Can people choose to be gay like they can choose ice cream f

Page 3 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,788
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Jan 2015, 3:00 am

Dillogic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Speak for yourself, I have reproduced successfully.


Almost none with an ASD reproduce (almost none marry too); there's plenty of studies out there showing this. If I were speaking for myself, I'd say it's unlikely that you have a diagnosed ASD if you have children (and if you do, you're probably borderline and must have more severe problems elsewhere, such as the repetitive behaviors section). Whilst I haven't read a study, I'd bet almost no homosexuals reproduce.

Which makes sense, as an ASD is in part a social disorder, and both of those things are the penultimate social goals; children and marriage.


Actually, I do have an official diagnosis. Not only am I an Aspie with a kid, but so is old man Ruveyn, and some other WP members. Just because we're Aspies doesn't mean that we have to conform to "studies" about autism. We just happened to find a special person who not only could overlook our Aspie weirdness and lack of social skills, but actually could find them endearing.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,788
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Jan 2015, 3:05 am

As for gays reproducing, author William Burroughs who was a gay man had been in a long term relationship with a woman named Joan Volmer Burroughs despite his sexuality, with whom he had a son with.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Skibz888
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 965
Location: Orange County, CA

20 Jan 2015, 3:13 am

Dillogic wrote:
Whilst I haven't read a study, I'd bet almost no homosexuals reproduce.


Plenty of them reproduce. Gay men donate sperm for surrogate pregnancies and lesbian women birth with artificial insemination. Oftentimes, the two are one in the same, thus making literal "gay babies".



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,130

20 Jan 2015, 3:15 am

Like almost everything else in life it is a spectrum of innate propensities and potential causal factors COMING together to make FULL sexuality what it is in any unique individual.

So in other words.. sometimes it is a choice like choosing ICE CREAM and sometimes IT IS NOT.

BUT ANYWAY, Kinsey's extensive research is STILL the best 'we' have in understanding the full spectrum of human sexual orientations and sexual activity with WHATEVER GENDER THEY SO DESIRE.

http://www.queerbychoice.com/dubay_homosexuality.html

GAY IS just a concept of label like specific religions and traditions thereof to impose repression, oppression OF HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION NATURE and subjugation through illusory fears to scare the propensity for same sex attraction OUT OF FOLKS.

IF CULTURE SAID it was AND IS 'A' OK, overall, there is no telling what the percentage of same sex sexual activities might be.

Yeah, it could even BE LIKE OUR CLOSEST PRIMATE COUSINS THE BONOBO.. WHO 'F' EVERY HAIRY Bonobo PRIMATE WITH OR WITHOUT TESTICLES THAT MOVES to resolve potential aggression and violence with THE OXYTOCIN NEUROHORMONE released during the 'COMING' OF SEX.. THAT BONDS PRIMATES together in body and mind balance FOR GREATER SOCIAL COOPERATION.

AND nah.. not just the BILL CLINTON DEFINITION OF SEX.. ALL OF THE STIMULATING ACTIVITIES THAT CAN LEAD TO CLIMAX.

This is much more complicated thaN SIMPLE CLASSICAL DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FOR REPRODUCTION.

SURVIVAL OF A SOCIAL ANIMAL MEANS SOCIAL COOPERATION, AND HOOKING UP IS THE 'BIG BALLED' all natural PRIMATE WAY OF GETTING HER OR HE DONE.

BUT Culture alone can convince women that cutting off their clitoris organ, used as pleasure organ only, IS AN EFFECTIVE CULTURAL PRACTICE OF GAINING greater self esteem, so in the world of human beings, 'STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES'..

TO PARAPHRASE and quote the fictional and non-fictional FOREST GUMP. ;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

20 Jan 2015, 3:59 am

Skibz888 wrote:
Plenty of them reproduce. Gay men donate sperm for surrogate pregnancies and lesbian women birth with artificial insemination. Oftentimes, the two are one in the same, thus making literal "gay babies".


Yeah, but that's not natural reproduction; that's scientific advancement in the past few decades.

I'm speaking about typical male to female reproduction, like what humans have done for 99.9999% of their existence.

I'm pretty sure a gay man isn't going to want to reproduce with a female (that defeats the purpose of being gay); bisexual, yeah.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

20 Jan 2015, 4:03 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Actually, I do have an official diagnosis. Not only am I an Aspie with a kid, but so is old man Ruveyn, and some other WP members. Just because we're Aspies doesn't mean that we have to conform to "studies" about autism. We just happened to find a special person who not only could overlook our Aspie weirdness and lack of social skills, but actually could find them endearing.


Accommodating can be a factor, yes, but it's still unlikely (accommodating itself is going to be rare too), even if some do. Just like some gay men probably do have children naturally with a woman -- I'd bet it's rare.

(Of note, even accommodating might not be enough. But yeah, it'll help.)



badgerface
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 479
Location: St. Neots, Cambridgeshire UK

20 Jan 2015, 5:02 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Speak for yourself, I have reproduced successfully.


Almost none with an ASD reproduce (almost none marry too); there's plenty of studies out there showing this. If I were speaking for myself, I'd say it's unlikely that you have a diagnosed ASD if you have children (and if you do, you're probably borderline and must have more severe problems elsewhere, such as the repetitive behaviors section). Whilst I haven't read a study, I'd bet almost no homosexuals reproduce.

Which makes sense, as an ASD is in part a social disorder, and both of those things are the penultimate social goals; children and marriage.


Actually, I do have an official diagnosis. Not only am I an Aspie with a kid, but so is old man Ruveyn, and some other WP members. Just because we're Aspies doesn't mean that we have to conform to "studies" about autism. We just happened to find a special person who not only could overlook our Aspie weirdness and lack of social skills, but actually could find them endearing.


I wanted to chime in here. I am officially diagnosed as well, I'm divorced with 2 children from the marriage and a 6 month old baby with my fiancée. I'd call that reproducing.

On the subject of "choosing" to be gay. Ridiculous. As already wisely stated here several times; if you think that, ask yourself "when did you choose to be straight.

It's also worth pointing out, I feel, that homosexuality and/or homosexual behaviour is present in literally hundreds of different species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


_________________
"You're entitled to your wrong opinion..."


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

20 Jan 2015, 5:45 am

Jitro wrote:
Can people choose between being gay or straight like they can choose between buying vanilla or chocolate ice cream?


I have not read the rest of this thread but are you that f*****g ignorant of the issues involved that you think, even for the briefest of moments, that this question is remotely sensible???


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


badgerface
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 479
Location: St. Neots, Cambridgeshire UK

20 Jan 2015, 5:48 am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THAT


_________________
"You're entitled to your wrong opinion..."


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

20 Jan 2015, 6:01 am

Dillogic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Speak for yourself, I have reproduced successfully.


Almost none with an ASD reproduce (almost none marry too); there's plenty of studies out there showing this.

Please link to one of them.

Dillogic wrote:
Skibz888 wrote:
What's your point? We have enough population problems as it is; if literally everyone on the planet was reproducing, there would be some catastrophic implications and quick. Just because perpetuation of our species relies on reproduction (organic or artificial) doesn't mean that it's an innately natural behavior that literally everyone must follow.


What's happening now is immaterial in this respect, as evolution doesn't adapt to a century of technological advancement. For homosexuality to be seen as a desirable trait for the species, we'd need millions of years of overpopulation for it to start up.

It's natural insofar as the majority of the human species is concerned.

My point is that it's a mix up in the brain, like any other deviant behavior/disorder, which can't be chosen.

Evolution doesn't act on individuals or even species, it acts on genes.

Once you realise that, homosexuality no longer seems like a disadvantageous trait that should have died out. There are multiple evidence-based hypotheses that could explain it, including promoting hyper-reproduction in one sex and homosexuality in another, or providing uncles and aunts who can be focused on raising their nieces and nephews.

Even if you don't mean it, describing homosexuality as "deviant", a "disorder", "unnatural" or "undesirable" is highly hurtful, as well as (in at least the first three cases) inaccurate. It's best to avoid using this kind of homophobic language



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

20 Jan 2015, 6:53 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Please link to one of them.

Evolution doesn't act on individuals or even species, it acts on genes.

Once you realise that, homosexuality no longer seems like a disadvantageous trait that should have died out. There are multiple evidence-based hypotheses that could explain it, including promoting hyper-reproduction in one sex and homosexuality in another, or providing uncles and aunts who can be focused on raising their nieces and nephews.

Even if you don't mean it, describing homosexuality as "deviant", a "disorder", "unnatural" or "undesirable" is highly hurtful, as well as (in at least the first three cases) inaccurate. It's best to avoid using this kind of homophobic language


There's heaps on PubMed. But the highest rate I've found so far is from: Twenty-year outcome for individuals with autism and average or near-average cognitive abilities. 7% had kids.

"Three participants (7%) were married at the time of the interviews, and all 3 had children, for a total of 7 offspring."

Most others tend to be like this:

"All persons but one were unemployed. None was married and none had children."

And to the rest of the post:

Yes, genes. Said genes show up as us; that's pure semantics. You didn't supply anything else than what's been previously, posted, i.e., caretakers. Again, being able to do both would be the best way to go about it, and most humans can do both. The rarity of homosexuals (1-2%?) does show that it's quite an small group that wouldn't affect much anyway.

Why is it hurtful? It's only hurtful if you somehow apply value to one facet of existence. Most of us here are disordered in some way (many severely so), and to draw hurt from that is entirely counterproductive.

It's not homophobic. That means: Fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men. I have no fear, hatred, or mistrust of them. Deviant = different from the norm. Disorder = something that can ail the mind or body.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,391
Location: Reading, England

20 Jan 2015, 7:37 am

Dillogic wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Please link to one of them.

Evolution doesn't act on individuals or even species, it acts on genes.

Once you realise that, homosexuality no longer seems like a disadvantageous trait that should have died out. There are multiple evidence-based hypotheses that could explain it, including promoting hyper-reproduction in one sex and homosexuality in another, or providing uncles and aunts who can be focused on raising their nieces and nephews.

Even if you don't mean it, describing homosexuality as "deviant", a "disorder", "unnatural" or "undesirable" is highly hurtful, as well as (in at least the first three cases) inaccurate. It's best to avoid using this kind of homophobic language


There's heaps on PubMed. But the highest rate I've found so far is from: Twenty-year outcome for individuals with autism and average or near-average cognitive abilities. 7% had kids.

"Three participants (7%) were married at the time of the interviews, and all 3 had children, for a total of 7 offspring."

Problem: those people were diagnosed under the DSM-3. We know that system missed a lot of autistic people (over 95%), and generally caught those with serious comorbid conditions. Ergo, that isn't a random sample.

Looking at the figures in a little more detail, about 19% of them were in long-term relationships. The chances are that most of them will have children at some stage, and some of the singletons might well at some stage too (they are only in their mid 30s, after all). Even if only 10% have children, that's not "almost none", though I accept that might have been rhetorical on your part.


Quote:
Yes, genes. Said genes show up as us; that's pure semantics.

No it's not. Sometimes what suits our genes isn't what suits us. In the same way, what suits us as individuals might not suit our family, what suits our family might not suit our species, what suits our species might not suit our order... You can legitimately think of selection acting on almost any level, but ultimately it is genes which are running things.
Quote:
You didn't supply anything else than what's been previously, posted, i.e., caretakers. Again, being able to do both would be the best way to go about it, and most humans can do both.

Well, I did. I suggested sexual antagonism.

You might think that it would be "best to do both", but non-breeding individuals supporting the children of related breeders has evolved multiple times, independently. See: bees and ants (hymenoptera), wolves, meerkats, naked mole rats... And there's actual evidence for the kin selection hypothesis, too.
Quote:
Why is it hurtful? It's only hurtful if you somehow apply value to one facet of existence.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Homosexuals live every day with the reminder that their identity is a marginalised one, even those who aren't particularly "proud". When people try to claim that they are "deviant" or "disordered" (and let's clear this up, "deviant" is generally perceived as a hateful thing to call someone, even if that isn't what you intend - perhaps try "different" if you don't intend to offend), that reinforces their "otherness". Of course they're going to a) have a strong identity, and b) be offended!



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

20 Jan 2015, 9:52 am

Dillogic wrote:
BetwixtBetween wrote:
And if we all did that, we'd have run out of resources long ago.


Not at all.

It's only been the past 200 or so years that we've advanced technologically to a point where the population has started to grow due to our ability to gather resources so efficiently, in addition to medical knowledge keeping people alive.

Of course, that's not the only thing we evolved for, but reproduction is one of the most important aspects of species survival. Without that, we don't have a species.


In early humans and hunter gatherers raising children would have been a major resource drain. Your kids can have an advantage when you have a gay brother or uncle to help, since they don't have any children of their own. Evolution is not just about the individual, look at bees for example, most of them are worker bees who don't reproduce at all but just care for the ones who do.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,130

20 Jan 2015, 10:02 am

To me, at least, it is fascinating to watch some of the usual Anti-GOD folks here avoid the science of this when it comes to a topic that has personal emotional implications.

Good POTENTIAL lesson here, as to why there is so much disagreement among theists and atheists.

Emotions rule science (systemizing mind) and always will as that is human nature, no matter how scientific (systemizing) a person THINKS they are. Of course, unless there is serious brain damage as some studies show folks with this issue of brain damage cannot make decisions as simple as what color socks to wear when presented with more than one choice in the morning.

Emotions are VITAL TO THE COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE BRAIN; no ifs and or BUTS about that.

Anyway, my point here is, there is nothing WRONG WITH protecting one's emotional health, even if it means avoiding the SCIENCE AT HAND.

WELL BACK to the science at hand, the study provided here, linked below, on real life primitive peoples makes it abundantly clear that environment plays a huge role in the genetic propensity towards homosexual behavior and HA! ha! even masturbation, as in the two linked primitive cultures when SOCIAL ROLES ARE CLEARLY DEFINED AND MATES OF THE OPPOSITE SEX ARE a GIVEN FOR THE WHOLE TRIBE, THERE ARE not even any words for homosexuals OR MASTURBATION.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

BUT ON the other hand, SEX is considered in the cultural language OF THESE PRIMITIVE PEOPLES as PLEASURABLE 'night' WORK FOR MAKING BABIES AND THAT IS ALL.

SO CULTURE RULES AND PROPENSITIES OF HOMOSEXUALITY that in identical twin studies SCIENCE DOES SHOW A CORRELATION OF ABOUT 20 PERCENT, IS PART Of the GENETIC PROPENSITY Equation but far far from the total equation of human sexual orientations, WHEN the cultural ENVIRONMENT IS INCLUDED IN THE MIX.

BUT IN my opinion, GENETIC PROPENSITY IN even just 20 percent is ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS.

AND IN my opinion, no GENETIC PROPENSITY IN EVEN JUST 0 PERCENT of Twin studies, IF THAT WAS A FACT, is ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS, AS NOT EVERYONE is cut out for having children, AND THAT'S A FACT.

And Human Freedom of choice TO EXPLORE FULLEST human nature in enjoying life, including sexual related preferences, as long as they are consensual, legal, and harm no one, is WHAT A FREE COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT, WHETHER folks want children or not.

PEOPLE who do not want children HAVING CHILDREN can LEAD TO Emotionally dead children, MENTAL DISORDERS, addiction, criminality, and many types of other disorders across the lifespan.

LOVING NURTURING PARENTS WHO WANT CHILDREN IS A NECESSITY of a healthy society.

Science now MOST DEFINITELY shows that children who are not nurtured properly in the first two years of life, FACE A LIFE OF POTENTIAL MISERY, AS WELL as the folks they come in contact with.

And A LACK OF NURTURING in the first two years of LIFE, IS A FACTOR per some forms of Autism, as science also now does show, however politically incorrect it may be to FACE THAT BIOLOGICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL FACT with emotions sweeping facts UNDER THE CARPET, OR in the CLOSET.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,577
Location: temperate zone

20 Jan 2015, 12:01 pm

aghogday wrote:
To me, at least, it is fascinating to watch some of the usual Anti-GOD folks here avoid the science of this when it comes to a topic that has personal emotional implications.

Good POTENTIAL lesson here, as to why there is so much disagreement among theists and atheists.

Emotions rule science (systemizing mind) and always will as that is human nature, no matter how scientific (systemizing) a person THINKS they are. Of course, unless there is serious brain damage as some studies show folks with this issue of brain damage cannot make decisions as simple as what color socks to wear when presented with more than one choice in the morning.

Emotions are VITAL TO THE COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE BRAIN; no ifs and or BUTS about that.

Anyway, my point here is, there is nothing WRONG WITH protecting one's emotional health, even if it means avoiding the SCIENCE AT HAND.

WELL BACK to the science at hand, the study provided here, linked below, on real life primitive peoples makes it abundantly clear that environment plays a huge role in the genetic propensity towards homosexual behavior and HA! ha! even masturbation, as in the two linked primitive cultures when SOCIAL ROLES ARE CLEARLY DEFINED AND MATES OF THE OPPOSITE SEX ARE a GIVEN FOR THE WHOLE TRIBE, THERE ARE not even any words for homosexuals OR MASTURBATION.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

BUT ON the other hand, SEX is considered in the cultural language OF THESE PRIMITIVE PEOPLES as PLEASURABLE 'night' WORK FOR MAKING BABIES AND THAT IS ALL.

SO CULTURE RULES AND PROPENSITIES OF HOMOSEXUALITY that in identical twin studies SCIENCE DOES SHOW A CORRELATION OF ABOUT 20 PERCENT, IS PART Of the GENETIC PROPENSITY Equation but far far from the total equation of human sexual orientations, WHEN the cultural ENVIRONMENT IS INCLUDED IN THE MIX.

BUT IN my opinion, GENETIC PROPENSITY IN even just 20 percent is ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS.

AND IN my opinion, no GENETIC PROPENSITY IN EVEN JUST 0 PERCENT of Twin studies, IF THAT WAS A FACT, is ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS, AS NOT EVERYONE is cut out for having children, AND THAT'S A FACT.

And Human Freedom of choice TO EXPLORE FULLEST human nature in enjoying life, including sexual related preferences, as long as they are consensual, legal, and harm no one, is WHAT A FREE COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT, WHETHER folks want children or not.

PEOPLE who do not want children HAVING CHILDREN can LEAD TO Emotionally dead children, MENTAL DISORDERS, addiction, criminality, and many types of other disorders across the lifespan.

LOVING NURTURING PARENTS WHO WANT CHILDREN IS A NECESSITY of a healthy society.

Science now MOST DEFINITELY shows that children who are not nurtured properly in the first two years of life, FACE A LIFE OF POTENTIAL MISERY, AS WELL as the folks they come in contact with.

And A LACK OF NURTURING in the first two years of LIFE, IS A FACTOR per some forms of Autism, as science also now does show, however politically incorrect it may be to FACE THAT BIOLOGICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL FACT with emotions sweeping facts UNDER THE CARPET, OR in the CLOSET.


So?

What is your answer to the question?

Is homosexuality a choice, or not?



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,130

20 Jan 2015, 12:07 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
aghogday wrote:
To me, at least, it is fascinating to watch some of the usual Anti-GOD folks here avoid the science of this when it comes to a topic that has personal emotional implications.

Good POTENTIAL lesson here, as to why there is so much disagreement among theists and atheists.

Emotions rule science (systemizing mind) and always will as that is human nature, no matter how scientific (systemizing) a person THINKS they are. Of course, unless there is serious brain damage as some studies show folks with this issue of brain damage cannot make decisions as simple as what color socks to wear when presented with more than one choice in the morning.

Emotions are VITAL TO THE COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING OF THE BRAIN; no ifs and or BUTS about that.

Anyway, my point here is, there is nothing WRONG WITH protecting one's emotional health, even if it means avoiding the SCIENCE AT HAND.

WELL BACK to the science at hand, the study provided here, linked below, on real life primitive peoples makes it abundantly clear that environment plays a huge role in the genetic propensity towards homosexual behavior and HA! ha! even masturbation, as in the two linked primitive cultures when SOCIAL ROLES ARE CLEARLY DEFINED AND MATES OF THE OPPOSITE SEX ARE a GIVEN FOR THE WHOLE TRIBE, THERE ARE not even any words for homosexuals OR MASTURBATION.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

BUT ON the other hand, SEX is considered in the cultural language OF THESE PRIMITIVE PEOPLES as PLEASURABLE 'night' WORK FOR MAKING BABIES AND THAT IS ALL.

SO CULTURE RULES AND PROPENSITIES OF HOMOSEXUALITY that in identical twin studies SCIENCE DOES SHOW A CORRELATION OF ABOUT 20 PERCENT, IS PART Of the GENETIC PROPENSITY Equation but far far from the total equation of human sexual orientations, WHEN the cultural ENVIRONMENT IS INCLUDED IN THE MIX.

BUT IN my opinion, GENETIC PROPENSITY IN even just 20 percent is ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS.

AND IN my opinion, no GENETIC PROPENSITY IN EVEN JUST 0 PERCENT of Twin studies, IF THAT WAS A FACT, is ENOUGH TO FIGHT FOR HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS, AS NOT EVERYONE is cut out for having children, AND THAT'S A FACT.

And Human Freedom of choice TO EXPLORE FULLEST human nature in enjoying life, including sexual related preferences, as long as they are consensual, legal, and harm no one, is WHAT A FREE COUNTRY IS ALL ABOUT, WHETHER folks want children or not.

PEOPLE who do not want children HAVING CHILDREN can LEAD TO Emotionally dead children, MENTAL DISORDERS, addiction, criminality, and many types of other disorders across the lifespan.

LOVING NURTURING PARENTS WHO WANT CHILDREN IS A NECESSITY of a healthy society.

Science now MOST DEFINITELY shows that children who are not nurtured properly in the first two years of life, FACE A LIFE OF POTENTIAL MISERY, AS WELL as the folks they come in contact with.

And A LACK OF NURTURING in the first two years of LIFE, IS A FACTOR per some forms of Autism, as science also now does show, however politically incorrect it may be to FACE THAT BIOLOGICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL FACT with emotions sweeping facts UNDER THE CARPET, OR in the CLOSET.


So?

What is your answer to the question?

Is homosexuality a choice, or not?


I already provided that answer earlier in the thread as quoted here:

Quote:
Like almost everything else in life it is a spectrum of innate propensities and potential causal factors COMING together to make FULL sexuality what it is in any unique individual.

So in other words.. sometimes it is a choice like choosing ICE CREAM and sometimes IT IS NOT.

BUT ANYWAY, Kinsey's extensive research is STILL the best 'we' have in understanding the full spectrum of human sexual orientations and sexual activity with WHATEVER GENDER THEY SO DESIRE.

http://www.queerbychoice.com/dubay_homosexuality.html

GAY IS just a concept of label like specific religions and traditions thereof to impose repression, oppression OF HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION NATURE and subjugation through illusory fears to scare the propensity for same sex attraction OUT OF FOLKS.

IF CULTURE SAID it was AND IS 'A' OK, overall, there is no telling what the percentage of same sex sexual activities might be.

Yeah, it could even BE LIKE OUR CLOSEST PRIMATE COUSINS THE BONOBO.. WHO 'F' EVERY HAIRY Bonobo PRIMATE WITH OR WITHOUT TESTICLES THAT MOVES to resolve potential aggression and violence with THE OXYTOCIN NEUROHORMONE released during the 'COMING' OF SEX.. THAT BONDS PRIMATES together in body and mind balance FOR GREATER SOCIAL COOPERATION.

AND nah.. not just the BILL CLINTON DEFINITION OF SEX.. ALL OF THE STIMULATING ACTIVITIES THAT CAN LEAD TO CLIMAX.

This is much more complicated thaN SIMPLE CLASSICAL DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FOR REPRODUCTION.

SURVIVAL OF A SOCIAL ANIMAL MEANS SOCIAL COOPERATION, AND HOOKING UP IS THE 'BIG BALLED' all natural PRIMATE WAY OF GETTING HER OR HE DONE.

BUT Culture alone can convince women that cutting off their clitoris organ, used as pleasure organ only, IS AN EFFECTIVE CULTURAL PRACTICE OF GAINING greater self esteem, so in the world of human beings, 'STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES'..

TO PARAPHRASE and quote the fictional and non-fictional FOREST GUMP. ;)




The problem with living a life in mechanical cognition and books is ONE CAN FAIL TO REALIZE THAT HUMAN BEHAVIOR never ever works in black and white terms.

I have experience with literally over 100,000 real flesh and blood human beings in extended longitudinal interactions over decades with thousands, so I have a good idea what is REALLY GOING ON WITH HUMAN BEINGS, AND IT IS NEVER EVER BLACK AND WHITE BEHAVIOR.

SO YES OR NO, WHEN IT COMES TO HUMANS BEINGS, ARE TWO WORDS THAT TRULY DO NOT EXIST IN LIVING COLOR FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN BEING.

LIFE IS ART WHEN REAL, ALLONE, NOT SYSTEMIZING BS.. ALONE.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick