adidasss

The good old "homosexuality is a choice" theorem. By your logic only people with Downs sindrome could produce offspring with the same condition. I know nothing about genetics so I won't try to defend that theory. I can however tell you about my own experience. The most offensive thing anyone can say to me is that homosexuality is a choice, because it makes me a sadist to choose to go through what I've been through and undoubtedly will be put through by my surroundings. I've never been attracted to women, but I have been so indoctrinated about homosexuality being "wrong, unnatural and gross" that I spent a very long time trying to make sense of who I am and whether or not I'm normal. I could have spent that time much more productively and more happily if it wasn't for closed-minded, stubborn people like yourself.

But for the sake of the argument, even if one was to accept homosexuality was a choice ( which it most certainly isn't ), it still doesn't explain how and why homosexuals are denied certain inalienable human rights if ( and I'm sure even you would agree ) we are not doing society any harm.

Actually, having read most of this thread now, I would say your religion wasn't attacked, you were , however, asked on multiple occasions to explain certain inconsistencies regarding Christians and the way the choose to interpret the Bible as it suits them. One can certainly be a Christian and think homosexuality is normal, it all depends on how you want to interpret the Bible.
Great, now you don't believe bisexuals exist either? At this point I think you're just being argumentative for the sake of it. I find it hard to believe that anyone as intelligent as yourself could really be as stubborn about not accepting pure logic and reasoning. But I understand where you're coming from, I love to get in the face of anyone who says Green Day sucks just because it's the "now" thing to say.

No friend, what we do ask of you is to think for yourself and question what you have undoubtedly been taught, because I doubt you came to all these conclusions on your own ( despite your parents, for instance, being liberal minded, which I'm positive they're not ). I'm positive you would have a very different mindset if some of your family members were gay, just like some of my family members have come to radically different conclusions on homosexuality when they put a face on the issue.

Liberalism yes, hypocracy and idiocy most definitely not. I repeat, you can can be a Christian and gay friendly. You chose another route. Let's not blame the world for being logical.

I presume you also think homosexuality is a choice? If so, read the above.

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

DontRunMeOver

Sexual desires aren't a choice, although acting upon them is. In this debate I'd tend to assume there isn't the suggestion that people should act dishonestly with respects to their sexual desires (meaning to have sex with women when really they are attracted to men or vice-versa).

To believe that homosexual desires were a matter of 'choice', you'd also have to believe that heterosexual desires were a matter of 'choice', which I also find to be both ridiculous and offensive suggestion.

Although I don't believe that people are born straight, *** or bisexual outright, I'd agree with what Ian seemed to be saying, which is that your sexuality is (like everything else) a combination of your genetics and the environment in which you grew up. And both of these factors are beyond a person's control, so there is no way they had any 'choice' in the matter. Maybe if I'd born in Marijan's place I'd be just as *** as he is, maybe if he'd been born in my place he'd be just as straight as I am, or maybe genetic factors would have given a completely different result.

Whatever the case, might I suggest that anybody who proposes the 'homosexuality is choice' case in the future first takes a long, hard look at their own sexuality and considers how this opinion reflects upon them.


HETEROSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE????

__________________

adidasss

I think Oojay was implying the desire itself is a choice, not acting upon it. And not acting upon our sexual desires is as unnatural as they make homosexuality seem. Very good point on heterosexuality then being a choice also, if anyone can choose who they're attracted to, I'm sure most gays would have chosen to be attracted to the opposite sex, just because life would have been much easier. And just for the sake of the argument, Oojay should try to be attracted to men, see how that goes.

But I have to say, I don't see how the environment I grew up in could have had anything to do with me being gay. I should have been straight as an arrow given the general climate surrounding homosexuality in my family, village, island and country. My brother grew up in the same environment and he's as straight as they get. That's why I'm leaning more towards the theory that sexual preferences are determined at conception, and there's no amount of heterosexual indoctrination that could turn someone straight, I'm living proof of that.

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

DontRunMeOver

I don't agree with that. The only person that can grow up in your specific environment was you. Comparison with your brother's sexuality isn't completely valid because even though he was born to the same family, in the same place, learnt the same language and all that, he wasn't born at exactly the same time (that's be true even if you had been twins), his name isn't Marijan (I assume) and he hasn't experienced anything from the exact same viewpoint that you have experienced it.

Let's just suppose that at the age of 13 you saw a really hot guy soaping himself up in some place with public showers. Your brother didn't see the same guy, at the same age and in the same place and it's from these subtle differences in your formative environment that I personally think big differences in your final sexuality can result.

Anyway, your brother's genetics should be 50% similar to yours so wouldn't that suggest that if he's 100% straight then you're 50% straight by the genetics argument?

__________________

adidasss

Nope, I disagree, to play off your example, even if I had seen a really hot soapy guy at 13 and he hadn't, I believe that if I had not been gay, that event would have gone unnoticed. I understand that our lives haven't been exactly alike, but subtle differences, in my mind, could not have made us into such different people as we are. Genetics played a much more important role.

And as far as our genes being similar, if I'm not mistaken, chimpanzees have about 98% of the same DNA as we do, so a very tiny percentage is needed to make a humongous difference. I have 4 siblings, if my oldest sister has black hair, why does my youngest one have blond hair, by your logic, shouldn't she be at least 50% black haired? To use the Downs syndrome as an example again, shouldn't someone who has a brother or sister with the condition also be 50 percent afflicted? Flawed logic no?

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

DontRunMeOver

I agree that genetics play a big role and that they predispose you to notice things which other people don't and not notice things which other people do.

Please ignore the hot soapy guy idea, because that was probably a bit silly and I'll ignore your Down's syndrome analogy, that's a chromosonal disorder man! Are you saying that you're gay due to a chromosonal disorder?? What are you proposing, they should start up gay school for gay kids to learn about things more suited to the gay learning style??!

For the record, Down's sydrome is caused by having an extra chromosome or part of an extra chromosome. This means that the chromosomes have actually moved around and says nothing about the content of those chromosomes, whereas the genetic factors in the similarities and differences between siblings which you've mentioned would be entirely to do with those chromosomes.


EDIT: I was looking up about Down's sydrome and on the 'list of famous people with downs syndrome the first time I looked I thought it said Chris De Burgh was one.

__________________

adidasss

No no, I chose it as an example because it's caused by genetics. Like I said before, I know practically nothing of genetics, but it seemed loosely connected. I guess having an extra chromosome isn't the same as having a certain gene ( as some scientist are now suggesting ). Moving on.

Truth is, I have no idea why I'm gay, and I'd rather not keep talking out of my ass. There are much smarter people out there that still haven't figured it out so it's silly of us to try and act like we do. Maybe it's environmental, maybe it's genetic...I'm sure when they finally figure it out, they'll make a big fuss about it. Although an interesting dilemma would be, if they figure out the cause, would it be ethical to change the child according to the parent's preferences?

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

DontRunMeOver

I don't know about ethical but, if there really was a 'gay gene', or combination of genes, then it would seem there would be some reason why the gene persisted (despite the fact that a 'gay gene' would tend to stop itself being passed on, by dissuading reproduction of the individual carrying it). It's been suggested in the past that this 'gay gene' also gives other people other talents which are useful for human survival which is why it is still around, so it would be a bad idea for doctors to allow people to choose against it in their children (if you assume the majority of straight parents would prefer their child to be straight than gay all other things being equal).

Having said that, I really believe there is no 'gay gene', although probably many of the factors which determine somebody's sexuality are set in place so early and can be so unpredictable that the result is not very different to if the cause had been purely genetic.

__________________

Barnard17

A lesson in genetics: the recessive gene.

For genes, there is almost always a recessive "opposite", for want of a better term. One example is eye colour. There's a gene for brown eyes (dominant) and a gene for blue eyes (recessive). If the gene is recessive, it won't be active unless accompanied by a similar gene.

Deeper explanation:
Humans reproduce by a process called mitosis. This is where the parents each impart half of their genetic code to the child. So, in the example of eye colour, the man has a mother with blue eyes and a father with brown. Therefore, his genetic structure contains genes for brown eyes (dominant) and blue eyes (recessive), leaving him with brown eyes. He marries a woman who has similar genetics - a genes for both blue and brown eyes, thus having brown eyes herself.



Now, each of the mans sperm contains a random organisation of half his DNA and the womans egg contains a random organisation of half her DNA. If they have 4 children, 1 will have blue eyes; 2 will carry the genes for blue eyes but have brown eyes (because blue is recessive and brown is dominant) and 1 will have purely brown eyes:

------------------Father-------
---------------Blue-----Brown-----
Mother Blue----Blue-----Carrier
Mother Brown--Carrier----Brown



In the same way a "***" gene may be carried on. Because it's not incredibly genetically useful at this time, it's understandably rare though for whatever reason it may have been useful at one point (in the same way as sickle cell anaemia), or may be a random genetic fault that's yet to be rooted out by sexual selection (such has huntingtons disease). The assertion that for it to be genetically carried the parents would need to display signs is not only false, but also not 100% relevant - as little as 10 years ago homosexuality was a big taboo. People have been getting married to women despite their gender preference due to social pressure (eg Freddy Mercury), and the same social pressure expects them to have sex, have kids and so they do. Just because a persons *** doesn't mean they're infertile.

Scientists have found a high connection to a specific line of chromosmes. They haven't nailed the specific one, but it would be very hard to discount the probability of it's existence out of hand. Even if it doesn't give a definite "yes you will be ***", it's likely that it will make a person more prone to having homosexuality triggered if events fall in a certain direction.

__________________

riseagainstrocks

Hey buddy, you do realize that cancer is a genetic disease that is inherent to certain people, yet not every person that has prostate cancer had a father who had prostate cancer.

STOP BEING STUPID!

Plus, I'm railing against you. Not the church. That's a different topic which I'd be more than happy to pick up.


and it's really nice to be arguing on the same side as you Fal haha

__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...