultimately containing one given the complexity of genetics. It is a fact that homosexual (at least) behavior occurs in nature. Thus, at a scientific stand point, homosexuality is indeed "normal."

If homosexuality is within your genes, then why don't people gravitate towards the same sex as children.

A nature over nurture argument doesn't exactly require a "gay gene." So, don't get hung over on that. But, beside that, sexuality doesn't begin to really emerge until a child hits puberty. You don't see children "graviate towards the same sex" for the same reason you wouldn't see them f**king their opposite sex playmates inside the sandbox.

Also, why do people have to question their sexual orientation

Societal standards and stigmas makes being naturally attracted to the same sex a very scary thing sometimes.

I believe being homosexual is a choice.

Care to ellaborate on exactly how you believe one could choose their sexual orientation? And, if you believe that a sexual orientation can be choosen, did you choose to be heterosexual? And, if so, how is heterosexuality (as a choice) any more natural (or "normal") than homosexuality (as a choice).

People teach that whatever feels right you should do. This makes the choice easy if you're under pressure to make that choice.

And in how many cases are people pressured to be homosexual as opposed to being heterosexual? And, in the same vain, how many homosexual people are pressured to be heterosexual but never accomplish such feats? I'm sure you are aware of the numerous religious foundations which support Orientation Reformation.

I stand here, there’s nothing wrong with homosexuals, but there is indeed something wrong with homosexuality.

Let's imagine for a second that I am right and that homosexuality is not a choice: What is so wrong with it?
Now, let's imagine for a second that you are right and that homosexuality is a choice: What exactly is so wrong with it?

Just because it is a choice can not make it inherently immoral or wrong. Posting here is a choice, and there is nothing wrong with it. I bet less than 50% of people post here too, but it still seems pretty "normal" to me. I bet my biology isn't "designed" to have me post at cB either. Oh well. Just, what exactly do you feel is so wrong about homosexuality, aside from it being a damned evil evil "choice?"

[*Uronacid*]

You bring up some good pionts, but your pionts i only see one that you didn't fullly understand my piont of view on, and i guess its only becuase i should have organized my thread better:

People teach that whatever feels right you should do. This makes the choice easy if you're under pressure to make that choice.

And in how many cases are people pressured to be homosexual as opposed to being heterosexual? And, in the same vain, how many homosexual people are pressured to be heterosexual but never accomplish such feats? I'm sure you are aware of the numerous religious foundations which support Orientation Reformation.

yeah, your right, if your read my statement out of context. but whhat i meant by pressure wasn't outside pressure. I meant the truma type pressure that my grandmother went through when her husband beat her while he was drunk, or the pressure that my friend went through while getting teabagged in a boys locker room...

my opinion withou tbeing all smart and stuff... how feel:

I still don't believe homosexuality has a gene, but i do believe that homosexual tendancies start at an early age. I believe that it is the persons choice as to wether they can act uupon them or not.

You can feed the feeling or you can let it die. If you feed it, it will grow. Just like if children who grow up in a world that believes homosexuality is ok, and they start to have a homosexual feelings. they are not going to have a problem acting upon those feelings. This brings up another important question... Is it ok to act upon our feelings? Maybe you can explain your first homosexual feeling expeirce to me so i can understand how you came to the conclusion that these genes were in you all along.

Oh well, when it comes down to it, I'll be honest, im extemely religious. I have no problem with loveing homosexuals as human beings (becuase thats what my relgion teachs), but i will absolutly refuse to love what they do (becuase my religion teachs that it is wrong). Maybe I will never understand. It's possible that i wasn't born gay, and that i don't understand these sexual feelings becuase i don't have this biological make-up that allows me to. From my piont of view, I see it as choice. A choice that people make becuase they can't control themselves, but at the same time, i can't see why they should control themselves if the whole world is telling them that its ok to be gay. So, if you're gay... I personallly believe that you are comitting a moral sin...

Also, I'm sorry i offend you, but at the same time. You shouldn't be letting yourself get offended by my opinion if you join such a controversial debate. You have to be open to my opinion just as much as i am open to yours.

[flc]

Also, I'm sorry i offend you, but at the same time. You shouldn't be letting yourself get offended by my opinion if you join such a controversial debate. You have to be open to my opinion just as much as i am open to yours.

I really don't think you offended Nate..that's just how he debates.

And you still didn't answer his question. Is your opinion solely based on your religion? Because, if not, what is so wrong with it?

[*disco infiltrator*]

And, even if it is based solely on your religion's teachings, still, what's wrong with it? Just because it says it's wrong? Why does it say it's wrong? Just because it is isn't a good reason. I could go around saying being heterosexual is wrong because my religion says so, and you would say I was wrong because there's nothing to back that up than "it says so".

[*Uronacid*]

I personally feel that its wrong, and my relgion and the way i was raised has alot to do with it. There is nothing wrong with me basing my opinion on a relgious stand piont. I believe that the bible is 100% truth. I'm not blind, i just believe that whatever the bible says is correct. I beleive that the rules in the bible are set for a reason. God loves us, and he wants whats best for us. I trust God and what his word says. If my moral views and values are based upon the bible i don't see whats wrong with me stating that. It's not like i hate homosexuals as people. I hate homosexuality, and not homosexuals. I hate what they do and not who they are.

I will do my best to bring up things that have nothing to do with a religious stand piont.

Instead of debating with my own words i will reply to you from various articles i find on the internet:

FROM: http://nathanbradfield.blogspot.com/2006/0...t-abortion.html

Same-Sex Relationships:

* Health: It is widely known that AIDS reduces most lives by 50%. A homosexual has a 50% chance of being infected with AIDS by age 30 (source). These figures are not decreasing. While some drugs help quality of lifestyle once infected, there is no “morning after pill” for AIDS.

* Conscious: Homosexuality is not natural. Homosexuals can argue the “I can’t help who I love” point until they are blue in the face. It just does not fly. When the first two human beings on this earth found each other, they did not say, “Oh, one of those kind. Darn. Where is one like me?” Homosexuality is developed out of acceptance necessity. Almost all male homosexuals, for example, had a poor relationship with his father.

[*chaneun*]

In TIME magazine once, there was this little article about how some people are born homosexual..

[NoSex]

[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
You bring up some good pionts, but your pionts i only see one that you didn't fullly understand my piont of view on, and i guess its only becuase i should have organized my thread better:[/quote]

Glad to see that you think I have some "good points." Care to recognize them a bit further. How about you either concede the point or stop ignoring the question. My case was thouroughly strong enough a rebuttle to at least demand a counter of sorts. How about you refute my claims and stop going off ad nauseam.

[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
yeah, your right, if your read my statement out of context. but whhat i meant by pressure wasn't outside pressure. I meant the truma type pressure that my grandmother went through when her husband beat her while he was drunk, or the pressure that my friend went through while getting teabagged in a boys locker room... [/quote]

I know people who have been "teabagged." I also know people who have been "beat" and consistently abused by their husbands. All of these people have been through trauma very similar to the trauma you have described. None of these people have exhibited homosexual behavior. In fact, all of these people are heterosexual. I have anecdotal evidence which contradicts completly your own. This should stand to show (1) the weakness of anecdotal evidence, (2) the coincidental nature of your own stories, and (3) the fail of any solid casual relationship being built.

Just because your grandmother and your friend have exhibited homosexual behavior after these events does not mean that their behavior is a direct result of said events. You are fallaciously subscribing a cause and effect relationship when you have no solid evidence to do so. Not only do you have no good evidence to create a causal relation, but you are also doing so inspite of mounds and mounds of contrary evidence. You are being amazingly close minded, sir.

[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
my opinion withou tbeing all smart and stuff... how feel:[/quote]

Maybe you should try being smart; being dumb isn't exactly working for you.


[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
I still don't believe homosexuality has a gene,[/quote]

I still havn't said it does. Care to actually read my post?
[quote]
A nature over nurture argument doesn't exactly require a "gay gene." So, don't get hung over on that.[/quote]


[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
but i do believe that homosexual tendancies start at an early age. I believe that it is the persons choice as to wether they can act uupon them or not. [/quote]

Kind of like how heterosexual tendencies "start at an early age," and how it is a person's choice as to whether or not they will act upon those tendecies or not?


[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
You can feed the feeling or you can let it die. If you feed it, it will grow. Just like if children who grow up in a world that believes homosexuality is ok, and they start to have a homosexual feelings. they are not going to have a problem acting upon those feelings. This brings up another important question... Is it ok to act upon our feelings? Maybe you can explain your first homosexual feeling expeirce to me so i can understand how you came to the conclusion that these genes were in you all along. [/quote]


My first homosexual feeling experience?
I've never had one, bro.
Oh! He thinks I'm gay!

[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
Oh well, when it comes down to it, I'll be honest, im extemely religious. [/quote]

That explains alot. So, your true prejudices show. Alright, I understand. It's alot like your argument: You have been taught all your life that homosexuality is wrong, thus you can not imagine a world where it is not, how it could not be, yet you fail miserably when attempting to justify the original belief in the immorality of homosexual behavior.

[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
I have no problem with loveing homosexuals as human beings (becuase thats what my relgion teachs), but i will absolutly refuse to love what they do (becuase my religion teachs that it is wrong). [/quote]

Hey, pal. That's enough with the arguments from authority. "He said, she said," ain't gonna prove anything here. How about you try thinking for yourself for a change and form an actual argument, or recognize actual argument (like my previous post), or you could just leave the debate thread alone, as you have shown you have no real disposition for actual intelligent discussion.


[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 13 2006, 11:27 PM' post='2044324']
Also, I'm sorry i offend you, but at the same time. You shouldn't be letting yourself get offended by my opinion if you join such a controversial debate. You have to be open to my opinion just as much as i am open to yours.
[/quote]

Don't assume, for a second, that you have offended me with your opinion. That would be quite a leap and rather too flattering of your character.

In comment towards being open to one another's opinions: As you are entirely closed off as you admit to believing in the infallibility of the biblical texts, such a plea for open mindness seems wildly absurd on your part.


[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 15 2006, 5:19 PM' post='2046771']
I personally feel that its wrong, and my relgion and the way i was raised has alot to do with it. There is nothing wrong with me basing my opinion on a relgious stand piont. I believe that the bible is 100% truth. I'm not blind, i just believe that whatever the bible says is correct. I beleive that the rules in the bible are set for a reason. God loves us, and he wants whats best for us. I trust God and what his word says. If my moral views and values are based upon the bible i don't see whats wrong with me stating that. It's not like i hate homosexuals as people. I hate homosexuality, and not homosexuals. I hate what they do and not who they are. [/quote]

There is so much that is wrong with this paragraph that I have no idea where to start or when, if ever, I would be permitted to quit. So, just to put this simply. Your belief that homosexuality is wrong is so unlike an actual ethical position that it should not even be called a moral view. A moral view requires a level of ethical principle. It requires a level of intellectual justification and understanding. Following a commandment just because it is commanded is not a moral action. In fact, it stips, from the behavior of man, an ethical system aside from the value of obedience.

As Ayn Rand once put it, "The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments." Your reflextion that homosexuality is wrong simply because the scripture says so is just a flavor for totalitarianism and nothing more. Don't insult ethics by assuming yourself a morally inclined individual by accepting, with undaunting faith, ancient values from a book over two millenia old. Just stop.

[quote name='Uronacid' date='May 15 2006, 5:19 PM' post='2046771']
I will do my best to bring up things that have nothing to do with a religious stand piont.
Instead of debating with my own words i will reply to you from various articles i find on the internet:
[/quote]

Wow. So, you consider citing highly biased religious sites as bringing up things that have "nothing to do with a religious stand point." All right, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I should discredit the source simply because it is religiously bias. Let's see what they have to offer.

[quote]Health: It is widely known that AIDS reduces most lives by 50%. A homosexual has a 50% chance of being infected with AIDS by age 30 (source). These figures are not decreasing. While some drugs help quality of lifestyle once infected, there is no “morning after pill” for AIDS.[/quote]

1. In no way does this actually make Homosexuality immoral. If this were true, it would simply make it dangerous.
2. What does it mean to say that "AIDS reduces most lives by 50%?"
3. I have never heard such statistics as "a homosexual has a 50% change of being infected with AIDS by age 30," and I was very curious as to where these numbers came from (such a neat and clean number, 50%!) So, I decided to check the "souce" that was cited.

First off, the source comes from the highly conservative and religious organization NARTH or the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. This organization is highly controversial and is not recognized as legitamite by any major or respected psychological, sociological, or psychiatric organization. They are also strong believers in Orientation Reform, in that sexual preference is a psychological disorder that can be cured by constant, and religious, treatment.

So, now that you have in mind where all this is coming from, let's continue:
The site you quoted said that, by age 30, homosexuals had a 50% change of being infected with AIDS. That site then cites another site to support that claim. This is exactly what that citation reads: [quote]In one study of homosexually active males, aged 20 to 22, 9% were HIV-positive. The percentage infected is expected to increase to 30% by the time this group is 30 years old and 50% by the time they are 50 years old.[/quote]

So, they got the percentages messed up from the citation. How disorganized can you be? How serious can we take this guy now. Beyond that, this site's information seems to be entirely fabricated. How could anyone make such projections? Statistics don't work that way, especially since the percentage of homosexuals contracted with HIV alone isn't even close to fifty today. I did some research myself and found many studies presenting many varied numbers concerning the percentage of the gay populations that are HIV-positive, none of which came anywhere near even 15%.

This study suggested that only 2.2% of homosexual males who are also non-drug users are HIV-positive. And, even this study seems to hold an anti-gay prejudice.

Essentialy, your first concern is irrelevant towards the morality of homosexuality, or the science behind it. But, more importantly, it isn't even true.

[quote]
Conscious: Homosexuality is not natural. Homosexuals can argue the “I can’t help who I love” point until they are blue in the face. It just does not fly. When the first two human beings on this earth found each other, they did not say, “Oh, one of those kind. Darn. Where is one like me?” Homosexuality is developed out of acceptance necessity. Almost all male homosexuals, for example, had a poor relationship with his father.[/quote]

Wow. That's silly.
Hmmm. This seems like your old argument. I strongly refuted such claims in my previous post. Note my strongest points being the summation that homosexuality is indeed natural. A conclusion extrapulated from the data recovered of many years of observed homosexuality is wild, lab, and zoo animals of all kinds of species and type.

Do some research before citing sources. Read a book other than the Bible. Stop going to church for a few weeks or something. In short: stop wasting our time by making nonsensical, passionate, irrational, and fallacious arguments. And, ontop of that, if you're going to participate, stop ignoring our refutations. Come on, Jesus the mother f**king jew on a crucifix. Christ.

[EDIT::Why does this quote thing always have to happen to me! It looks so awful! WAAAA!]

[*Uronacid*]

[quote]
I know people who have been "teabagged." I also know people who have been "beat" and consistently abused by their husbands. All of these people have been through trauma very similar to the trauma you have described. None of these people have exhibited homosexual behavior. In fact, all of these people are heterosexual. I have anecdotal evidence which contradicts completly your own. This should stand to show (1) the weakness of anecdotal evidence, (2) the coincidental nature of your own stories, and (3) the fail of any solid casual relationship being built.

Just because your grandmother and your friend have exhibited homosexual behavior after these events does not mean that their behavior is a direct result of said events. You are fallaciously subscribing a cause and effect relationship when you have no solid evidence to do so. Not only do you have no good evidence to create a causal relation, but you are also doing so inspite of mounds and mounds of contrary evidence. You are being amazingly close minded, sir.[/quote]

Yeah, it just so happens that they exibited homosexul behavior directly after each incident... I don't think im being closed minded... i guess i just find it unfortunate... :/

[quote]
Maybe you should try being smart; being dumb isn't exactly working for you.
[/quote]

I don't think personal attacks are the best way to win a debate... :/

[quote]
I still havn't said it does. Care to actually read my post?
[/quote]

What are you argueing about... "Replying to are people born gay?", this is the topic... if you don't believe there is a gay gene than why are you arguing with me... :/ If you want to have a debate on immoralities of homosexualality... then start a topic and i will be glad to debate you.

[quote]
Kind of like how heterosexual tendencies "start at an early age," and how it is a person's choice as to whether or not they will act upon those tendecies or not?
[/quote]

I'll give you the best example that i can... your not a homosexual so ill give you an example from a heterosexual piont of view. You see a hot chick walking down the road... you know shes a real slut so you decide to the act on your feelings... :P... i feel bead for gay people i feel


[quote]
My first homosexual feeling experience?
I've never had one, bro.
Oh! He thinks I'm gay!
[/quote]

sorry, thought you were gay... >.>

[quote]
That explains alot. So, your true prejudices show. Alright, I understand. It's alot like your argument: You have been taught all your life that homosexuality is wrong, thus you can not imagine a world where it is not, how it could not be, yet you fail miserably when attempting to justify the original belief in the immorality of homosexual behavior.
[/quote]

Don't you think your being a bit predjudivce to me by saying that... :/ isn't that a bit judgmental... morals are all based on piont of view anyways, even your morals are based upon the way you grew up... wether you believed in a god, or did not... it doesnt matter... you cannot argue right and wrong with any one person especially if they don't believe in a standard, or they set their own standard... morals are relevant from one person to the next, and by nature people are natrually selfish. people who develope their own morals base them upon what makes them feel good... :/


[quote]
Hey, pal. That's enough with the arguments from authority. "He said, she said," ain't gonna prove anything here. How about you try thinking for yourself for a change and form an actual argument, or recognize actual argument (like my previous post), or you could just leave the debate thread alone, as you have shown you have no real disposition for actual intelligent discussion.
[/quote]

1. I try not to think for myself, but for others... :/

2. You're doing more "he said she said" than anyone on this forum... so far youahve quoted everything i have said... >.> if thats the case, than your not proving anything either... :(

3. The accually aregument is whether you're born gay or not... i explained why i thought being gay was not genetic... previously you stated that, "I still havn't said it does. Care to actually read my post?" i'm pretty sure you're implying that you dont think homosexuality anything to do with genes... and if you were implying this, then why are you arguing with me about it...

[quote]
Don't assume, for a second, that you have offended me with your opinion. That would be quite a leap and rather too flattering of your character.
[/quote]

well, its hard not to... your personally attacking... calling me dumb, and making fun of my relgion...

[quote]
In comment towards being open to one another's opinions: As you are entirely closed off as you admit to believing in the infallibility of the biblical texts, such a plea for open mindness seems wildly absurd on your part.
[/quote]

To believe in a religion, you can't believe in some of it... you ahve to believe in all of it, i cannot just deny my relgion when i believe it 100% just the same why that you cannot deny your views and opinions that you ahve when you believe in them 100%, i am open minded... im not a gay hater, i'm nice to homosexuals and i respect them... i just don't think the actions preformed are morally right :)

[quote]
There is so much that is wrong with this paragraph that I have no idea where to start or when, if ever, I would be permitted to quit. So, just to put this simply. Your belief that homosexuality is wrong is so unlike an actual ethical position that it should not even be called a moral view. A moral view requires a level of ethical principle. It requires a level of intellectual justification and understanding. Following a commandment just because it is commanded is not a moral action. In fact, it stips, from the behavior of man, an ethical system aside from the value of obedience.

As Ayn Rand once put it, "The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments." Your reflextion that homosexuality is wrong simply because the scripture says so is just a flavor for totalitarianism and nothing more. Don't insult ethics by assuming yourself a morally inclined individual by accepting, with undaunting faith, ancient values from a book over two millenia old. Just stop.
[/quote]

Did you ever read the bible, or try to understand it... its very intresting, even if you don't believe in god, there is some really good wisdom... I know you may not accept all of it :/

[quote]
Wow. So, you consider citing highly biased religious sites as bringing up things that have "nothing to do with a religious stand point." All right, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I should discredit the source simply because it is religiously bias. Let's see what they have to offer.
[/quote]

Instead of tearing down or discridting what i said in that fasion, i encourage you to find some articles are that are jast as equally biased in opinion as the one i set you just in the opposite derection... Maybe leaning towards the positives of homosexuality :)

[quote]
Wow. That's silly.
Hmmm. This seems like your old argument. I strongly refuted such claims in my previous post. Note my strongest points being the summation that homosexuality is indeed natural. A conclusion extrapulated from the data recovered of many years of observed homosexuality is wild, lab, and zoo animals of all kinds of species and type.

Do some research before citing sources. Read a book other than the Bible. Stop going to church for a few weeks or something. In short: stop wasting our time by making nonsensical, passionate, irrational, and fallacious arguments. And, ontop of that, if you're going to participate, stop ignoring our refutations. Come on, Jesus the mother f**king jew on a crucifix. Christ.
[/quote]

I'm not personally attacking you... you should try not to offend the person you're debating... maybe they would want to considder your opinions... isn't the whole piont of a debate to learn from eachother... i honestly don't want to learn from someone who is as insesative (to something that many people care so much about) as you are... i accept people as homosexuals, but i still find what they do is wrong... :/

[NoSex]

I'm not personally attacking you... you should try not to offend the person you're debating... maybe they would want to considder your opinions... isn't the whole piont of a debate to learn from eachother... i honestly don't want to learn from someone who is as insesative (to something that many people care so much about) as you are... i accept people as homosexuals, but i still find what they do is wrong... :/

Way to still ignore my first refutation of all your claims and ignore the question entirely. My personal attacks aren't part of my argument. As you have failed to recognize my actual argument I have decided to attack your character as you seem to be an awful jackass. I have no ills in expressing this point as you have made painfully boring, and slightly irratating, this entire debate. I don't care to offend you or not because you have made rather clear your prejudices and made even more obvious your inability to recognize the opposing side.

I don't care who you are or how insensitive or sensitive you are, if your argument is poor, it's just poor. I don't care if you're religious or not. I'm not going to form an ad hominem to try to prove a point. An argument is all I am really interested in. Character really has no influence on a point. My point still stands, and you have failed to even recognize it. Instead, you have formed numerous ad nauseam run-offs, bits of anecdotal evidence, straw men arguments of psychology, genetics, and my own refutations, you assume correlation implies causation, and more disturbingly you continue to ignore the question.

To make this easy for you: I made a post to refute your claim that homosexuality is not normal or natural. I showed that it is indeed normal, and definately natural. How can your claims hold up to the evidence of observed homosexuality in over 450 species of animals?

And aside from that very strong piece of evidence, care to respond to the rest of the refutation I posted earlier?

[*Uronacid*]

Alright, i'll answer your question. The truth is that animals showing homosexual behavior is just as abnormal and out of the norm as humans doing it. How does a homosexual animal prove that homosexuality is 'normal' any more than a homosexual person proves it? animals can show all sorts of abnormal behavior. I believe that humans are held at a higher standard than animals. we have a soul, and that separates us from the animals. Homosexulaity in animals is just as normal as filicide or canabalism. Those things happen, but they are certainly not normal
Also, this debate is about people being born gay. Meaning there is a gay gene? If being gay isn't a choice how does it continue to exist. Genes don't just re-apear (unless its a mutation). If gay people don't reproduce then how does this gay gene still exist. It seems like these days the homosexual community is cliaming the gay gene exists more than ever. Are we as humans simply evolving into a species that doesn't reproduce? Um... i don't think so...


Becuase you expect me to dissregard half of the things that you say (a.k.a. half the things you say are ment to be personally offensive). Please read and then disregard anything i say below in bold print:
I'll get personal with you:

I'm sick of taking your sh*t. You're the biggest a-hole i have ever been in a debate with. Wow, you called me dumb previously... that proved alot towards your end of the debate. Also, you asked alot of questions. I tried to answer them, but every time i did it seems like i was answering the wrong one, and you were being a complete a-hole to me for making my mistake.
---- You said, "I don't care who you are or how insensitive or sensitive you are, if your argument is poor, it's just poor. I don't care if you're religious or not. I'm not going to form an ad hominem to try to prove a point. An argument is all I am really interested in." ----
Yeah i guess i kind of realized that in the beginning. All you really want to do is argue. Ever wonder why im the only one trying to debate you.? Maybe its becuase everyone else realizes your a comeplete homosexual(oops) when it comes to a debate.
---- You said, "My personal attacks aren't part of my argument." ----
Then why is half of your argument full of personal attacks? Maybe you are, an a-hole... You don't care about anyone's opinions or reasoning exept your own... Your not answering my questions when i ask them either. Your just being critical when i miss answering one of yours. You don't stand anywhere in the argument, you let everyone assume your stand on the argument.

ANSWER MY QUESTION YOU IGNORANT a-hole: DO YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY?!!!


The bible says, "Don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him." i gues i have become like you in the argument... an a-hole :/

Tell me where you stand on the argument of: Do you think people are born gay?

[NoSex]

Alright, i'll answer your question. The truth is that animals showing homosexual behavior is just as abnormal and out of the norm as humans doing it.

[For the sake of argument you may define what you consider "normal." As for me, I have been taking the third installation in Merriam-Webster for debate. Normal 3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>]

How can it be abnormal if it is a natural occurance? Unless you want to make the argument that animals are truly making a conscious choice to be gay (which you would be required to explain), otherwise you would be forced to concede that their sexual orientation is not a choice. Given that their sexual orientation is not a choice, it means that it is a product of nature and is a natural phenomena.

Humans are animals too, we simply have a more complex intellect caused by the size and evolution of our brains. We are capable, unlike non-human animals, of being conscious of our own sexual orientation, but just like our animal counterparts, we have no choice in the matter.

How does a homosexual animal prove that homosexuality is 'normal' any more than a homosexual person proves it?

Because of the very fact that your account that homosexuality is a choice can not be supported in the case of a non-human animal. Your hypothesis seems to state that homosexuality is a kind of forced choice due to psychological trauma. The majority of the 450 species found to exhibit homosexual orientation could not fit into your hypothesis as they do not experience the kind of human trauma you described to me. Most also have an extreme level of diminished consciousness, and simply would not have the brain capacity for such a "choice." Thus, you would either be required to build a new hypothesis to describe the homosexuality of animals, or concede the point that it is indeed a natural (and normal) occurance.

I believe that humans are held at a higher standard than animals. we have a soul, and that separates us from the animals.

Saying that we have a soul seems to only hurt your argument. Wouldn't that mean that animals indeed do not have a choice considering their sexuality? Hence, their homosexuality is not due to a choice and is entirely natural? Also, speaking of souls seems rather meaningless. What is soul? How do you know that? How do you know we even have a soul?

Homosexulaity in animals is just as normal as filicide or canabalism.

This is largely a false analogy. Neither of these behaviors can be equally drawn in relation to a discussion on sexual preference and orientation in non-human animals. Further, cannibalism is non-human animals, observed in nature, is uncommon at best but still a rather natural occurance in many species. Its evolutionary purpose is controversial, but it clearly serves to survival and is intigrated into their habits.

Those things happen, but they are certainly not normal

Actually, in most cases, when they do occur they are indeed normal and natural occurances . Why wouldn't they be?

Also, this debate is about people being born gay. Meaning there is a gay gene?

No scientist truly discusses a single "gay gene" in order to explain something as complex as sexual orientation. Most of the scientific community believes that sexual orientation is largely caused by a great dea of biological factors including but not limited to hormonal, and genetic systems. There is no "gay gene," however there may certaintly be hormonal mechanisms which are triggered by complex biological strutures which are not commonly hereditary. Although nature is much more emphasized in todays understand of sexual orientation, nurture may still play a minimal role in which hormal triggers are set off by enviromental changes.

Studies have shown that their is a strong relation between biology and homosexuality/sexual orientation. Most importantly are the studies which compare identical twins to non-identical twins. Numerous studies have been done and have shown that between identical twins, when one is homosexual the changes of his brother being homosexual is significantly greater than in the case of a non-identical set of twins. This is due to the fact that the identical twins share near identical genomes when the non-identical set has far more varied genetics. Hormonal studies have drawn a correlation; neurological studies draw the same kinds of relations. There is a reason nearly all of the major and respected schools and organizations of psychology, sexual biology, and psychiatry all believe that sexual orientation (meaning homosexuality, and heterosexuality) are not a choice.

If being gay isn't a choice how does it continue to exist. Genes don't just re-apear (unless its a mutation). If gay people don't reproduce then how does this gay gene still exist. It seems like these days the homosexual community is cliaming the gay gene exists more than ever.

Studies have suggested prenatal hormonal influences to sexual orientation, multible biological factors, and hormonal factors which do not require the definition of a strict single "gay gene," or a lineage of homosexuality. The "gay gene," is simply a misinterpretation of genetics and the science and biology behind sexual orientation.

Becuase you expect me to dissregard half of the things that you say (a.k.a. half the things you say are ment to be personally offensive).

I would say half is a highly unfair exageration. But, whatever.

[b]I'll get personal with you:

I'm sick of taking your sh*t. You're the biggest a-hole i have ever been in a debate with. Wow, you called me dumb previously... that proved alot towards your end of the debate. Also, you asked alot of questions. I tried to answer them, but every time i did it seems like i was answering the wrong one, and you were being a complete a-hole to me for making my mistake.
---- You said, "I don't care who you are or how insensitive or sensitive you are, if your argument is poor, it's just poor. I don't care if you're religious or not. I'm not going to form an ad hominem to try to prove a point. An argument is all I am really interested in." ----
Yeah i guess i kind of realized that in the beginning. All you really want to do is argue. Ever wonder why im the only one trying to debate you.? Maybe its becuase everyone else realizes your a comeplete homosexual(oops) when it comes to a debate.
---- You said, "My personal attacks aren't part of my argument." ----
Then why is half of your argument full of personal attacks? Maybe you are, an a-hole... You don't care about anyone's opinions or reasoning exept your own... Your not answering my questions when i ask them either. Your just being critical when i miss answering one of yours. You don't stand anywhere in the argument, you let everyone assume your stand on the argument.

Wow. You seriously didn't get it.

Tell me where you stand on the argument of: Do you think people are born gay?

The question, I don't believe, is to be taken literally. But, I believe people are "born" gay just as much as people are "born" straight. If you believe so strongly that sexual orientation is a choice, care to explain and describe where exactly heterosexual males and females are making these choices?

I believe that both nature and nurture, most significantly nature, hold influence on sexual orientation.
Simply. I hold that sexual orientation is not a choice.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Mr. Uronacid, this is a debate, and there are not only two viewpoints to be presented in said debate. One does not need to believe in a gay gene or a choice, because I don't think that homosexuality is caused by either. Maybe you should read some pages back and see that people are no longer simply answering the question posed at the beginning of the thread, but have made progress in several arguments stating their thoughts and having them refuted, and back and forth, and all you are doing is simply restating the argument that, "This is what this says, so it must be true!", which could happen with any document or statement from any person, ever, and isn't a good explanation for your views on homosexuality because there is no proven truth to back it up. No one here is asking you to denounce your religion or not follow its teachings, but to simply explain WHY both you and your religion are so adamantly against homosexuality. "Because it's not normal" isn't good because, as Acid Bath Slayer has stated and proven several times, it is. It's best to just not say that anymore as it's been proven wrong and is only making you look a little incompetent. Besides, something that is abnormal is not necessarily wrong. It was abnormal for primates to walk on two legs when humans were developing. Do you think all humans are immoral for becoming hominids in the first place? Abnormality does not equal immorality.

[ms.bliss]

Omg, im probobly going to piss alot of people off in this topic, but first off i would like to make a disclaimer. I have many lesbien and gay friends... infact i have a lesbien grandmother who i happen to love very much (there is a difference between loving someone, and loving what they do). I love homosexuals, but i hate homosexuality. Being homosexual is not normal. Not from a societal stand piont (If more than 50% of the population was homosexual it would be.) or a Scientific stand point (we are biologicaly designed to show affection and have sex with the opposite sex.).

Here are some reasons i believe that its a psycological disorder:

- In many cases, homosexuality appears after experiencing severe emotional truama. (examples: My friend jesse, expeirencing extreme pressure in the locker room at his school was threatened with teabagging... after being teabagged he decided he was homosexual, and began a gay relationship. My grandmother after being beaten by her husband could not trust men any longer and looked to be accepted by the opposite sex.)

- If homosexuality is within your genes, then why don't people gravitate towards the same sex as children.

- Also, why do people have to question their sexual orientation if it's in their genes.

I believe being homosexual is a choice. We live in a feel good society. People teach that whatever feels right you should do. This makes the choice easy if you're under pressure to make that choice. I stand here, there’s nothing wrong with homosexuals, but there is indeed something wrong with homosexuality. Homosexuals should be shown the same respect and humanity that any straight person should be shown.
1. homosexuals are not a race. they are a sexual orientation.

2. it seems your agreeing with ellie that homosexuals are born gay, yet you say in your post that we are born with a little bit of an attraction to both sex's. You are contradicing yourself. If you are born with the attraction to both, then you must ahve made the choice to be homosexual at one piont.

I agree. I find is extremely hard to believe that someone is BORN gay. I don't care about what 'studies' have shown. In my psychology class, my teacher said how they used to classify homosexuality as being a psychological disorder and I, too, do believe it's that way.
I don't agree with homosexuality one bit 'cause there's obviously a REASON as to why there are 2 different genders, however, I still do not discriminate.

So yeah, I'm basically reinerating what you've stated.

[Comptine]

I agree. I find is extremely hard to believe that someone is BORN gay. I don't care about what 'studies' have shown. In my psychology class, my teacher said how they used to classify homosexuality as being a psychological disorder and I, too, do believe it's that way.
I don't agree with homosexuality one bit 'cause there's obviously a REASON as to why there are 2 different genders, however, I still do not discriminate.

So yeah, I'm basically reinerating what you've stated.

you say you do not want to discriminate but you classify it as a psychological disorder. i would like you to clarify as to what kinda of disorder you're referring to. i can understand if you believe there's an imbalance of chemicals and crossed signals but there's also a possibility that you mean psychological disorder like... schizos and manias.

[oXMuhNirvanaXo]

nope i dont think people are born gay...

Thats just what I think..

[demolished]

Do you know what i think?

Most little kids never liked someone who are not the same gender as them.

why is that?

when they started growing up, they become attracted to opposite gender. does that means ... most babies were born gay? when they're gay, they were influenced by people that kind of determine their sexuality.

[Stuckie]

The question, I don't believe, is to be taken literally. But, I believe people are "born" gay just as much as people are "born" straight. If you believe so strongly that sexual orientation is a choice, care to explain and describe where exactly heterosexual males and females are making these choices?

I believe that both nature and nurture, most significantly nature, hold influence on sexual orientation.
Simply. I hold that sexual orientation is not a choice.

My opinions are based upon my religious beliefs.

Heterosexuality isn't a choice. You are born with reproductive parts to reproduce. Thats why God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Its that simple. You choose to be homosexual, but your basic instinct is to mate and reproduce with the opposite sex.

[NoSex]

My opinions are based upon my religious beliefs.

Heterosexuality isn't a choice. You are born with reproductive parts to reproduce. Thats why God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Its that simple. You choose to be homosexual, but your basic instinct is to mate and reproduce with the opposite sex.

As this is a debate you may be expected to explain and justify your beliefs and hypothesis. Why do you believe that God made "Adam and Eve?" Sure, you may be basing your opinions on your religious beliefs, but what are you basing your religious beliefs on? Come on, this is a debate. You're wasting people's time by not taking this discussion seriously. If you can't justify your position, I don't really care to hear it. Keep it to yourself. Otherwise, I welcome your refutation of what I, and many others, have already posted. Drop the argument from authority, seriously.

[*Uronacid*]

Mr. Uronacid, this is a debate, and there are not only two viewpoints to be presented in said debate. One does not need to believe in a gay gene or a choice, because I don't think that homosexuality is caused by either. Maybe you should read some pages back and see that people are no longer simply answering the question posed at the beginning of the thread, but have made progress in several arguments stating their thoughts and having them refuted, and back and forth, and all you are doing is simply restating the argument that, "This is what this says, so it must be true!", which could happen with any document or statement from any person, ever, and isn't a good explanation for your views on homosexuality because there is no proven truth to back it up. No one here is asking you to denounce your religion or not follow its teachings, but to simply explain WHY both you and your religion are so adamantly against homosexuality. "Because it's not normal" isn't good because, as Acid Bath Slayer has stated and proven several times, it is. It's best to just not say that anymore as it's been proven wrong and is only making you look a little incompetent. Besides, something that is abnormal is not necessarily wrong. It was abnormal for primates to walk on two legs when humans were developing. Do you think all humans are immoral for becoming hominids in the first place? Abnormality does not equal immorality.

i was raised in the belife that homosexuality is immoral. i can agree to dissagree with you and acid bath slayer. neither of you have "proven anything". the only thing you can do is sway what other people belive and do not believe. I can exlpain why homosexuality is believed a moral sin in the christian religion:

- Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

It is anamobination to the lord, and here was the penalty:

- Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Now, of course this is the old testament. so we can't just jump the gun on this. The rules change in the new testament, becuase jesus is born and dies and the gap between man's sin and God's kingdom is broken. We have to look at some new testament verses.

- Romans 1:24-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

God gave people up the their passions... meaning... they went to hell. He let them follow their own path, and they didn't choose what he had commanded. This is a letter from pual to the curch in rome. At the time chirstians in the church of rome were lost in sexual sin. Romans back then had alot of sex... tons... like, it was nuts... so paul had to wright about it telling them what God had told him what was right and what was wrong.

there are other verses in the blble other than these, but they require more understanding of the scriptures.

From a biblical stand piont, God made men to be with women and women to be with men. He aparently considers it to be an abomination for men to use their bodies the wrong way. The bible does not command us to hate homosexuals. We shouldn't have a problem with them doing their thing.

There are some religous sections of the christian church that interprate the bible to say that homosexuality is ok. Yes, this is very plausible... It's also not an essencial part of the christian religion. The most important thing is that you love Jesus> if you love Jesus(God)> you will obey his word and keep his commandments to the ebst of your ability. Interpreting the scripture is important when you want to obey him, becuase if you don't you won't know what he says about the many different topics that come up all arounf you. Look if you truley belive that loving Jesus is being a homosexual. Then thats fine. Personally, for me loving Jesus is choosing to believe that it's not ok. I will not risk interpreting the scripture the wrong way. It's better to not do it at all than to find out that its wrong when I try get to heaven. why take the risk of doing something that could be so wrong that i could goto hell. Plus, I love women I have a beautiful girl friend that I love.

The bible does not say to hate homosexuals, but the bible does give the impression that homosexuality is a sin. Some may interpret the bible differently, but as for me homosexuality is a moral sin. I will continue to respect homosexuals, but i believe that they are risking the chance of going to hell for their own sexual desires.

I beleive that people become homosexuals base upon the environments that they grow up in. the bible says:

- Pro 22:6, Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

This doesn't refer to just children it goes for anyone. Your environment is want trains you as a person. Your parents, your friends, your co-workers, your teachers... pretty much anyone or anything you respect will have an influence on your opinion training you to become to person that you will be. So, in some ways homosexuality is not chosen. even from a biblical prospective.

[NoSex]

i was raised in the belife that homosexuality is immoral.

I was also raised in such a belief. However, such a fact is irrelevant to this debate. Unless, of course, you wish to further highlight your own personal prejudices. By all means.

i can agree to dissagree with you and acid bath slayer. neither of you have "proven anything". the only thing you can do is sway what other people belive and do not believe.

On the contrary. We have proven several things:

1. Homosexuality is a natural occurance.
2. Homosexuality is not a choice (at least in non-human animals)
3. Homosexuality has strong biological influence.

I can exlpain why homosexuality is believed a moral sin in the christian religion:

You say you can, but you have not yet explained anything. I read your "explanation." As if it were anything that I hadn't already known. What you did was build an ad nauseam argument and pretend it was an explanation. All you really did is tell me that the Bible says it is wrong - God does not agree with it - but you gave me no moral justification or explanation as to exactly why God would not agree with it, or exactly why the Bible would say it was wrong.

Why is it wrong? What, inherently, is wrong about homosexuality or homosexual behavior? Cut the argument from authority mubo jumbo, seriously.

I beleive that people become homosexuals base upon the environments that they grow up in.

Then when do we see that homosexuals grow up in and live inside many different enviroments. For example, a boy may grow up to be a homosexual despite a strict catholic up bringing, in which he was consistently told that homosexuality is a grave sin and that he would go to hell if he were to become one. This boy, contrary to the influence of his enviroment, still can not help his homosexuality. It can not be cured. No matter how much he hates himself for his sexual preference, he can not will himself to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. In vain, he dates and has sexual relations with women. However, he remains a homosexual, and in later years, he reveals his dark secret and begins a life of painful shame.

Despire an enviroment which is strongly against homosexuality, homosexuals still exist. They may even believe in God and hate themselves for their "sins." Your enviroment hypothesis just doesn't seem to cut it. If it were true, we wouldn't see good christian boys, living in strong christian communities, exhibiting homosexual behavior. Or, at least, not as much as we do.

This doesn't refer to just children it goes for anyone. Your environment is want trains you as a person. Your parents, your friends, your co-workers, your teachers... pretty much anyone or anything you respect will have an influence on your opinion training you to become to person that you will be. So, in some ways homosexuality is not chosen. even from a biblical prospective.

Although enviroment can have a strong influence on who you are, it can not do many things. Or, it can only effect certain things to a minimal level. For example, if I were to move into an entirely black community, and grow up there, and live my entire life there, my skin would not darken and I would not become african american myself. Because, skin color is determined by the genome. Sexual preference isn't exactly something an enviroment could easily transform. And, even if an enviroment has an effect on one's sexual orientation, it is minimal and coupled with stronger biological influences. Either way, it is not a choice. No one consciously chooses their sexual orientation.

And, you seem to be conceding the point that maybe homosexuality, in certain cases, is not a choice. Which seems frightening for me to hear you say. This is frightening because Sodom and Gomorrah, this is frightening because christianity views homosexuality as a mortal sin. If homosexuality wasn't a choice, how could it be a sin? How could God hold someone morally responsible for something they never had a choice in?

But, let's not get side tracked. Why exactly do you think that homosexuality is a choice? Or do you think that? What do you think? Oh, and how about you start to try to refute some of my claims and propositions or concede the point. Thanks.