homosexuality- born that way or choose to be that way?

[anon43256521]

<p>

aren’t we all a little gay?

</p>

<p>haha reminds me of [YouTube</a> - Science, evolution, and creation: Ali G vs Kent Hovind](<a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8]YouTube”>http://youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8)</p>

<p>3:20 in, although the whole thing is great</p>

[Sheed30]

<p>nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, </p>

<p>ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, undred, undred, undred, undred, undred, undred, undred, </p>

<p>point nine nine nine eight</p>

<p>without blowing up</p>

[ruca]

<p>undred</p>

<p>derdnu</p>

<p>krishna</p>

<p>ok cool :D</p>

[TheF]

<p>Michigan’s kinda like Hawaii… to a paraplegic</p>

[ruca]

<p>Cool. Michigan’s my dream school. Were you in-state? Hm and what’s it like with legs?</p>

<p>Someone was questioning why in the world a person would do something like become gay just so they could be oppressed and alienated?</p>

<p>I have an answer.</p>

<p>

Originally written by The Eurythmics
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

</p>

<p>Note the underline sections. Based on this extremely credible source, I believe the radical evangelists posting here have a point. Hm.</p>

[ryanwaslike]

<p>I’d like to discuss/debate the idea that a person’s sexual identity, or more specifically, their heterosexuality or homosexuality, is something that is decided largely by their genetic makeup rather than a matter of choice.</p>

<p>Point: There has never been any conclusive evidence that a “gay gene” exists.</p>

<p>Counterpoint:
First, the much criticized evidence of a “gay gene”
<a href=“http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/c...ull/1993/806/1[/url]”>http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/c...ull/1993/806/1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

A team at the National Institutes of Health took family histories from 114 gay men and noted that the men tended to have gay relatives on the mother’s side of the family, but not on the father’s side. This tendency, confirmed in interviews with relatives, suggested a trait passed on by mothers exclusively, which in turn suggested a gene on the X chromosome. Using genetic mapping, the team found that a set of five genetic markers at the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome were identical in 33 of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers. This finding indicates with more than 99 percent certainty that a gene associated with homosexuality lies in that area of chromosome X.

</p>

<p>I say that the study is “much criticized” because for some time, other similar tests were done which yielded less convincing results. Also, there were some conclusions made by some of the spokesmen for the study which were unwarranted by the data.</p>

<p>Second, the findings of a study which re-examined the claims of the previous study. This study was done after the unraveling of the human genome in 2001. This allowed the researchers to “widescan” their test subjects, which allowed them to better search for trends or the lack there of.
[DrThrockmorton.com[/url</a>]</p>

<p>

• The researchers found 3 locations in the genome where self-identified gay and bisexual brothers share DNA sequences between 8-12.5% greater than expected by chance.
• In one location, 7q36, the gene sharing was great enough to be considered suggestive that the DNA sequence might be close to a gene that controls or influences sexual orientation.
• The other two regions where sharing was greater than chance did not reach a level of sharing that would permit the researchers to say the location may be linked to a potential gene influencing sexual orientation. However, the researchers reported these regions because they cannot absolutely rule out that a gene influencing sexual orientation might be involved or close by.</p>

<h2>• In examining region Xq28, the study did not find linkage in the full sample. However, the reanalysis of the prior work of Hamer (1993) found a highly suggestive linkage in that sample of subjects. The authors speculate that perhaps Xq28 could implicated in the development of sexual orientation for some people and not for others.</h2>

<p>• The study did not find genes that directly organize the brain to respond sexually to those of the same sex.
• It did not specify what genes may actually be involved in sexual orientation.
• It did not provide any specificity in how the DNA locations identified could impact people to develop sexual attractions of any kind.

</p>

<p>Conclusion:
Though we do not know if any one gene alone influences a person to practice homosexuality or have homosexual feelings, or where that gene may be located if it does exist; we can say that there are multiple genetic traits which homosexuals share to a degree that is too great to easily assume the trend is a result of chance. We can also say that while we’ve largely disproven the idea of a single gene or set of genes which cause homosexuality, we have found a “highly suggestive” set of genes which may cause homosexuality in some, but not in others.</p>

<p>Point: Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so if there were any genetic traits that caused homosexuality, they would be weeded out over time.</p>

<p>Counterpoint:
[url=<a href=“Injured bees tend their own wounds, which suggests they feel pain | New Scientist”>Injured bees tend their own wounds, which suggests they feel pain | New Scientist]Article</a> Error - New Scientist](<a href=“http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=129]DrThrockmorton.com[/url”>http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=129)</p>

<p>

Camperio-Ciani’s team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.</p>

<p>Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.

</p>

<p>Conclusion:
Though homosexuals cannot reproduce, the genes which have been linked to homosexuality have been found in the x chromosome, and are therefore carried and transmitted by the straight mother. Also, the above study yielded results that suggest that the mothers and aunts of homosexuals men, on average, have more children than the mothers and aunts of straight men.</p>

<p>

We think of it as genes for ‘male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring.
This also suggests that even if the homosexual offspring of a woman carrying this genetic trait may be an end to the genetic line himself, the mother is more likely to have more children, each carrying the x chromosome which might carry the genetic trait.

</p>

<p>Lastly, I believe that it’s unlikely that homosexuality is a result of choice, since the resulting effects of choosing homosexuality over heterosexuality expose a person to treatment which most humans would rather avoid.
Why would a person choose to be homosexual, knowing full well that he will be ridiculed, hated, shunned and possibly put in danger? There are examples of people choosing to act or dress in a way which welcomes ridicule, however, those people, in my own experience, are proud of their choice.
This is not necessarily the case for all homosexuals, because there are examples of self-hating homosexuals.
Examples of “closet” homosexuals, who commit suicide to avoid exposure to the aforementioned ridicule and disapproval, or because they believe they’re evil, expose that homosexuality is likely not the result of choice. I am unable to see why a person would choose to have certain feelings, but then end their life instead of choosing to return to heterosexuality.</p>

<p>If you choose to take the time to respond to the facts above I’d like to request that you try to keep points involving morality out of your rebuttal. Not that those feelings are right or wrong, but they don’t serve to further an argument.</p>

<p>Thanks for reading.</p>

[Sheed30]

<p>nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom</p>

<p>kitty wanna eat</p>

[operasinger2000]

<p>I hate that people debate this topic.
Why does it matter? Of course I know there are people who are genuinely interested in the scientific ways in which certain genes can dictate someone’s sexual preference. But, the chances are that most of the people who debate this, don’t actually care about that stuff.
My problem with this topic is that being homosexual is something that people go crazy over. People are always wondering - is he gay? is she bi? There are even television shows on how to “figure out if someone is gay” based on the way they dress, act, or just live their lives.
I don’t mean to lump all the people in this thread together into the category of those people in the media who are simply promoting stereotypes, and I certainly don’t want to start a fight. But, why do people have this conversation at all? Can’t you just let people have their own choices in matters like this? I know this topic is “interesting” as it is probably the only thing that could be a gene or a personal choice. But, shouldn’t it be the people who are actually gay to respond to these questions, or even to come up with them?
And please, stop making homosexuality sound like a disability that is a hardship. Being gay might be harder for some people to deal with than being straight because it isn’t considered “normal”. But by saying that, you simply make yourself sound like someone who causes pain for those people, instead of trying to stop it.
Live your own lives and let people live theirs.</p>

[salamander]

<p>

But, shouldn’t it be the people who are actually gay to respond to these questions, or even to come up with them?

</p>

<p>Allow me.</p>

<p>I would never have chosen to be a lesbian, and I did try to deny it for a while. I read stereotypical girl magazines and tried to ogle the shirtless, muscular boys, I went on a couple of very awkward dates with boys, I kept trying to convince myself that all I was doing when I looked at a girl was admiring her from an aesthetic viewpoint, not one of sexual attraction. Guess what? None of it worked. I tried to choose to be straight, so that there would be available boys to date (the lesbian dating pool in small towns like mine is pathetic at best) and I wouldn’t anger my conservative Roman Catholic family, but I couldn’t choose. I don’t think anyone can. You can try to deny it, but you are what you are.</p>

<p>

And please, stop making homosexuality sound like a disability that is a hardship.

</p>

<p>I’m kind of confused by this statement. If you mean “stop making it sound like a disease,” then yes, for the love of God, stop. It’s not a disability or a disease- from my point of view, it’s like preferring brown-haired people to blondes. But if you meant that we should stop referring to it as a “hardship,” um, no. Homophobia exists. There’s a fair amount of it in this thread. It is hard to know that people who don’t even know you hate you, think you’re the scum of the earth, because of who you love. It’s even harder when people who do know you feel this way. It’s not easy, and that’s an important point in this debate- if we could choose, wouldn’t we all choose to be straight?</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>

I hate that people debate this topic.

</p>

<p>So what the **** are you doing?</p>

<p>

Can’t you just let people have their own choices in matters like this?

</p>

<p>Uuuuuhhh, in case you haven’t noticed (and you haven’t), that’s exactly what we’re trying to do. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, there are religious people, conservatives, etc. who are disgusted by everything other than heterosexuals. There’s no logic involved; their entire position is based on morality and pathos. They have no evidence whatsoever except a ridiculous interpretation of the bible to justify their little rants. </p>

<p>Thus, these people don’t “just let people have their own choices in matters like this.” They attempt to infringe upon the rights of others. </p>

<p>[Birds</a> Of A Feather | The Daily Show | Comedy Central](<a href=“The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - TV Series | Comedy Central US”>The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - TV Series | Comedy Central US)</p>

<p>I found a funny video. :)</p>

[Sheed30]

<p>

Unfortunately, there are religious people, conservatives, etc. who are disgusted by everything other than heterosexuals. There’s no logic involved; their entire position is based on morality and pathos. They have no evidence whatsoever except a ridiculous interpretation of the bible to justify their little rants.

</p>

<p>I have posted more times in this thread than anyone on CC, and I’m happy to say I never brought up religion or morals…I don’t think…ever…what are you talking about? Go back and read.</p>

[thelonius]

<p>Actually, if I could choose (which I can’t) I don’t think that I’d choose to be heterosexual. I realize that some parts of my life would be easier if I were, but I actually quite like myself as I am.</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>Someone just made the argument that all gay people were probably abused as a child.</p>

<p>What do you guys think about that?</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>Oh, hey, I actuallly found some stuff, oops.</p>

<p>Leviticus 18:22 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Romans 1:26-32 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and and were inflamed with lust for one another. men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boa****l; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
1 Corinthians 7:18 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”</p>

<p>Ouch! Whatever. When logic and religion collide, I’m going with logic.</p>

[arachnophobia12]

<p>what’s logic to one is rubbish to another…</p>

[thelonius]

<p>I’m gay. I was never in any way abused as a child. Of the probably twenty gay guys that I’ve either dated or been really close friends with (close enough that something like being abused as a child would have come up) I don’t think one of them was abused. </p>

<p>I really can’t believe that people are making that argument. (There were a few studies done that showed that in the 1950s and 60s … but their sample population consisted entirely of gay men who were in prison or were seeking therapy to turn straight … hardly an accurate sampling by any means.)</p>

[_lt_o]

<p>Saying that gays were abused as a child is absurd and false.

also I think there is an important distinction between participating in homosexual behavior and actually being gay…Those people that are religious fanatics but still gay that “change their orientation” are doing nothing more than suppressing their sexual desires and putting on a facade of being “straight.” I’m sure someone could convince themselves that they will become straight or something and try to participate in only heterosexual behavior and avoid homosexual behavior; fact is that the homosexual tendencies are still down inside them somewhere.

</p>

<p>I agree with you. I’m gay and during puberty I tried to change to hetero. Church people said I could change, and made me get involved in hetero activities and treated me as if I were hetero. What all these did is just make me lie to myself. At first, my homo tendency seemed to be gone for good, but then they would crop up again and again from time to time. And it’s embarrassing to say this, but I never get a hard-on by looking at even the most good-looking women (I don’t even know for sure what the standard for good-looking women is), but only men, and this happens regardless of my will.</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>

I don’t think…ever…what are you talking about? Go back and read.

</p>

<p>Obviously, sheed30, I was not referring to you specifically. However, now that you mention it, let’s travel back in time and see what bull**** you may have posted.</p>

<p>

I mean come on, the obese sometimes say that it’s because of genetics they turned fat,

</p>

<p>uuuhhhh, actually, that is a factor. There is research supporting this, much more conclusive than any research on homosexuality. However, the fact that there is so much obesity in the U.S. proves that it’s also ‘what we eat’ and ‘how much we exercise.’</p>

<p>

I think the obese, if they really really wanted to go and try, they could become “not obese” with the right amount of help and exercise.

</p>

<p>I don’t think we really understand the similarities and differences enough between the two topics to be comparing them. </p>

<p>

Dude…why are you comparing humans to animals. You think homosexuality is animal behavior and people who are homo are animals? How dare you! how dare you! Animals! <em>insert mean joke here</em>!

</p>

<p>I hope you’re being sarcastic.</p>

<p>

That’s all that matters. People are not born gay.

</p>

<p>Why don’t you state that again for all the homosexuals on this thread? Go ahead. Tell them that they chose to be gay.</p>

<p>

Hahaha…if you diss on people who read the bible and what they beleive in they can diss on you and what you beleive in…I’ve never read the bible so i don’t know anything about it</p>

<p>'nuff said…

</p>

<p>You don’t know anything, do you?</p>

<p>

The next two links are actual research that DISPROVES that homosexuality has anything to do with genetics according to recent studies.

</p>

<p>Emphasizing the search a ‘gay gene’ is grossly oversimplifying the complexity of the human genome. </p>

<p>Did you actually read your own links? You just proved for everyone that homosexuality is related to genetics. Go back and read.

As had been reported previously, the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus 3 (INAH-3) was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also found by LeVay (1991) to be more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This suggested that sexual orientation has a biologic substrate.

The linkage to markers on Xq28 had a multipoint lod score of 4.0, indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99% that at least 1 subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.

Bocklandt et al. (2006) found that the number of women with extreme skewing of X inactivation (greater than 90%) was significantly higher among mothers of homosexual men (13 of 97 mothers; 13%) compared to mothers without homosexual sons (4 of 103 mothers; 4%). The findings were stronger for mothers with 2 or more homosexual sons (10 of 44 mothers; 23%). Bocklandt et al. (2006) suggested that the X chromosome plays a role in regulating male sexual orientation, and noted that allelic differences in the X inactivation center (see 314670) may cause primary nonrandom X inactivation.

</p>

<p>

God doesn’t have any children.

</p>

<p>You must be very bold to make that assumption since you already said earlier that you never read the bible. According to Christianity, we, humans, are God’s children. </p>

<p>

LOL. Hey Sheed, did you actually read the last two links you posted?

</p>

<p>Oh, somebody caught him before I did. No, obviously, he did not really read those links.</p>

<p>

umm…what did that last sentence say? That’s exactly what I thought…don’t say isht till you read everything…I love it when people make stupid comments…including myself

</p>

<p>Well, you make a lot of stupid comments, so you must loooovvvve yourself. </p>

<p>

Allele and haplotype sharing for these markers was not increased over expectation. These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.

</p>

<p>First of all, this is just one study.
Second, if you notice the first sentence. It says “not increased over expectation.” This means that allele and haplotype sharing did marginally increase in the X-linked genes with homosexuals; however, it didn’t increase enough in order for the researchers to make a reliable conclusion. Thus, they state that “results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” because it doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it disapproves it.</p>

<p>Creating BS to support your position while ignoring all other evidence is a nice way to keep an argument going, but it’s not going to score very many victories.</p>

<p>

Scientists disproved it and ALL across, the scientists and psychologists all believed that it was disproved.

</p>

<p>Wrong! As everyone here can now see, it’s just you.</p>

<p>

I don’t understand where you guys are getting your BS info from.

</p>

<p>uh, dumb***, Aristotle just took those quotes from your links. So, your links are BS?</p>

<p>

I show you the research of people against it, but you’re not showing me isht. case closed. please show me proof.

</p>

<p>Well, you just did. But, okay, if you insist. I’ll get to it. I can tell this is going to be long thread.</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>

A comprehensive breakdown for the compromised mind

</p>

<p>This entire post is BS. Its length merely makes it more pathetic.</p>

<p>

Homosexuality is not just another alternative lifestyle or even a sexual “preference;” it is unhealthy and destructive behavior which negatively impacts individual persons

</p>

<p>lol</p>

<p>

Homosexual activist and molecular biologist Dean Hamer’s study claiming the existence of a homosexual gene has been scientifically discredited. Studies that claim to prove homosexuality is genetic have been purposefully designed from a homosexual advocacy perspective and seek to convince society that homosexuality is innate, psychologically normal, and thus socially desirable.

</p>

<p>How is it discredited? Yes, he’s homosexual, and he wants to find the gay gene; this raises questions about the validity of the research, but does not change the validity itself. That can only be achieved through careful inspection and analysis of the results from Dean Hamer’s research. The article says that Dean obviously had a pro-gay agenda, yet these editors themselves obviously have an anti-gay agenda, so its not like they have some sort of reliability advantage.</p>

<p>

Although individuals who experience homosexual attractions and thoughts may not have chosen these tendencies, they do have a choice as to whether or not they will act on the feelings.

</p>

<p>I was going to research this stuff, but perhaps I don’t need to since you provide us with all the evidence we will need. </p>

<p>This is typical homophobic rhetoric. Yes, we know that you didn’t choose to be gay, but you can choose to not be gay. Just refrain from having sex with other members of the same gender and constantly think about women with nice boobs or guys with cute butts. </p>

<p>

What a person does (behavior) should never be equated with what a person is. No human being can or should be reduced to his or her sexual impulses. Impulses cannot compel behavior or identities without a person’s consent. If people “are” their actions, then what does that say about the thief, the anorexic, the prostitute, or the marathon runner?

</p>

<p>What the ****? This article seems to admit that being homosexual is not a choice, but it’s not genetics. They are comparing homosexuals to prostitutes! As if that is even remotely comparable. </p>

<p>

Reputable studies and decades of successful treatment show that homosexual behavior can be changed.

</p>

<p>Powerful statement, but no examples. For every successful change of sexual orientation (almost all of which are absolutely fake), there are hundreds that fail.</p>

<p>

Special rights should not be given to individuals because of their sexual behavior.

</p>

<p>LMAO</p>

<p>

Statistics clearly show that homosexual behavior is destructive and bears high costs, not only to the individual, but to society. Homosexual behavior has implications far beyond the bedroom. Last year the U.S. government spent billions of dollars on AIDS treatment, research and programs. AIDS in the U.S. is largely a homosexual disease stemming from unhealthy sexual practices.

</p>

<p>AIDS is not a ‘gay’ disease. It infects heterosexuals in the same way, just as easily. The fact that more homosexuals get AIDS means nothing.</p>

<p>

professionals who persist in viewing and treating homosexuality as a changeable condition are labeled unenlightened, prejudiced, homophobic, and unethical.

</p>

<p>Like you!</p>

<p>Wait, let me stop here for a second. If you are not a Christian, then how can you, as an individual, believe that homosexuality is a detriment to society? Homosexuality is simply attraction to the same sex. It does not entail doing more drugs or committing more crimes. In order for gays to be an ‘inherently’ negative influence, you must have to believe that homosexuals themselves are…………inferior. </p>

<p>Right sheed? </p>

<p>You **** me off. And it ****es me off even more that you can find sources from your fellow homophobes to support you.</p>

<p>Also, if you are not a Christian, then you obviously agree that humans are animals. No?</p>

<p>I guess those penguins “chose” to be gay.</p>

[butterbattle]

<p>

I never brought up religion or morals

</p>

<p>You never brought up morals? Lieing to yourself.</p>