Homosexuality Is Not A Choice

a reply to: SPECULUM

Ah, I see.

Is it at all an issue for your consensus when there is research in, say, twin studies, where both twins were subjected to the same environmental factors, yet one happens to be homosexual and the other does not? I'm just trying to understand your position a bit better

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: anotherdaytoday

I would like you to prove this to me. I would like for you to make the choice to be attracted to someone of the same gender for the next year. I'm not even asking for you to be attracted to them for life. Just one year. Prove to me that it is possible. Okay?

I'm sure many people in life had sexual confusion at one point or feel attracted to a specific person of the same gender (making one bisexual at least). I can say I had myself weird feelings (at least in my mind). But I stopped that urge, ignored it, focused more on the other. Somewhen the sexual thoughts disappear and you see the other beings just as likeable people, but not as sexual objects. You define yourself. I don't say it's easy to overcome it and it takes some time, but the mind has a lot of power.

Maybe it's nature's way of population control. Just a showerthought.

a reply to: anotherdaytoday

Bisexual and homosexual are not the same thing. When you are homosexual, you will never be attracted to the opposite sex, no matter how hard you try. Same as a heterosexual will never be attracted to the same sex, no matter how hard they try. You can't do it. No way, no how.

a reply to: Ghost147

This is not the case, courtship alone can be an exhibition of homosexuality. Attraction alone can be an exhibition of homosexuality. Not everything needs to lead to actual sex.

However, when we are talking about invertebrates, behavior is what we have to go on. What are you going to do , ask them?

Once again, it is still homosexual behavior.

NO it's not--not unless you consider killing the object of your desire part of being homosexual.

The exact definition of Homosexuality is: a romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

Right. And how do we know ants have attraction and are not just trying to eliminate the competition? Invite them in for some cocoa to discuss their feelings?


Anthropomorphizing invertebrate behavior to humans is simply not logical. The very article you provided did not even hint that this was homosexual behavior. They explained it quite clearly as behavior designed to both kill rivals and keep the results of their own matings safe as well as get the first opportunity to mate with a female thus ensuring their genetic code passes on. That those with agendas wish to try to shoehorn this into human behavior is also illogical.

originally posted by: ckhk3
Maybe it's nature's way of population control. Just a showerthought.

The only issue with that concept is that the Homosexual population within different species is ever variant. Some species exhibit very few homosexual tendencies, and others almost solely show them. There also doesn't seem to be any statistical evidence to show an increase or decrease in population per group within the same species in accordance with the number of homosexual individuals. (to my knowledge at least)

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Ghost147

This is not the case, courtship alone can be an exhibition of homosexuality. Attraction alone can be an exhibition of homosexuality. Not everything needs to lead to actual sex.

However, when we are talking about invertebrates, behavior is what we have to go on.

Yes, I understand that. That is why the researchers equated homosexuality out of the guarding behavior of the male pupae. The mating behavior is the same with male-females as some of the males did with the males. That is the Homosexual action that occurred.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
NO it's not--not unless you consider killing the object of your desire part of being homosexual.

Yes it is, and it was concluded in article itself.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Right. And how do ants have attraction and are not just trying to eliminate the competition?

Again, it isn't up to just sex and attraction, perhaps you should re-read the definition as it also includes sexual behavior as well, which the ants did indeed exhibit.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Anthropomorphizing invertebrate behavior to humans is simply not logical.

You're more than welcome to choose another example out of the list which more closely relates to Homo sapiens, such as a mammal, if you would prefer.

I'm not sure why you're picking individual cases to prove your point anyway. If we see homosexual behavior in a number of other animals (that is far more obvious than within the ants), does that not still prove that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon?

originally posted by: maybee

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: bucsarg They may have found the nature part in nature v. nurture. I am not understanding why it wouldn't be 'natural', genetic traits are natural. This could possibly contribute to the curbing of out of control population?

I know families that have two or more autistic children.

My apologizes. That reply was for another post. I'm having iPad problems today.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: anotherdaytoday

Bisexual and homosexual are not the same thing. When you are homosexual, you will never be attracted to the opposite sex, no matter how hard you try. Same as a heterosexual will never be attracted to the same sex, no matter how hard they try. You can't do it. No way, no how.

In my opinion that's a poor excuse for not having the sexual drives under control. A mind can also suppress the urge to masturbate every moment it sees an object of attraction. So it should be possible to suppress the urge of being attracted to the same gender. I mean... where are we if everyone #s around everything what isn't on the treetop in 3 seconds?

When justifying homosexuality by saying "but they can't do anything against it", other can also justify paedophilia, sodomy, incest by the same phrases. By reasoning however these people could convince their own self that it is not right and that it's unnatural - which it actually is. And when they have done it, they can focus on that what is right or natural, namely someone of the same species of the opposite gender.

This might be more diffcult to realize in the current time where people are confused on a daily basis about life and purpose, and especially in teenage years. But later on in a more mature age they should have educated themselves ... or hopefully someone else did, about what is right and what is wrong.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Ghost147

This is not the case, courtship alone can be an exhibition of homosexuality. Attraction alone can be an exhibition of homosexuality. Not everything needs to lead to actual sex.

However, when we are talking about invertebrates, behavior is what we have to go on.

Yes, I understand that. That is why the researchers equated homosexuality out of the guarding behavior of the male pupae. The mating behavior is the same with male-females as some of the males did with the males. That is the Homosexual action that occurred.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
NO it's not--not unless you consider killing the object of your desire part of being homosexual.

Yes it is, and it was concluded in article itself.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Right. And how do ants have attraction and are not just trying to eliminate the competition?

Again, it isn't up to just sex and attraction, perhaps you should re-read the definition as it also includes sexual behavior as well, which the ants did indeed exhibit.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Anthropomorphizing invertebrate behavior to humans is simply not logical.

You're more than welcome to choose another example out of the list which more closely relates to Homo sapiens, such as a mammal, if you would prefer.

I'm not sure why you're picking individual cases to prove your point anyway. If we see homosexual behavior in a number of other animals (that is far more obvious than within the ants), does that not still prove that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon?

The problem is that one is extrapolating one behavior, with a myriad of other logical explanations, to fit a preconceived notion. When one sees homosexuality in any sort of cooperative behavior or mounting behavior or competitive behavior or dominance behavior as homosexual and sees it in that light, EVERYTHING becomes "proof" and as you said above--the effort is to prove homosexuality as "natural" and thus the observer bias it to frame all observed behavior as such and as you clearly do here--even trying to shoehorn the killing of male rivals into your "proof" which is illogical.

I'm not saying that it isn't "natural" what I'm saying is that one cannot make such definite conclusions from the observed behavior and one most definitely cannot extrapolate that to what human beings consider "homosexual."

Science is better than that and should be above ideology.

Finding behavior you claim as being "homosexual" in several species does not prove anything about homosexuality in humans because all of those species have a variety of different behaviors that have other reasonable explanations other than homosexuality--an example being the paper you selected for debate. Interesting certainly, but not "proof."

In fact, until one can find a way to talk to the other species and they tells us what they feel and why they do what they do, we really will never have "proof" for the hypothesis because, as you say, homosexuality is not defined by observed behavior, but by attraction.

originally posted by: anotherdaytoday

In my opinion that's a poor excuse for not having the sexual drives under control. A mind can also suppress the urge to masturbate every moment it sees an object of attraction. So it should be possible to suppress the urge of being attracted to the same gender. I mean... where are we if everyone #s around everything what isn't on the treetop in 3 seconds?

How about no one "suppresses" anything and you just keep your nose out of other people's private business.

When justifying homosexuality by saying "but they can't do anything against it", other can also justify paedophilia, sodomy, incest by the same phrases. By reasoning however these people could convince their own self that it is not right and that it's unnatural - which it actually is. And when they have done it, they can focus on that what is right or natural, namely someone of the same species of the opposite gender.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be "justified", and certainly not to bigots like you. Thankfully, the world is starting to wake up to this.

This might be more difficult to realize in the current time where people are confused on a daily basis about life and purpose, and especially in teenage years. But later on in a more mature age they should have educated themselves ... or hopefully someone else did, about what is right and what is wrong.

No one cares what you think is right or wrong. You are a relic of a (soon to be) forgotten, shameful era of bigotry. Your opinions on the topic are increasingly becoming sidelined and ignored because what people like you have to say about the private lives of others simply isn't worth listening to.

If this were 50 years ago I'd imagine you'd be posting exactly the same thing about segregation and interracial marriage with all your faux moralizing and pumped up righteous indignation .

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The problem is that one is extrapolating one behavior, with a myriad of other logical explanations, to fit a preconceived notion. When one sees homosexuality in any sort of cooperative behavior or mounting behavior or competitive behavior or dominance behavior as homosexual and sees it in that light, EVERYTHING becomes "proof" and as you said above--the effort is to prove homosexuality as "natural" and thus the observer bias it to frame all observed behavior as such and as you clearly do here--even trying to shoehorn the killing of male rivals into your "proof" which is illogical.

Again, if you don't accept one of the more obscure instances of Homosexuality, you're more than welcome to choose to focus on a species that has exhibited a number of Homosexual traits; Giraffes or Koalas, for example.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I'm not saying that it isn't "natural" what I'm saying is that one cannot make such definite conclusions from the observed behavior and one most definitely cannot extrapolate that to what human beings consider "homosexual."

I wasn't aware that there was a difference between what humans consider Homosexual and what we view Homosexual actions in nature to be.

Could you elaborate on "What human beings consider Homosexual" to be?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Finding behavior you claim as being "homosexual" in several species does not prove anything about homosexuality in humans because all of those species have a variety of different behaviors that have other reasonable explanations other than homosexuality--an example being the paper you selected for debate. Interesting certainly, but not "proof."

If memory serves me correctly, it was you who chose the paper to debate on, not me. Again, you are more than welcome to choose one that is more straight forward and less up to the interpretation of the viewer.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
In fact, until one can find a way to talk to the other species and they tells us what they feel and why they do what they do, we really will never have "proof" for the hypothesis because, as you say, homosexuality is not defined by observed behavior, but by attraction.

When did I say that? I stated that Homosexuality is not ONLY defined as one thing.

a reply to: Ghost147

You said it was attraction to the same gender, even absent the sexual act.


By your logic, if you see me greet my dad with a hug and a kiss, that is evidence of homosexual behavior.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Ghost147

You said it was attraction to the same gender, even absent the sexual act.


By your logic, if you see me greet my dad with a hug and a kiss, that is evidence of homosexual behavior.

Why you believe my logic states that a form of greeting dictates a homosexual behavior is beyond me. Again, you are more than welcome to choose a more significant case to discuss if you wish. or are you simply here to troll now?

a reply to: andy06shake

Seriously...I agree with you. Homosexuality is "bad" because theoretically it produces no offspring? But war, hate, & violence are "natural" and are tolerated on a large level by "normal" people. Normal people produce the offspring that will be killed in large numbers in the next silly disagreement over race, religion or territory. Survival of the species is not assured by homosexuals not existing. It is assured with intelligent actions by humans.

There is no threat of homosexuality decimating the population in this age anyway. Even if EVERY person on this planet mysteriously became gay overnight, they still have the technology to reproduce. And as far as the issue of "deviance" goes - there is plenty of deviance going on in "straight" relationships - and I'm not even going to go there...

a reply to: EveStreet

Oh, and for the record I'm straight. I just can't comprehend the fuss...

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: SPECULUM

Ah, I see.

Is it at all an issue for your consensus when there is research in, say, twin studies, where both twins were subjected to the same environmental factors, yet one happens to be homosexual and the other does not? I'm just trying to understand your position a bit better

Don't get me wrong, there are biological instances where women are born in men's bodies and visa versa, or people having multiple sexual organs and so on, Just as there are people who are missing body parts and born retarded. Abnormalities in the human condition Happens...For some we have no clue? for others we know exactly why, but the fact remains that a defect from what is known as normal in nature is a Defect

originally posted by: Helious
Yes it is. Everything in life is a choice. That's not a debate, it's fact.

U.S. Presidential candidate Ben Carson got raked over the coals, and was forced to retract and repent for saying that. But since he's now a politician, it's unlikely that B.C. really changed 60 years of belief, in just one month.

originally posted by: SPECULUM

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: SPECULUM

Ah, I see.

Is it at all an issue for your consensus when there is research in, say, twin studies, where both twins were subjected to the same environmental factors, yet one happens to be homosexual and the other does not? I'm just trying to understand your position a bit better

Don't get me wrong, there are biological instances where women are born in men's bodies and visa versa, or people having multiple sexual organs and so on, Just as there are people who are missing body parts and born retarded. Abnormalities in the human condition Happens...For some we have no clue? for others we know exactly why, but the fact remains that a defect from what is known as normal in nature is a Defect

I'd pay to watch you say that to the straight parents of their gay offspring.

"We'll ma'am, your child is defective...".

Something is certainly Defective but it's not gays...

Everything in life is a choice except for purging wastes. Even eating food to live is a choice. Autonomous bodily functions are the only things you can't choose to do. Lying like the thread title was also a choice. Continuing to live is also a choice.

If lying to yourself is your choice, then do so. After all, it is your choice. Right or wrong, that is for each to decide and live or die with the consequences.