<p>
</p>
<p>Sheed,</p>
<p>You are straight, right? If you are, tell me if you can “switch” and become attracted to men. Do you have that power? I don’t know you can have so much control on attraction. Please let me know how cos I think it’s an awesome skill to have!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We have already established that this cannot be an argument.</p>
<p>Find me an “Arab” Muslim who love being harassed.</p>
<p>Find me a Jew that loves to be harassed.</p>
<p>Find me anyone of any minority that loves to be harassed.</p>
<p>No-one wants to be harassed.</p>
<p>Just because you are harassed does not mean that it changes who you are, what you believe, and what you choose to do with your life. nobody loves being harassed for who they are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>okaaaaayyy…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I’m straight. I don’t think I can switch who I’m sexually attracted to. I still don’t think you have understood my posts completely.</p>
<p>It’s not all like, O, i’m going to wake up and have sex with a guy today…ummm… nah, that one chica was looking fly last night, let me get up on that. That’s not how anything works at all. It’s just what I’m attracted to. It’s like food in a way (I understand how *****ty this argument is but im going to post it anyway because I feel cool for coming up with it by myself). Some people like certain types of food and others don’t. You doooo choose what foods you eat and what you like, and where you grow up and your culture and environment all are factor connected to the food you like to eat and enjoy eating. Now, you do have a choice to try other foods and stuff, but…let’s say you dislike that food. While you are able to eat that food, you don’t because you aren’t “attracted” to the taste. Some like Italian, some like Chinese. I know my parents love Italian because they grew up in Libya, but they absolutely abhor any chinese food at all. I on the other hand growing up in America love chinese food and can’t get enough of it. My environment changed and while i didn’t just make a choice that I’d like chinese over Italian, it’s still a choice. I can choose to like a certain food…kinda</p>
<p>you feel me? awesome skill huh?</p>
<p>i think janetlover had the best of intentions starting this thread, but i KEEP SAYING, i can’t believe my eyes. THERE IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THIS! THESE PAGES ARE POINTLESS, AND I THINK WE’RE JUST FUELING AND REINFORCING A LOT OF DISTURBED HOMOPHOBES! some of you really scare me about the future of our upcoming generations.</p>
<p>I thought you weren’t going to return to this thread. And I find it extremely offensive that you call ma homophobe when I have never said anything bad about homosexuality in this entire thread. You’re scared about our generation? yea…maybe because you all messed up our generation’s economy and now we have to fix it all up…I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t go around just calling us names when you have absolutely no basis for them.</p>
<p>Ummm Sheed did you skip Intro. to Biology? Genetically identical doesn’t equal phenotypically identical. Different factors go into how genes are expressed, whether they are there are not. One of my best friend’s identical twin is gay, and the differences are pretty obvious - he’s got less facial hair, a smaller build and a higher natural voice than my (straight) roommate. </p>
<p>Besides, you would have a hard time explaining away the fact that you’re statistically more likely to be gay if you have older brothers EVEN IF you are raised in a foster home with no knowledge of that fact.</p>
<p>edit: and you’re misunderstanding the “harassment for being in the minority argument.” Gay people can be so tormented by their lifestyle that they commit suicide; people are just saying that on its face, it seems ridiculous to argue that somebody would just invent all that trouble for themselves in the name of being different.</p>
<p>okay…since I don’t remember a lot about biology i won’t argue about what you’re saying, since i wouldn’t know how to defend myself.</p>
<p>
If you looked at my previous posts</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>even in places where they are not tormented about their lifestyle, they still committ suicide.</p>
<p>Okay, here we go, since you wanted to do this point-by-point sheed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, no one cares about the minority because the minority don’t have any power. eg. Ralph Nader</p>
<p>The example of women giving birth was a hypothetical example. It was not suppose to be a realistic example. The point I was trying to get across was that if there were more homosexuals, people would be more accepting of them. Since there are so few, it is easy to call them sinners, weirdos, diseased, etc. </p>
<p>
The threadstarter was asking for your opinion on whether homosexuals are born that way or choose to be that way. It is obvious he was not asking for a clear-cut answer because there is not enough information out there.</p>
<p>
You seem to be arguing that homosexuality is a choice, so I argued back.</p>
<p>
So wait, you expect people to change their religion when their life is at stake? People who die for their religion consider themselves martyrs and think they will go straight to heaven. If they abandon their religion, they believe they will go to hell. Homosexuals wanted to take a stand for what they were, just like the Jews.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Identical twins’ traits and physical appearances are not exactly the same; although they have identical DNA</p>
<p>you haven’t read anything I’ve written. Go back and read.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yah, except I quoted you, and then gave responses. Or maybe you should clarify yourself, like I’ve had to a few times.</p>
<p>hahaaa…you quoted part of everything I wrote and everything is out of context…whatev…i’ll explain everything to you…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yea, because blacks still pick out cotton and shine the white-man’s shoes. Right? No-one cares about minorities. And if no-one cares about minority why do you care at all about homosexuals?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He asked us to explain ourselves…that’s what I did…if evidence supporting my views isn’t explaining myself, then what is?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was agreeing with your post when I wrote that. Go back and look at it. you wrote: “I believe that there is not enough scientific data at the point” And I said I AGREE THAT IS WHY I AM ALLOWED TO BELIEVE IT’S A CHOICE!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’ve looked at my past post about twins, that is exactly what I was trying to say. If you actually bothered to press the links you would have read that what I was agreeing with was
</p>
<p>thank you very much :D</p>
<p>I took it out of context? They were direct responses to my statements. </p>
<p>
We have had to put affirmative action in place in order to make the minorities compromise a viable part of the government and have a role in it. Look back a couple hundred years and nobody cared about them, the minority. In fact, they were subhuman. </p>
<p>
Nope, you did not explain it yourself, and have yet to come up with an opinion. You are regurgitating other people’s opinions, not building one on your own. That is the difference between you, and the rest of the people in this thread. Other people were intelligent, and formed their own opinion. You used a search engine, found articles that closely resembled your argument, and pasted them here. Anyone can do that. </p>
<p>
Sure, there isn’t enough scientific data on it yet, but that does not mean we cannot argue our points. Right now I am arguing which seems more credible: choice or born with. </p>
<p>
Sorry, right now I am just responding to points directly against me, what you say to anyone else does not really matter to me, nor do I bother reading. Unlike you, I know what is directed towards me and what is not. </p>
<p>walloftext.jpg
I refuse to read these huge articles or posts that were not written by you. Form an opinion, and if there is an argumentation on the factual backing of your opinion, then look up a source, and then summarize it.</p>
<p>I’ve written my opinion …go back and read.</p>
<p>you have no idea what you’re talking about…im not going to argue with you.</p>
<p>Well dang, if you just want to have an argument of two people flaming each other, then maybe you should go back to 5th grade</p>
<p>what???</p>
<p>you said I didn’t write my opinion. I have, and then some one didn’t understand, and I explained it again…what do you want? tell me what YOU want, so i can give it to you…dayumm kid!</p>
<p>Yes, I don’t believe you have coherently written your opinion. It should be along the lines of “I believe that homosexuality is [blank] because of these reasons…” not, “look at these articles which show why I am right.”</p>
<p>What does someone not understanding it have to do with the argument between you and me?</p>
<p>"
No, not at all. It just came out that way, my bad. There are obviously biases all around. My fault, man.</p>
<p>Anyways, that was an amazing post by glasses. That was a fairly accurate post of a few of the things we have been arguing about. Thanks for posting that. Even though I still disagree with your end result .
"</p>
<p>Well thanks, Sheed. Even if I’m a girl :).</p>
<p>I do like that this argument has left religion for research involving identical twins. And that spammers have mostly disbanded. But I still vote biological (which doesn’t mean entirely <em>genetic</em> but rather affected by genes, gene expression (phenotype), and gestation).</p>
<p>"
<p>Actually, according to a video I watched in Bio this year (I know, I know, it’s so unfair that my sources genius haha–except I think this was actually from one of those credible TV nerd channels like Discovery or something), choice of mate is not random. You know how mutts are the healthiest kinds of dogs, and inbreed purebreds have all sorts of problems (just like inbred humans like Czar Nick’s family with hemophilia)? Well, to prevent that from happening to the world at large, our brains “match” us with those genetically opposite. It’s super-crazy stuff. See, the chemicals in our body (which are expressions of our genes) lie on a circular spectrum. Scientists did these studies, and people pick mates who are chemically opposite them on the spectrum, so that subconsciously, we DO choose our mates to make better offspring. (They did tests where people smelled others’ musk, looked at their faces, etc.)</p>
<p>Now, Sheed’s problem with this is that identical twins should be chemically identical, and therefore should pick the same kinds of mates. But as other posters have said, identical twins express genes differently. This isn’t, as Sheed said, a result of the environment post-birth (like being born in Libya–I think where he said his parents were–makes you like or dislike certain foods) but is instead a result of the environment post-fertilization (when the genes for twins are identical) but pre-birth (where the genes have mostly set in how their express themselves). In other words, all this happens in mommy’s tummy. </p>
<p>Like another poster (Daggoth?) said, identical twins may hook up to the placenta differently, get different shares of mommy’s umbilical fluids, whatever. All of this will affect how the twins express their genes by altering, however slightly (especially compared to far more different non-identical twin sibs), the chemicals in their body. They will settle into different spots on the “chemical spectrum,” and therefore be attracted to different kinds of mates. This isn’t something one chooses, unless of course the twins made a CONSCIOUS decision to beat one another out for the Best Placenta Juice. Yum. But I don’t think kids have a conscious identity until like two years.</p>
<p>"
Twins are like two pies made
from the same recipe
they look similar, but not
exactly the same.
Think of it this way–when I bake an apple pie, it turns out a little different each time. The shapes of the apple pieces are never quite the same. Maybe the stove is a little hotter, or I add slightly more sugar. Maybe a distraction like the phone ringing keeps me from taking it out of the oven exactly when I planned."</p>
<p>No kid chooses to “cook” a certain way in mom’s womb, just like no pie says, “Gee, I really hope mum makes me extra-sugary! That way, I’ll be attracted to fellow apple pies instead of blueberry.” (Sheed, I think that analogy was almost as good as your food one. 
Which I didn’t actually understand. Oh well.</p>
<p>@glassesarechic</p>
<p>Helpful tip: use <quote> and </quote> (replacing the "<"s with "["s and the ">"s with "]"s) to quote someone. It makes posts more understandable.</p>
<p>Anyway, Sheed, read [url=<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=full]this[/url”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=full]this[/url</a>] (though this study may have been previously discussed):
So if identical twins (who share almost all genes) are more likely to be gay together than fraternal twins are, genes or pre-natal natural conditions obviously must play a role. If the environment were the sole cause of homosexuality, as you may or not be suggesting (I really have no idea), then one would expect identical twins and fraternal twins to share the same percentage of gay-togetherness, as both identical twins and fraternal twins raised together share the same environment. This is not the case.</p>
<p>The only difference between identical twins and fraternal twins is that the former have the same genes. Homosexuality must be in part genetic.</p>
<p>most twins are raised in the same environment…haven’t read the study yet…but i’ll look over it…</p>
<p>Sheed,</p>
<p>I like your food analogy. I like it even though it’s flawed because it’s coming out of your own thinking. ;)</p>
<p>
If you didn’t make a choice, how is that a “choice”?</p>