Prove me wrong Phobes, a challenge, I'm calling you OUT.

[Trevorocity]

Do you have any evidence of this? I am under the impression that homosexuals have many more extra-relationship encounters than heterosexuals do.

I don't have extra-relationship encounters, and neither does my boyfriend (I'd dump him if he suggested it). Take that as you will. Granted we've only been together for about a year and a half so over time that may change. Fidelity is a bit harder for men as any Promise Keeper will tell you.

 

[BigBadWlf]

But those things are not biologically driven in us. Sex is to reproduce. Sure, it can also be for fun and for connection but those things go against our amygdala. The point is solid, we are hard wired to reproduce. Wanting sex for any reason other than to reproduce goes against that basic, ancient instinct. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make the point that we are basically genetically heterosexual a sound one.

And if we are supposed to accept homosexuality because the penguins do it, I'm going to eat my babies so my wife will want to have more sex with me, after all, mallard ducks and lions both do that.


I didn't see unnatural. The implication was that reproduction is what our genetic code states, you editorialized with the unnatural.

Penguins don’t eat their offspring.


Were you compelled to consider murdering your children when the civil rights act was passed? After all it compelled you to accept racial equality

 

[BigBadWlf]

Do you have any evidence of this? I am under the impression that homosexuals have many more extra-relationship encounters than heterosexuals do.

The research says the opposite is true

 

[DieHappy]

Nonsense. You eat your babies, and you'll probably be locked up for murder and/or severe mental illness. Pointing out that homosexuality occurs in nature is usually a defense against those people who say that homosexuality isn't natural, point one. It is natural, by definition, because it occurs in nature, and has been observed in hundreds of species, including humans. Point two, is that homosexuality isn't inherently harmful. Eating babies obviously is harmful. Your last statement is here balony.

Eating babies is natural as well. Keep your government out of my house!!!!!

I really don't understand why people try to blame genetics. Own your choices. If you're not happy, change. This whole argument about "I'm a victim of my genes, I have to be gay forever" smacks of a depressed population searching desperately for an excuse.

The research says the opposite is true

What research? Back up your claims.

 

[Trevorocity]

I really don't understand why people try to blame genetics. Own your choices. If you're not happy, change. This whole argument about "I'm a victim of my genes, I have to be gay forever" smacks of a depressed population searching desperately for an excuse.

Fine, I'll choose to be homosexual even if they can change genetics (and I'll kill anyone who attempts to force change upon me in self-defense). Happy now?

 

[Maren]

But those things are not biologically driven in us. Sex is to reproduce.

Sorry, but no. It is interesting that humans are one species that are not biologically driven to reproduce. We are merely biologically driven to have sex -- there is nothing in males or females that makes us only have sex when reproduction is possible like in many other species.

Sure, it can also be for fun and for connection but those things go against our amygdala.

Again, science is showing this to be false. Rather, current brain studies are finding differences in the hypothalamus and amygdala between homosexual men and heterosexual men, as well as between homosexual women and heterosexual women. As such, homosexuals no more "go against" their amygdala than you go against yours. In fact, it appears that changing gays to have sex with the other gender is going against their amygdala.

The point is solid, we are hard wired to reproduce.

And again, in humans this is false. In cats it is true, ever see the way tom cats are all drawn by a female in heat? Further, in humans an infertile woman still desires sex and others can still desire her, even infertile males and females desire sex. In many other species, if a female is infertile then in almost all cases males do not have a sexual interest in her.

Wanting sex for any reason other than to reproduce goes against that basic, ancient instinct. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make the point that we are basically genetically heterosexual a sound one.

Human history shows this to be false. Humans throughout history have wanted sex for any number of reasons, though love is a typically stated reason. I've never seen a play or movie where a person said, "I feel a need to reproduce, so let's have sex". Rather, reproduction is more often seen as an unwanted side effect.

And if we are supposed to accept homosexuality because the penguins do it, I'm going to eat my babies so my wife will want to have more sex with me, after all, mallard ducks and lions both do that.

I didn't see unnatural. The implication was that reproduction is what our genetic code states, you editorialized with the unnatural.

Ludicrous argument. It is amazing how Christians will talk of how homosexuality is not "natural", then when shown that it is natural they or another Christian will bring ask "do we kill our young since it is natural, too?"

Whether something is natural or not does not make it right or wrong. We use corrective lenses to improve eyesight, we drive and fly in metal machinery which actually harm nature; yet none of these things is considered immoral.

And if we don't want to emulate animals, as you seem to be suggesting, then I guess we should not have sex at all, especially to reproduce, and quit eating since Mallards do that to -- and obviously everything they do must be evil. Or so your point would appear to claim.

Rather, the truth is we do things based partially on biological wiring, such as the urge to sex. Though we use our reason to both temper our biological urges (we don't have sex everytime and everyplace we feel excited) and to attempt to reject urges we view as harmful to ourselves and others. Smokers will often try to stop smoking since they know that it is harmful to themselves. We temper our rage and anger (or at least most try) so that we don't murder or inflict injuries on others. Your problem is that there is no evidence homosexuality causes any harm, at least other than your interpretation of a religious book.

 

[Maren]

Eating babies is natural as well. Keep your government out of my house!!!!!

I really don't understand why people try to blame genetics. Own your choices. If you're not happy, change. This whole argument about "I'm a victim of my genes, I have to be gay forever" smacks of a depressed population searching desperately for an excuse.




What research? Back up your claims.

To quote from a previous post by BigBadWlf:

Two studies (and unlike what you present these were published in peer reviewed journals and involving actual human beings)
Fay, R. Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 1989 (243): 338-348 found that the a mean number of heterosexual sexual partners at 7.3 per lifetime and the a mean number of homosexual sexual partners at 4.6 per lifetime.
These findings were confirmed in a later study Billy, JO. The sexual behavior of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 1993 (25): 52-60 found that the a mean number of heterosexual sexual partners at 7.4 and found that the a mean number of homosexual sexual partners at 4.2.

 

[cantata]

I really don't understand why people try to blame genetics. Own your choices. If you're not happy, change. This whole argument about "I'm a victim of my genes, I have to be gay forever" smacks of a depressed population searching desperately for an excuse.

I agree with you, although I probably draw different conclusions.

I see nothing wrong with not being straight, and I don't feel the need to make excuses for non-heterosexual people on the grounds that they were born that way, or that it was out of their control one way or another. As a hard determinist, I happen to think that absolutely everything is out of our control, but of course there are different kinds of ways in which things are determined - and I also believe that it is unhelpful to think of ourselves as helpless.

If anyone is miserable being gay, then I don't think anyone should stop them from trying to change. Of course, I don't think there are many good reasons for them to feel miserable about their sexuality, because I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay. But I find it very uninspiring to simply blame things on genetics and leave it at that, without getting into a discussion about what it's actually like for this or that person to be gay. If someone is unhappy, I fully support them doing something about it, and although in my opinion changing their sexuality needn't be the first port of call, I also don't like the idea that there are things about oneself that are impossible to change.

 

[DieHappy]

Sorry, but no. It is interesting that humans are one species that are not biologically driven to reproduce. We are merely biologically driven to have sex -- there is nothing in males or females that makes us only have sex when reproduction is possible like in many other species.



Again, science is showing this to be false. Rather, current brain studies are finding differences in the hypothalamus and amygdala between homosexual men and heterosexual men, as well as between homosexual women and heterosexual women. As such, homosexuals no more "go against" their amygdala than you go against yours. In fact, it appears that changing gays to have sex with the other gender is going against their amygdala.



And again, in humans this is false. In cats it is true, ever see the way tom cats are all drawn by a female in heat? Further, in humans an infertile woman still desires sex and others can still desire her, even infertile males and females desire sex. In many other species, if a female is infertile then in almost all cases males do not have a sexual interest in her.



Human history shows this to be false. Humans throughout history have wanted sex for any number of reasons, though love is a typically stated reason. I've never seen a play or movie where a person said, "I feel a need to reproduce, so let's have sex". Rather, reproduction is more often seen as an unwanted side effect.

You are describing the frontal lobe separating us from the animals, not human biological drives.

Ludicrous argument. It is amazing how Christians will talk of how homosexuality is not "natural", then when shown that it is natural they or another Christian will bring ask "do we kill our young since it is natural, too?"

Please show me where a Christian said homosexuality wasn't natural in this thread. Rather, what really happened, was homosexuality was defended as being natural on the basis that animals do it.

Whether something is natural or not does not make it right or wrong. We use corrective lenses to improve eyesight, we drive and fly in metal machinery which actually harm nature; yet none of these things is considered immoral.

Agreed, seems like the homosexuals might want to stop defending themselves on the basis that it's natural, then.

And if we don't want to emulate animals, as you seem to be suggesting, then I guess we should not have sex at all, especially to reproduce, and quit eating since Mallards do that to -- and obviously everything they do must be evil. Or so your point would appear to claim.

Except you missed my point because you either didn't read the thread or are blinded by predjudice and now are the one being "ludicrous."

To quote from a previous post by BigBadWlf:

First one:

The prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men are key components of models of the spread of HIV infection and AIDS in the U.S. population. Previous estimates by Kinsey et al. from data collected between 1938 and 1948 have been widely criticized for inadequacies of sample design. New lower-bound estimates of prevalence developed from data from a national sample survey conducted in 1970 indicate that minimums of 20.3 percent of adult men in the United States in 1970 had sexual contact to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] with another man at some time in life; 6.7 percent had such contact after age 19; and between 1.6 and 2.0 percent had such contact within the previous year. Although these estimates incorporate adjustments for missing data, the likelihood of underreporting suggests that these estimates might be lower bounds on the prevalence of same-gender sex among men. Two sets of alternative estimates are derived to assess the sensitivity of these estimates to the assumptions made in imputing values to missing data. Detailed estimates are presented by frequency of contact, age, education, and marital status; and supporting estimates are derived from a 1988 national survey. Data from both the 1970 and 1988 surveys indicate that never-married men are more likely than other men to have had same-gender sexual contacts within the last year. The 1970 survey also indicates, however, that approximately half the men estimated to have such contacts are found among the more numerous population of currently or previously married men.

A 38 year old survey? And 19 years later the full text still isn't available so the numbers presented can't be backed up. I wonder if wlf has ever read the study.

The second one:

A nationally representative study of the sexual behavior of men aged 20-39 in the United States shows that the prevalence and frequency of sexual acts (vaginal, anal and oral) and sexual orientation vary by social and demographic characteristics. Analysis of data from 3,321 respondents to the 1991 National Survey of Men reveals that 95% of men have had vaginal intercourse; among them, 23% have had 20 or more vaginal sex partners in their lifetime. About one-fifth of never-married and formerly married men had four or more partners over a recent 18-month period. However, 41% of never-married men and 32% of formerly married men did not have coitus during the four weeks preceding the interview. Only 20% of men have ever engaged in anal intercourse. Among these, 51% had not done so during the previous 18 months, and 90% had not done so during the previous four weeks. Seventy-five percent of men have performed oral sex and 79% have received oral sex, although 53% of men who ever performed oral sex had not done so during the four weeks prior to interview, and only 11% had done so six or more times. The frequency of receiving oral sex is similar. Only 2% of sexually active men aged 20-39 have had any same-gender sexual activity during the last 10 years, and only 1% reported being exclusively homosexual during this interval.

Says nothing like wlf seems to think it says. Again, the full text isn't available, even for a fee, which is specious.

Might want to try again.

I agree with you, although I probably draw different conclusions.

I see nothing wrong with not being straight, and I don't feel the need to make excuses for non-heterosexual people on the grounds that they were born that way, or that it was out of their control one way or another. As a hard determinist, I happen to think that absolutely everything is out of our control, but of course there are different kinds of ways in which things are determined - and I also believe that it is unhelpful to think of ourselves as helpless.

If anyone is miserable being gay, then I don't think anyone should stop them from trying to change. Of course, I don't think there are many good reasons for them to feel miserable about their sexuality, because I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay. But I find it very uninspiring to simply blame things on genetics and leave it at that, without getting into a discussion about what it's actually like for this or that person to be gay. If someone is unhappy, I fully support them doing something about it, and although in my opinion changing their sexuality needn't be the first port of call, I also don't like the idea that there are things about oneself that are impossible to change.

I just find it very interesting that homosexuals strive fervently to defend their lifestyle choice with some sort of genetic defense. Women who dress in goth don't do it, they own their choices. Men who like golf don't do it. Just gays, and it's fascinating.

 

[Trevorocity]

I just find it very interesting that homosexuals strive fervently to defend their lifestyle choice with some sort of genetic defense. Women who dress in goth don't do it, they own their choices. Men who like golf don't do it. Just gays, and it's fascinating.

I just find it interesting that Republicans talk big on the issue of choice but are too chicken to prove it.

 

[selfinflikted]

Eating babies is natural as well. Keep your government out of my house!!!!!

While it may be natural, this does not mean eating babies should be socially acceptable - for obvious reasons. I remember who you are, DieHappy, don't play dumb. I know you are very bright.

I really don't understand why people try to blame genetics. Own your choices.

That's easy for you to say. One cannot own a choice they never consciously made. I never consciously chose to be gay. I just am.

If you're not happy, change.

I'm not unhappy with my sexuality and have no desire to change, despite what current attitudes are towards gays.

This whole argument about "I'm a victim of my genes, I have to be gay forever" smacks of a depressed population searching desperately for an excuse.

I'm not depressed either. I was, for a time, depressed - but that was due to the way I thought others saw me. Now, I don't particularly care for what others think of me, or my sexuality. And, I certainly don't feel like a victim of genetics. Even if there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, I wouldn't try to change who I am, I'd try to change the way others think about homosexuality.

 

[selfinflikted]

I just find it very interesting that homosexuals strive fervently to defend their lifestyle choice with some sort of genetic defense. Women who dress in goth don't do it, they own their choices. Men who like golf don't do it. Just gays, and it's fascinating.

You don't get it because you're not hearing us when we say (the majority of us anyways, I'm purposely leaving out the rare few who did choose it)...

WE DID NOT CHOOSE CONSCIOUSLY TO BE GAY.

If you missed it that time, then I'm sorry, but you can't claim you "don't get it" anymore when I just told you.

 

[Gremlins]

Why would anyone ever choose to be gay? Give nall the schtick that gays in our society have to put up with (and the even more brutal treatment they received in the past), I really expect that anyone who could avoid it, would.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

That is true, but does not answer my question.

Why not?

Wow. So no wonder they're going extinct. This whole article is one big circus act. I guess if spiders eat each other after copulation then we should too. Seriously, what is your intention behind this, beside showing that one species is messed up and in danger of extinction?

I referenced the humboldts for the specific reason of helping to show the position is not based on facts but rather propaganda. Instead of researching why they are endangered it was simply assumed homosexuality must be the main culprit. Gay humboldts are not the problem: http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/wildlife/penguins/humboldt.shtml

Chinstrap penguins also form gay relationships and there are about 7 million pairs. Not exactly on the verge of extinction.

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."--Petter Bøckman[4]"

There are countless species with gays that are not in danger of extinction so the claim that accepting homosexuality would mean a danger to the existence of humans is wildly absurd and demonstrably false.

Eta: it was a different thread the claim about human survival would be in danger if homosexuality were accepted. Still, this applies to the claim gays have faulty wired instincts.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Apparently, the intention is to highlight the flaw in your implication that homosexuality is somehow "unnatural"

Sort of. He claimed homo relationships are mating instincts gone wrong. I referenced the penguins to show they have gay sex and reproduce at the same time.

Something found in nature may be concluded to be natural but that doesn't auto-qualify it as acceptable. Farting is a natural function but it is unacceptable in many situations. (Slow and hot elevators.)

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

But those things are not biologically driven in us. Sex is to reproduce. Sure, it can also be for fun and for connection but those things go against our amygdala. The point is solid, we are hard wired to reproduce. Wanting sex for any reason other than to reproduce goes against that basic, ancient instinct. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does make the point that we are basically genetically heterosexual a sound one.

They are biologically driven because sexual activity reaches far beyond pro-creation. Sex is used much much much more often as enjoyment versus baby-making.

We, like all living organisms, are hardwired and equipped for the purpose of survival but that doesn't automatically translate into the conclusion sexual orientation must be straight. A gay man and woman could have sex to pro-create but that doesn't mean they would have to be sexually attracted to one another. The act would be utilitarian based and as such incomparable to intimacy shared bewteem two people of mutual attraction.

And if we are supposed to accept homosexuality because the penguins do it, I'm going to eat my babies so my wife will want to have more sex with me, after all, mallard ducks and lions both do that.

I don't hold that position at all. The penguin reference was to counter the claim we are hardwired for one and only one form of sexuality, namely heterosexual. I've never used nature in the positive but only in the negative.

 

[cantata]

I just find it very interesting that homosexuals strive fervently to defend their lifestyle choice with some sort of genetic defense. Women who dress in goth don't do it, they own their choices. Men who like golf don't do it. Just gays, and it's fascinating.

I don't think it can be called a lifestyle choice. It's too fundamental. And most people don't choose it. If someone is straight and decides to hang out with gay people and maybe even have some gay sex to get into the spirit of things, that's a lifestyle choice. But if someone effortlessly feels gay (just as if someone effortlessly feels straight) I think "lifestyle choice" implies too much hard work.

Anyway, much as I don't like the "it's genetic" defence (or any other defence based on "we can't help it"), I can understand why people feel tempted to use it. It doesn't feel like a choice to most gay people, just like heterosexuality doesn't feel like a choice to most straight people. Even if someone believes there's a possibility of changing their behaviour or their desire, suggesting that they choose to be the way they are is kind of like suggesting that someone who has no tattoos chooses to remain tattoo-less, or that someone who was born and raised in Germany chooses not to live in Australia. It's as much a choice as it's ever a choice to let things be - in other words, it's a wholly passive choice.

I also think that because of the social stigma against people who aren't straight, many do feel guilty and ashamed. And there's nothing like "I can't help it" to appease feelings of guilt. Of course, I happen to think that they shouldn't feel guilty

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I think gays who defend their orientation give their attackers too much credit. I think it's just dumb to attack people because of their sexual orientation and it's certainly anti-Christian to create sin segregation among brothers and sisters in Christ.

Maybe one day homophobic Christian groups can mature past this and I don't know, do something really radical. Like focus on something Jesus talked about.

 

[Trevorocity]

Maybe one day homophobic Christian groups can mature past this and I don't know, do something really radical. Like focus on something Jesus talked about.

Ha! That'll be the day hey hey that I die!

 

[BigBadWlf]

I really don't understand why people try to blame genetics. Own your choices. If you're not happy, change. This whole argument about "I'm a victim of my genes, I have to be gay forever" smacks of a depressed population searching desperately for an excuse.

The only choice gays and lesbians make regarding their oriention is the choice to be honest about it verses the choice to lie.

What research? Back up your claims.

Been here done this…multiple times.
I’m sure you will chose to ignore the facts…
Studies comparing the number of sexual partners heterosexuals have with the number of sexual partners homosexuals have found that heterosexuals have a mean number of heterosexual sexual partners at 7.3 per lifetime while homosexuals have 4.6 sexual partners per lifetime. Fay, 1989Fay, R. Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men. Science 1989 (243): 338-348


A later study confirmed these findings finding that heterosexuals have a mean number of heterosexual sexual partners at 7.4 per lifetime and homosexuals have 4.2 sexual partners per lifetime. Billy, JO. The sexual behavior of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 1993 (25): 52-60




Speaking of claims – you just claimed that somehow sexual orientation was somehow a choice …so back up your claims or admit that “choice” is just another lie of the Christian right.