Cause of Homosexuality and Bisexuality

[National Liberty of Anarchists]

I believe it has to do with early experiences in childhood. For those of you saying its wrong or immoral, go choke yourself. People have the right to do as they wish with themselves and live the life they choose. I'm not gay, by the way.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Sexuality is as much socialized as it is geneticized. Lots of factors involved that still haven't been fully traced.

[Northern Dominus]

I believe it has to do with early experiences in childhood. For those of you saying its wrong or immoral, go choke yourself. People have the right to do as they wish with themselves and live the life they choose. I'm not gay, by the way.

Aaaand by your notion, sexual orientation is still somehow a "choice" or a "disorder". That notion in and of itself is equally reprehensible as the one you suggested people choke themselves for.

Sexual orientation isn't a choice and it isn't some sort of psychological condition. Suicide post conversion therapy should be evidence enough of that. Moreover, why would anybody, ANYBODY, deliberately choose a sexual orientation that would earn them contempt and hatred of the most caustic and diabolical nature?

Sexuality isn't some sort of switch that can be flipped at will or through some sort of psychological mind-rape, and any insinuation otherwise is frankly ignorant or borderline sociopathic.

[Arkinesia]

Usually, fervent anti-theists are horrifically uneducated.

By "usually" I assume you mean "rarely, but I'm pissy so here goes nothing."

I remember Richard Dawkins

Because when I think about people who have a Doctorate in Science from Oxford, I think uneducated.

having some quote about how he doesn't need theology just like he doesn't need leprechology to disprove the existence of leprechauns. However, I take serious issue with his statement on a single, simple count: the philosophical concepts driving a higher power are a lot more fundamental to the human psyche to just brusquely push away.

You don't need to know theology to reject religion.

It seems like whenever I get into a debate with a fervent anti-theist on the existence specifically of the Christian God, he is rarely aware of a lot in terms of the study of hermeneutics, rudimentary theology, and indeed sometimes unaware of things that are actually in the Bible. I find these sorts of debates incredibly aggravating, probably in the same way that a medical student gets upset with a layman when the layman tries to prove some kind of strange homeopathic hypothesis.

You don't have to understand any of that shit to reject the Bible

You could look at how the doctrine of Christianity came to exist (via shadey back room political deals), look at all the shit the Bible claims to have knowledge of that we know now is bullshit (the creation story, Pi = 3) and you could be someone who reads through all their moral prescriptions and rejects it all as the life hating, woman hating, gay hating absurdity that it is.

All without ever having taken a theology course.

But maybe that just comes with the territory of having studied the Bible in an academic setting for three years. It makes such opposition come off as pretty weak.

Or you've just been brainwashed, and are pissy that the opposition rarely has an interest in talking about what you want to talk about because its irrelevant to their point.

One can accept or reject anything he damn well pleases with or without education.

Making a case one way or the other does require relevant experience. If you are trying to prove God's nonexistence without a knowledge of the theology behind such concepts, you've just run right up the creek with no canoe.

[Galborg]

Cause of Homosexuality? Evil Gumment puts fluoride in the water.

[Coccygia]

Cause of Homosexuality? Evil Gumment puts fluoride in the water.

Thus Corrupting our Precious Bodily Fluids. Peace on Earth! Purity of Essence!

[Northern Dominus]

Cause of Homosexuality? Evil Gumment puts fluoride in the water.

Thus Corrupting our Precious Bodily Fluids. Peace on Earth! Purity of Essence!

..fuck, now where did I put that folder detailing the operations pursuant to Plan R.

[Global American Empire]

Nope. You're wrong, OP.

[Olthar]

Nope. You're wrong, OP.

How insightful.

[Global American Empire]

Nope. You're wrong, OP.

How insightful.

Thank you.

[Menassa]

Yes, but even the most fervent Anti-Theist can be a tad uneducated.

Usually, fervent anti-theists are horrifically uneducated.

I remember Richard Dawkins having some quote about how he doesn't need theology just like he doesn't need leprechology to disprove the existence of leprechauns. However, I take serious issue with his statement on a single, simple count: the philosophical concepts driving a higher power are a lot more fundamental to the human psyche to just brusquely push away.

It seems like whenever I get into a debate with a fervent anti-theist on the existence specifically of the Christian God, he is rarely aware of a lot in terms of the study of hermeneutics, rudimentary theology, and indeed sometimes unaware of things that are actually in the Bible. I find these sorts of debates incredibly aggravating, probably in the same way that a medical student gets upset with a layman when the layman tries to prove some kind of strange homeopathic hypothesis. But maybe that just comes with the territory of having studied the Bible in an academic setting for three years. It makes such opposition come off as pretty weak.

I was going somewhere else with this but oh well.

It is good every once in a while to debate among theists... it seems many Atheists bring their Tainahs their complaints on religion by aspects of Christianity... these are wholly disputed, at perhaps a hindrance to certain Christian ideals.

[Meryuma]

Well, your pheromones theory it's interesting, but I think being receptive to pheromones has nothing to do with genetics, but with chemical perception, which is the result of conditioning after birth. Or maybe being gay or straight is as simple as random neurological reactions that activate different brain areas depending of the individual, giving rise to different sexual orientations.

But, leaving all the scientific verbiage behind, perhaps every individual secretly is a bisexual. Different conditioning, moral views and teachings during childhood and early puberty just force our brain to choose unconsciously our sexual orientation, and our perception towards males and females changes based on this. The fact that most of the western world has accepted different orientations have altered that conditioning, previously puritan, now more liberal. And maybe that's the reason why homosexuality is so widespread, right?

So we may asume, hypothetically, that we are all bisexual. Somehow we already knew that - studies and surveys have proven that individuals feel sexually attracted towards their same sex at some point of their life, but at the same time they declare themselves to be openly straight. Altered states of consciousness (drunk, drugged...) also reveal underhand homosexual tendencies within straight individuals - tendencies that, while conscious and inhibited, are repressed. It's the same for gay people - they can show straight behaviour in the same situations, althought they may assure their homosexual orientation.

At the time of ancient civilizations such as Greece and Rome, bisexualism was something usual and natural, whilst been exclusively gay or straight was considered "weird". Within the military, soldiers thought of homosexual relationships as a logic way to show the friendship and comradeship they shared with each others. Achilles, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Nero, Hadrian... All of them had straight and gay relationships, not to mention the popularity of eunuchs within Persian and Chinese Imperial Courts.

I believe sexual orientation has to do with religious tendencies, societal norm, historical time and cultural context more than with science or genetics.

So TL;DR version is "it's a choice"... again.

Great, so all of those quacks peddling conversion therapy are somehow validated, and people comittting suicide because their sexuality screws with the brainwashing they've been subjected to and it leaves them at a faux moral crossroads that results in the taking of their own lives is somehow invalidated?

Yeah, not buying it without some sort of accredited evidence to back it up.

I think that was the opposite of their point.

[Northern Dominus]

So TL;DR version is "it's a choice"... again.

Great, so all of those quacks peddling conversion therapy are somehow validated, and people comittting suicide because their sexuality screws with the brainwashing they've been subjected to and it leaves them at a faux moral crossroads that results in the taking of their own lives is somehow invalidated?

Yeah, not buying it without some sort of accredited evidence to back it up.

I think that was the opposite of their point.

To quote, verbatim, from Libertadia's original post:

"Different conditioning, moral views and teachings during childhood and early puberty just force our brain to choose unconsciously our sexual orientation, and our perception towards males and females changes based on this."

"I believe sexual orientation has to do with religious tendencies, societal norm, historical time and cultural context more than with science or genetics."

Explain to me how any of the above doesn't in any way read as "it's a choice" in some fashion?

[Bottle]

I believe it has to do with early experiences in childhood. For those of you saying its wrong or immoral, go choke yourself. People have the right to do as they wish with themselves and live the life they choose. I'm not gay, by the way.

Aaaand by your notion, sexual orientation is still somehow a "choice" or a "disorder". That notion in and of itself is equally reprehensible as the one you suggested people choke themselves for.

Granted I might be missing some past conversation here, but I don't see how what you quoted remotely equates to "it's a choice."

This provides a nice excuse for a rant I've been meaning to have.

*Clears throat. Glares over glasses in supercilious manner, hands steepled and prepared to issue forth Truth to the Masses*

People seem to think there are two options: sexuality is genetic, or sexuality is a choice. This is (and please forgive my technical jargon) a total pile of shit.

First of all, the "gay gene" is just a rainbow-colored bigfoot, folks...it's a myth. Sorry. There is no fabulous sasquatch roaming the wild hills of our genetic code. And how do I know this? Because DNA does not fucking work that way. There are over 50 genes involved in your ability to perceive color, for fuck's sake. The idea that there is one gene responsible for homosexuality is so ridiculous that geneticists literally vomit up three-headed unicorns whenever they hear someone suggest it.

Furthermore, "genetics" doesn't exclude choice. We know that there is a genetic component to alcoholism. But that doesn't mean every person who carries those genetics WILL become an alcoholic. People very often reject or defy their genetics. This is so routine you don't even notice it most of the time. For instance, how many people do you know whose teeth are not in the configuration that their genetics would have directed, thanks to modern orthodontia?

Which leads to the next major point of difficulty for many people: just because something was caused by environment or social factors or even by choices made in the past, does not mean it is a choice now. I don't wake up every morning and choose to have straight teeth, they were made this way years ago. I don't consciously choose to love reading, I love it because I was raised in a family of bibliophiles and I was always small for my age so liked activities that did not disadvantage me due to size and I am not dyslexic and I live in a culture that values education (sort of) and I have had many positive experiences related to reading which all shaped the feelings that I have but which I do not consciously choose to have.

I don't consciously choose to like homosexual sex, or artichokes, or Lily Tomlin. But that doesn't mean that I must carry the Liking Lily Tomlin Gene, either. It doesn't mean my DNA has a "hooray for artichokes with dijon mustard aioli" locus somewhere on it.

Finally, stop ceding ground to bigots by accepting their framing that it's okay to treat someone like shit if they make choices you don't agree with. You know what is a choice? Religious affiliation. Does that mean we get to deny Baptists the right to marry? I mean, they could just choose not to be Baptist, right?

Sounds fucking stupid doesn't it?

So knock it off and quit helping them make that fucking stupid argument.

[Freiheit Reich]

Gays have mental illness and can be cured, says doctor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... octor.html

If you have interest in learning more about conversion by a respected non-religious organization you can read the FAQ from this site:

http://narth.com/2012/10/answers-to-fre ... sexuality/

Sources are sited and studies have been done. These are doctors and scientists that are not motivated to declassify a legitamate mental disorder due to political pressures during the hippy era (1973). Today we accept gays, tomorrow is transgenders, the next day is pedophiliacs, the following day is animal romancers. Society is slipping fast.

[Baltenstein]

Today we accept gays, tomorrow is transgenders, the next day is pedophiliacs, the following day is animal romancers. Society is slipping fast.

In my opinion, society was already doomed past salvation when people stopped defending it against the abominations of contraception, extra-marital intercourse, and women's suffrage. It could only go downhill after that.

[Bottle]

Today we accept gays, tomorrow is transgenders, the next day is pedophiliacs, the following day is animal romancers. Society is slipping fast.

In my opinon, society was already doomed when people stopped defending themselves against the abominations of contraception, extra-marital intercourse, and women's suffrage. It could only go downwards after that.

Yep, we're all doomed.

Doooooooooooooooomed!


*Doom applies only to cismale heterosexuals who dislike contraception and extra-marital intercourse. Void where prohibited.

[Hasuut Inu Tlomaq]

Gays have mental illness and can be cured, says doctor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... octor.html

If you have interest in learning more about conversion by a respected non-religious organization you can read the FAQ from this site:

http://narth.com/2012/10/answers-to-fre ... sexuality/

Sources are sited and studies have been done. These are doctors and scientists that are not motivated to declassify a legitamate mental disorder due to political pressures during the hippy era (1973). Today we accept gays, tomorrow is transgenders, the next day is pedophiliacs, the following day is animal romancers. Society is slipping fast.

Sieg Heil!

[ReVampire Kingdom]

Today we accept gays, tomorrow is transgenders, the next day is pedophiliacs, the following day is animal romancers. Society is slipping fast.

In my opinion, society was already doomed past salvation when people stopped defending it against the abominations of contraception, extra-marital intercourse, and women's suffrage. It could only go downhill after that.

..... I really hope these two are kidding. If not then... well....

[Bottle]

In my opinion, society was already doomed past salvation when people stopped defending it against the abominations of contraception, extra-marital intercourse, and women's suffrage. It could only go downhill after that.

..... I really hope these two are kidding. If not then... well....

If not, then...?

Good?

I mean, I'm an unmarried queer who uses contraception, and frankly I am absolutely thrilled if I get to have orgasms with my partner while simultaneously ruining the day of some bigot somewhere who is sobbing brokenly at the collapse of their treasured hierarchy and their own unearned privilege.

[Freiheit Reich]

Today we accept gays, tomorrow is transgenders, the next day is pedophiliacs, the following day is animal romancers. Society is slipping fast.

In my opinion, society was already doomed past salvation when people stopped defending it against the abominations of contraception, extra-marital intercourse, and women's suffrage. It could only go downhill after that.

I sense a bit of sarcasm in your post.

[Herrebrugh]

In my opinion, society was already doomed past salvation when people stopped defending it against the abominations of contraception, extra-marital intercourse, and women's suffrage. It could only go downhill after that.

I sense a bit of sarcasm in your post.

Reading your post... You seem deserving of it.

I'm just glad I am accepted as a homosexual by virtually all people I know.

[Northern Dominus]

Aaaand by your notion, sexual orientation is still somehow a "choice" or a "disorder". That notion in and of itself is equally reprehensible as the one you suggested people choke themselves for.

Granted I might be missing some past conversation here, but I don't see how what you quoted remotely equates to "it's a choice."

This provides a nice excuse for a rant I've been meaning to have.

*Clears throat. Glares over glasses in supercilious manner, hands steepled and prepared to issue forth Truth to the Masses*

People seem to think there are two options: sexuality is genetic, or sexuality is a choice. This is (and please forgive my technical jargon) a total pile of shit.

First of all, the "gay gene" is just a rainbow-colored bigfoot, folks...it's a myth. Sorry. There is no fabulous sasquatch roaming the wild hills of our genetic code. And how do I know this? Because DNA does not fucking work that way. There are over 50 genes involved in your ability to perceive color, for fuck's sake. The idea that there is one gene responsible for homosexuality is so ridiculous that geneticists literally vomit up three-headed unicorns whenever they hear someone suggest it.

Furthermore, "genetics" doesn't exclude choice. We know that there is a genetic component to alcoholism. But that doesn't mean every person who carries those genetics WILL become an alcoholic. People very often reject or defy their genetics. This is so routine you don't even notice it most of the time. For instance, how many people do you know whose teeth are not in the configuration that their genetics would have directed, thanks to modern orthodontia?

Which leads to the next major point of difficulty for many people: just because something was caused by environment or social factors or even by choices made in the past, does not mean it is a choice now. I don't wake up every morning and choose to have straight teeth, they were made this way years ago. I don't consciously choose to love reading, I love it because I was raised in a family of bibliophiles and I was always small for my age so liked activities that did not disadvantage me due to size and I am not dyslexic and I live in a culture that values education (sort of) and I have had many positive experiences related to reading which all shaped the feelings that I have but which I do not consciously choose to have.

I don't consciously choose to like homosexual sex, or artichokes, or Lily Tomlin. But that doesn't mean that I must carry the Liking Lily Tomlin Gene, either. It doesn't mean my DNA has a "hooray for artichokes with dijon mustard aioli" locus somewhere on it.

Finally, stop ceding ground to bigots by accepting their framing that it's okay to treat someone like shit if they make choices you don't agree with. You know what is a choice? Religious affiliation. Does that mean we get to deny Baptists the right to marry? I mean, they could just choose not to be Baptist, right?

Sounds fucking stupid doesn't it?

So knock it off and quit helping them make that fucking stupid argument.

The implication is subtle, as in "something happened during childhood to define someone's sexual orientation". That in turn implies some sort of "traumatic event", which gives creedence to every asshole who thinks something other than rather rigid and un-fun sexual orientations and gender identities is somehow a disorder and should be corrected via brainwashing and abuse.

I won't deny that it could perhaps influence personal choices in regards to partners as far as personality, looks, values, etc. Nor am I stumping for a singluar "gay gene", which is just as asinine and dangerous as assuming that a person's baseline sexual orientation and gender identity are all strictly choices. Humans are complex creatures, and to simply look for one gene ignores hormonal influences from the mother, brain chemistry, and a host of other biochemical mechanisms and idiosyncrasies present in not just humans but many mammals that display variations of coupling in some form.

However, that genetic baseline is the issue. Choices are choices, but there is very little one can do to deny it, and attempts to re-write that baseline have had tragic consequences on more than one occasion.

You used yourself as an example, and I shall do the same. I am a heterosexual male. I know this because every deliberate attempt to start a non-platonic personal relationship has been towards women, ever. Sure the basics may change, I may have a fixation on redheads blondes or brunettes, breasts buttocks or legs, nerds party girls or others, but the base of being attracted to women is still ever-present.
I don't have a problem with LGBT humans at all. I have many friends who just happen to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual. And, truth be told if an Antonio Banderas duplicate propositioned a night of passion I'd have to consider that offer....mainly because The Mask of Zorro was a rather intriguing movie for a variety of reasons but that's another argument for another day.

For all I know, the "issue" of sexual orientation and gender identity could be all explained by how the doctor spanks a child when they come out of the womb, but given the complexity of human genetics and chemistry that would appear to be the most obvious avenue of explaining such a choice. And since that is the case, hopefully you can understand why any notion of the baseline definition of human sexuality and gender identity being attributed to "choices" or "experiences" heavily if solely is rather offensive.

I sense a bit of sarcasm in your post.

Reading your post... You seem deserving of it.

I'm just glad I am accepted as a homosexual by virtually all people I know.

I don't accept you as a homsexual...

I accept you as a fellow human being who happens to be homosexual. Your sexual orientation is secondary to the content of your character, but then again that's just my spin on it.

People who actively try to paint LGBT oriented humans as "the other", as some sort of abomination, those are individuals who I have a hard time accepting as fellow human beings, or at the very least as people other than severely damaged goods in need of serious counseling to correct that rather caustic world view.

[Herrebrugh]

Reading your post... You seem deserving of it.

I'm just glad I am accepted as a homosexual by virtually all people I know.

I don't accept you as a homsexual...

I accept you as a fellow human being who happens to be homosexual. Your sexual orientation is secondary to the content of your character, but then again that's just my spin on it.

People who actively try to paint LGBT oriented humans as "the other", as some sort of abomination, those are individuals who I have a hard time accepting as fellow human beings, or at the very least as people other than severely damaged goods in need of serious counseling to correct that rather caustic world view.

But I don't know you

Anyway, you get what I mean. They who know me treat me the exact same as they would any other person.

[Tsuntion]

Today we accept gays, tomorrow is transgenders, the next day is pedophiliacs, the following day is animal romancers. Society is slipping fast.

Today we accept people with an orientation that, if acted on, is not harmful. Tomorrow we accept people with a gender identity that, if acted on, is not harmful.

The next day we accept people with an orientation or fetish that, if acted on, is harmful. The following day we accept people with an orientation or fetish that, if acted on, is harmful.

The first two are fine and I hope they happen. The second two are not comparable to the first two. The slippery slope is a fallacy anyway.