Homosexuality Is Not A Choice

a reply to: kaylaluv

Funny how the "homosexuality is a choice" crowd always balk at the idea that they chose to be straight.

a reply to: Pardon?

If your son watched gay porn and were around gay people all of the time he would in fact develop gay characteristics, Just as white children growing up in black neighborhoods develop black characteristics.

Environment and Stimuli plays key roll in the development of everyone.

Environment even plays key roll on any side we may choose. We may choose to be a Bully, We may Choose to be Submissive depending on which stimuli key fits our lock in those Environments

Peer Pressure, Curiosity, Parental oversight, Psychology of an individual, Group association. Environmental conditions, Opportunity

originally posted by: SPECULUM
a reply to: Pardon?

If your son watched gay porn and were around gay people all of the time he would in fact develop gay characteristics, Just as white children growing up in black neighborhoods develop black characteristics.

Yeah... sexuality doesn't work like that. Do you feel a bit gayer now there's been a lot of coverage of LGBT rights lately? Yes/no [delete as applicable].

originally posted by: SPECULUM
a reply to: Pardon?

If your son watched gay porn and were around gay people all of the time he would in fact develop gay characteristics, Just as white children growing up in black neighborhoods develop black characteristics.

Environment and Stimuli plays key roll in the development of everyone.

Environment even plays key roll on any side we may choose. We may choose to be a Bully, We may Choose to be Submissive depending on which stimuli key fits our lock in those Environments

Peer Pressure, Curiosity, Parental oversight, Psychology of an individual, Group association. Environmental conditions, Opportunity

Developing "gay characteristics" doesn't mean someone is gay.

Just like using random capital letters doesn't make your "argument" any less wrong.

a reply to: GetHyped

Because they have had gay thoughts and have chosen not to act on them.
Either Bi or hiding in the closet I bet.
I have asked loads of people at work this question straight and gay not one said yes.

a reply to: SPECULUM

So why is it that children of straight parents, who had no access to gay porn, other gay people, or any other gay stimulus, still turn out gay?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SPECULUM

So why is it that children of straight parents, who had no access to gay porn, other gay people, or any other gay stimulus, still turn out gay?

Typically overbearing mothers and / or cold, abusive fathers.

a reply to: Seamrog

Have you made the choice to be straight or not..

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SPECULUM

So why is it that children of straight parents, who had no access to gay porn, other gay people, or any other gay stimulus, still turn out gay?

Typically overbearing mothers and / or cold, abusive fathers.

[citation needed]

originally posted by: Helious
What claims am I making that need to be backed up by a google link? My first and last post in this thread was simply that everything in life is a choice. You wan't me to give you a link to back that up? Pffffff....... Ok......

Let's see. When you say:
~ "Homosexuality only occurs when others view you as a homosexual"
~ "Yes, actions do determine a persons sexual orientation."
~ "Biology makes you nothing but alive and conscious. The person you are and what you are labeled are a direct result of the choices you make in life." [in reference to sexual orientation]

These are pretty strong claims that you have yet to give any evidence for other then "Well it's just logic and I am right because I am right!"

They go against everything that psychology and biology state, so clearly you must have SOME kind of evidence for these outrageous claims. I don't need "Google link" (although that would already be much more than you have yet to provide to this thread), A peer reviewed scientific paper for any single one of your claims will suffice.

originally posted by: Helious
You are the one saying I have been hypocritical?

Uh, yeah... look at these examples and quotes of what you have said...

~ "People may be pre disposed to liking the same sex, opposite sex, children or animals, who knows."

Which you've stated a number of times now, and then you say stuff like...

~ My first and last post in this thread was simply that everything in life is a choice.
and
~ The person you are and what you are labeled are a direct result of the choices you make in life.
and
~If you view yourself as homosexual before you make the choice to be homosexual, that is only happening in your own mind and only matters to you alone, it makes you nothing until you make the choice to become that to observers.

You can't have it both ways. You're personal opinion is either "Everything is a choice" or "people are predisposed to specific attractions"

Hence why I said you are a hypocrite.

And by the way, you've never once responded to anyone here to justify this conflict when members in this topic have realized just how conflicting your statements really are. Why is that?

originally posted by: Helious
The scientific community does not view homosexuality in humans to be biological, it views certain species lesser to humans to have innate homosexual tendencies.

"Species lesser than humans?" a bit arrogant are you?

Well if you actually take time to read my posts I state that the general scientific community leans towards biological properties as being the main, if not the sole cause of homosexuality. Want proof? I stated that on Page 6.

originally posted by: Helious
Stating that mainstream science understands the underlying issue of homosexuality is disingenuous because we both know it does not an there is as much "Scientific" evidence that claims that homosexuality is a disorder of the brain as there is to claim it is "biological".

Again, I never stated that science understands the underlying issues of Homosexuality. Although you're free to find a quote of me saying that to actually back your claim (we all know how much you like to back your claims with evidence)

Also, your facts are entirely incorrect. Homosexuality is not a disorder... again, here's my proof (where's yours?)

A quote from Dr. Max Wiznitzer, A pediatric neurologist on the changes in DSM-5:

“Homosexuality used to be in the DSM as a psychiatric disorder; that was two versions ago,” Wiznitzer said. “Autism wasn’t even in the first two versions of the DSM, it was childhood schizophrenia. Then we changed the criteria over time. Basically anytime you change something, it’s always met with resistance.”

Need any more proof? Here's the actual DSM-5 for you to review.

www.terapiacognitiva.eu...

Isn't it enlightening when someone actually backs their claims up with evidence?

originally posted by: Helious
There is in point of fact absolutely zero credible evidence that it has ANYTHING at all to do with genes or DNA, that point that you brought up is complete fallacy.

Is that so? because I actually have given a number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that back up my claims. If it really is a fallacy then you must also have research papers that show the research I gave was false in some manner.

Where is your evidence? Or is this just another "I'm right because I'm right" incident of yours?

originally posted by: Helious
What in the hell are you talking about? Everything I have said is completely consistent with everything else. I have not "thwarted" my own claims because I claim nothing more than self evident truth. A person is a sum of the choices they make. Yes.... I have certainly undone myself with that claim!

Right, ok, so when you stated.... "People may be pre disposed to liking the same sex, opposite sex, children or animals, who knows." that in no way goes against your position of "people are solely a product of their choices"

I and many others here have asked you "at what point in my life did i get to choose my natural eye color, height, hair color etc." Care to answer that?

So even with all the support that We do not choose our sexuality people are still using excuses and reasons that have been proven false, and yet still no one can tell me why you ant to win this debate so much?

Sorry for the delayed reply Navydoc, I've been a bit busy. Here's your response now

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So by your logic, extending invertebrate behavior to humans, pedophilia would be natural and normal? The very article you posted said they tried to copulate with pupae, which would be analogous to children, yes? Who knew ants had NAMBLA?

That is absolutely correct, Pedophilia has been known to be an intrinsic property to many individuals, AKA they were born to be attracted to prepubescent children. Of course, in many other cases a person could be psychologically damaged by specific events, just like anything else, no one is denying that. Nevertheless, many Pedophiles are born Pedophiles just like any other sexual orientation.

Does this dictate "Normalcy?" Well, considering the word "Normal" in scientific terminology and in psychological terminology is an extremely inappropriate word to use due to it's vague representation, I cannot really comment on that without you further elaborating on your intention for that word.

I'm going to assume you mean "acceptable" or at the very least "statistically sound", but I would still like your official view on the subject. Pedophilia isn't an action, it's an definition to a specific attraction. Most people confuse "Pedophilia"
with "Child Molestation", which is simply a gross misrepresentation. Most molestation cases are not committed by pedophiles. I can elaborate if you wish.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Now, lets get down to the article. THE article is about "mate guarding" where the ant will try to prevent opposing males from inseminating the females they have inseminated. This "embracing" (called this because there is not true sexual contact) of male to male is actually a competitive behavior that prevents the rival make from inseminating and thus spreading their DNA and this "embrace" quite often kills the rival male.

I'm not denying that the article states that. What your issue seems to be is that you seem to belief Homosexuality can only occur when one individual has sexual contact with another individual of the same gender. 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.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So behavior done, not out of "same sex attraction" but out of competition and it lessens where there are more females so there is less need to fight over the ones that are there.

Why you do not consider behavioural responses alone to be a representation of homosexuality is beyond me. Perhaps you need to do more research.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So the guarding ant climbs on a pupa in case it is a female and if so he gets the first chance to inseminate but if the pupa happens to be male, the new male dies--it's not "making love" it's killing off the competition.

Once again, it is still homosexual behavior.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
And perhaps the most important part form the article's conclusion

I not denying that either. The exact definition of Homosexuality is: a romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. Despite potential cases in mistaken identity, it would still dictate sexual behavior between members of the same gender.

It is well known Homosexuality in insects is very likely to be a result of mistaken Identity. Again, I'm not denying that, Would you care to choose another case that's more well-documented to prove your point? or are you simply going to assume that this must be the case for all creatures and incidences?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Because if it is a isn't a choice it can not be a sin can it? being born who you are, it would be like being born with green eyes a sin so they have to tell us it is a choice even though they are very wrong about it.
It is so they can continue to look down on others with righteous smuggness.

a reply to: boymonkey74

It would be interesting to know if anyone of these "It's a choice" people are religious or not. Although I can also see it simply being the case of extreme misrepresentation or simply a misunderstanding

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: SPECULUM
a reply to: Pardon?

If your son watched gay porn and were around gay people all of the time he would in fact develop gay characteristics, Just as white children growing up in black neighborhoods develop black characteristics.

Yeah... sexuality doesn't work like that. Do you feel a bit gayer now there's been a lot of coverage of LGBT rights lately? Yes/no [delete as applicable].

No. I have no identification sexually with the same sex...Plus..Eeeww

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SPECULUM

So why is it that children of straight parents, who had no access to gay porn, other gay people, or any other gay stimulus, still turn out gay?

That you are aware of?

a reply to: boymonkey74

If it's a "choice" we can get denied Equal protections because we made that "choice" and so why should we get special protection.. if it was a Choice though the entire world would be Bisexual i wonder if people would be willing to accept that?

a reply to: SPECULUM

Would that then not justify the rebuttal against your initial claim?

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.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: SPECULUM

Would that then not justify the rebuttal against your initial claim?

I never had homosexual influences, as i spent most of my life from childhood with or around Women

As an adult working in the employment industry in southern California, i was subjected to large homosexual populations where these subjects were frequently discussed, where i base my hypothesis from Objectively