Cause of Homosexuality and Bisexuality

[Bottle]

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",

Stop right there.

No, it bloody well does not.

The fact that events throughout your lifetime have shaped who you are today is simply a fact. It does not carry value judgment inherent to it.

My food preferences have been shaped by my experiences throughout life, but that doesn't mean my preference for artichokes is due to some "traumatic event." Ditto my sexual preferences.

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.

IF someone makes that argument, THEN you can argue against it.

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 need to re-read my post.

"Genetic baseline" does not mean what you seem to think.

Your dichotomy between "genetics" and "choice" is wrong.

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.

Except, see, no. It's not. That was my post, you see. That "genetics" does not do what you seem to think, that everything we currently know about how DNA is related to complex human emotions/behaviors leads to the conclusion that you are wrong, and that you are incorrect when you try to draw this line with "choice" on one side and "genes" on the other.

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.

Oh, I understand why some people find it offensive: they don't understand genetics, or physiology, or psychology, or any of the body of modern research on human sexuality.

Many people are offended by facts. Facts remain undeterred.

[Freiheit Reich]

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 can accept the person but not the actions. By ignoring the gayness it is possible to get along with gays. My idea takes away any tensions. Avoidance is not always a bad thing. Gay marriage makes it harder to avoid and/or hide the issue. I accept the person, not the devious sexual behavior.

[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 can accept the person but not the actions. By ignoring the gayness it is possible to get along with gays. My idea takes away any tensions. Avoidance is not always a bad thing. Gay marriage makes it harder to avoid and/or hide the issue. I accept the person, not the devious sexual behavior.

Why not? Why do you care what gender another person is sexually attracted to?

[Freiheit Reich]

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.

What if the pedophile preys on 12 year olds that have sex willingly? I think 16 is the youngest acceptable age to have sex. 12-13 can consent though (but I don't think they are mature enough). However, it is consensual so nobody is harmed right?

Some animals can be trained to be the 'pitcher' in the relationship. I heard about donkeys being trained to make love to women in bars in Mexico. The donkeys are the ones choosing to be in the dominant sexual position, they are having fun. The 'pitcher' is not the victim. Only the 'catcher' can be the victim.

[Freiheit Reich]

I can accept the person but not the actions. By ignoring the gayness it is possible to get along with gays. My idea takes away any tensions. Avoidance is not always a bad thing. Gay marriage makes it harder to avoid and/or hide the issue. I accept the person, not the devious sexual behavior.

Why not? Why do you care what gender another person is sexually attracted to?

It is weird and shouldn't be acceptable. Gays/bisexuals can be violent as well. In prisons many people become gay and victimize other men. This is proof people can choose to be bisexual. People say it is about power but it is still homosexual behavior.

There was a case in my city of an older man drugging a neighbors drink and raping him (not smart because he was easily caught). Another case of gay rape.

Also, it is gross behavior. Imagine if a man on the bus smeared feces on himself. Wouldn't you be offended if you were on the bus next to him? He made his weird actions public. If he did it at home and you didn't know than it would be OK right? Same case with guys kissing each other on the lips in public or pinching each other on the butt. It is offensive.

[Kabab]

But... But how?

*Head splosion*

Buddhism. It's a religion, but it's atheistic as Buddhists don't believe in deities (IIRC).

Actually, Buddism teaches that we are all part of one big god.

[Northern Dominus]

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",

Stop right there.

No, it bloody well does not.

The fact that events throughout your lifetime have shaped who you are today is simply a fact. It does not carry value judgment inherent to it.

My food preferences have been shaped by my experiences throughout life, but that doesn't mean my preference for artichokes is due to some "traumatic event." Ditto my sexual preferences.

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.

IF someone makes that argument, THEN you can argue against it.

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 need to re-read my post.

"Genetic baseline" does not mean what you seem to think.

Your dichotomy between "genetics" and "choice" is wrong.

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.

Except, see, no. It's not. That was my post, you see. That "genetics" does not do what you seem to think, that everything we currently know about how DNA is related to complex human emotions/behaviors leads to the conclusion that you are wrong, and that you are incorrect when you try to draw this line with "choice" on one side and "genes" on the other.

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.

Oh, I understand why some people find it offensive: they don't understand genetics, or physiology, or psychology, or any of the body of modern research on human sexuality.

Many people are offended by facts. Facts remain undeterred.

Okay, well since you have all these facts on your side regardless of possibility otherwise, answer me this; why does conversion therapy result in rampant depression and too often, suicide? If the notion of "choice" is in any way correct then human brains should be amicable to that change. A little depression at losing something maybe, but not the deep deep abysmal depression and certainly not a personal crisis that can only be solved through the taking of ones life.

Perhaps there's something else at work here, something so deeply rooted within a person that attempts to alter it result in such conflicts to render the notion an asinine one, if not outright dangerous? Perhaps choice factors in, just not to the degree that people would like to believe that they have regarding their sexuality?

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the- ... ve-therapy

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 can accept the person but not the actions. By ignoring the gayness it is possible to get along with gays. My idea takes away any tensions. Avoidance is not always a bad thing. Gay marriage makes it harder to avoid and/or hide the issue. I accept the person, not the devious sexual behavior.

Except here's the problem, by accepting the person, you accept the fact that they have a different sexual orientation or gender identity than you. No one is forcing you to participate in their personal sexual preferences or make a big fuss out of it, but singling that particular aspect out as "unworthy" is not only inherrintly wrong but frankly it's highly ignorant.

LGBT orientation isn't "bad", it's different, and not a harmful one either. What's more harmful and abhorrent to society is people who grab the soapbox and their bullhorn and go out of their way to point out that infinitesimal difference in select people and make them feel like the "other", when really the freaks are the one making the big deal out if it in the first place.

[Herrebrugh]

Why not? Why do you care what gender another person is sexually attracted to?

It is weird and shouldn't be acceptable.

Why/why not?

Gays/bisexuals can be violent as well. In prisons many people become gay and victimize other men. This is proof people can choose to be bisexual. People say it is about power but it is still homosexual behavior.

Homo/bisexuals can be violent? No shit. Also, source?

There was a case in my city of an older man drugging a neighbors drink and raping him (not smart because he was easily caught). Another case of gay rape.

Straight people commit rape as well. Doesn't mean I think that heterosexuality is "weird and shouldn't be accepted".

Also, it is gross behavior. Imagine if a man on the bus smeared feces on himself. Wouldn't you be offended if you were on the bus next to him? He made his weird actions public. If he did it at home and you didn't know than it would be OK right? Same case with guys kissing each other on the lips in public or pinching each other on the butt. It is offensive.

Uhm... How does a person on the bus smearing feces on himself compare to two homosexuals simply loving each other? And I dislike it when people make out in public no matter their sexual orientation, though, I don't mind a simple kiss on the mouth.

[Choronzon]

However, it is consensual so nobody is harmed right?

Right.

Glad we got that cleared up.

It is weird and shouldn't be acceptable.

I think your whole worldview shouldn't be acceptable.

Just thought I'd mention that while we're pretending personal opinions mean anything.

Gays/bisexuals can be violent as well. In prisons many people become gay and victimize other men. This is proof people can choose to be bisexual. People say it is about power but it is still homosexual behavior.

Oh, you're someone who thinks gay acts alone make you gay.

Thats so...cute.

There was a case in my city of an older man drugging a neighbors drink and raping him (not smart because he was easily caught). Another case of gay rape.

Men do this to woman all the time.

Ban heterosexual intercourse!

Also, it is gross behavior.

This, really, is what its about. At least you have the balls to admit it.

Same case with guys kissing each other on the lips in public or pinching each other on the butt.

Doesn't bother me any more than straight couples doing it bothers me.

Which is none.

It is offensive.

The fact that homosexuality makes people like you feel uncomfortable and offended is check in the "pro" column.

[Freiheit Reich]

However, it is consensual so nobody is harmed right?

Right.

Glad we got that cleared up.

So you support a 40 year old man having intimate relations with a 12 year old (as that was the reference)? I was being sarcastic when I asked and hoped nobody would say yes (unless they are from the Middle East where that is culturally acceptable of course).

[Veceria]

Right.

Glad we got that cleared up.

So you support a 40 year old man having intimate relations with a 12 year old (as that was the reference)? I was being sarcastic when I asked and hoped nobody would say yes (unless they are from the Middle East where that is culturally acceptable of course).

12 year olds are usually below the age of consent. So it wouldn't be consensual.
Otherwise, yes, consensual usually means nobody gets harmed, regarding law stuff.

[Choronzon]

So you support a 40 year old man having intimate relations with a 12 year old (as that was the reference)?

You know what, fuck it.

Sure.

[Freiheit Reich]

It is weird and shouldn't be acceptable.

Why/why not?

Gays/bisexuals can be violent as well. In prisons many people become gay and victimize other men. This is proof people can choose to be bisexual. People say it is about power but it is still homosexual behavior.

Homo/bisexuals can be violent? No shit. Also, source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape

[Choronzon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape

All that proves is that prison rape happens. Which no one disputes.

What it does not prove, however, is that it has anything to do with sexual orientation.

[Herrebrugh]

Why/why not?



Homo/bisexuals can be violent? No shit. Also, source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape

All that proves is that prison rape happens. Which no one disputes.

What it does not prove, however, is that it has anything to do with sexual orientation.

^This.

Also, please answer the other questions as well.

[Freiheit Reich]

So you support a 40 year old man having intimate relations with a 12 year old (as that was the reference)? I was being sarcastic when I asked and hoped nobody would say yes (unless they are from the Middle East where that is culturally acceptable of course).

12 year olds are usually below the age of consent. So it wouldn't be consensual.
Otherwise, yes, consensual usually means nobody gets harmed, regarding law stuff.

In some countries like Uganda it is illegal to be gay so it is not consensual. If 2 men love each other and have sex in Uganda does this mean they are raping each other because they are breaking a law?

There is legal and moral consent. The 12 year old can have moral/personal consent but the law says it is not legal consent. Same with gays in Uganda. In your eyes the Uganda men are not hurting each other right? Is the 40 year old hurting the 12 year old?

I am tolerant though. I don't want homosexuality against the law, I just don't want it to be encouraged by legalizing gay marriage. Gays should also not be protected under the Civil Rights Act. Don't ban it but don't encourage it either. I am not liberal, I am a moderate on this issue. A hard core right winger would say ban it.

[Volnotova]

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.

There exists no religious or scientific argument supporting the idea that homosexuality is somehow a mental illness/disorder (Even if some genuine (and well respected) scientists/researchers may claim the opposite).

Also, what is wrong with transgenders/sexuals?

[Northern Dominus]

Right.

Glad we got that cleared up.

So you support a 40 year old man having intimate relations with a 12 year old (as that was the reference)? I was being sarcastic when I asked and hoped nobody would say yes (unless they are from the Middle East where that is culturally acceptable of course).

Uh, certain sects of christianity and judaism also see that as acceptable. Not strictly an "ebbil muhslim" thing...

And what you described is pedophelia. Not sexual orientation.

In fact there's plenty of unbiased research out there to support this obvious notion, such as research done by the University of California, Davis campus:
Of pedophelia, the studty notes:

"The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes."

And after debunking several flawed studies attempting to link the two, the conclusion is as follows:

"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... ation.html

So there you go. In the case of a pedophile, the orientation isn't based upon which sexual organs they prefer but a fixation on age.

Any questions?

[Baltenstein]

I sense a bit of sarcasm in your post.

Well, if you construct a line of reasoning that links the acceptance of homosexuals to zoophilia and the demise of society, why stop there? How is homosexuality "devious" and "a threat" while contraception, extra-marital intercourse, or a man and a woman being in the same room aren't?

[Basque Socialist States]

When heterosexual couples have sex, a magical being called a stork comes and delivers them a baby. When homosexual couples have sex, a similar magical being called a "fairy" comes and sprinkles "queer dust" on a random baby. This dust has some kind of supernatural effect which alters the baby's genetic code, changing them from a normal God-fearing human being into an insatiable, spandex-wearing, lisping fanny-bandit. This is how the gays propagate their species. Anyone who tells me otherwise is a God-hating communist, or very likely a fanny-bandit themselves!

[Herrebrugh]

When heterosexual couples have sex, a magical being called a stork comes and delivers them a baby. When homosexual couples have sex, a similar magical being called a "fairy" comes and sprinkles "queer dust" on a random baby. This dust has some kind of supernatural effect which alters the baby's genetic code, changing them from a normal God-fearing human being into an insatiable, spandex-wearing, lisping fanny-bandit. This is how the gays propagate their species. Anyone who tells me otherwise is a God-hating communist, or very likely a fanny-bandit themselves!

[Choronzon]

I am tolerant though. I don't want homosexuality against the law, I just don't want it to be encouraged by legalizing gay marriage. Gays should also not be protected under the Civil Rights Act. Don't ban it but don't encourage it either. I am not liberal, I am a moderate on this issue. A hard core right winger would say ban it.

I'm tolerant, I just think those disgusting faggots should remain second class citizens and ostracized because I think they're icky. Separate but equal bro!

[Volnotova]

12 year olds are usually below the age of consent. So it wouldn't be consensual.
Otherwise, yes, consensual usually means nobody gets harmed, regarding law stuff.

In some countries like Uganda it is illegal to be gay so it is not consensual. If 2 men love each other and have sex in Uganda does this mean they are raping each other because they are breaking a law?

There is legal and moral consent. The 12 year old can have moral/personal consent but the law says it is not legal consent. Same with gays in Uganda. In your eyes the Uganda men are not hurting each other right? Is the 40 year old hurting the 12 year old?

I am tolerant though. I don't want homosexuality against the law, I just don't want it to be encouraged by legalizing gay marriage. Gays should also not be protected under the Civil Rights Act. Don't ban it but don't encourage it either. I am not liberal, I am a moderate on this issue. A hard core right winger would say ban it.

In short: You support treating us as second-class citizens.

Good to know, I guess that's settled then.

[Choronzon]

When heterosexual couples have sex, a magical being called a stork comes and delivers them a baby. When homosexual couples have sex, a similar magical being called a "fairy" comes and sprinkles "queer dust" on a random baby. This dust has some kind of supernatural effect which alters the baby's genetic code, changing them from a normal God-fearing human being into an insatiable, spandex-wearing, lisping fanny-bandit. This is how the gays propagate their species. Anyone who tells me otherwise is a God-hating communist, or very likely a fanny-bandit themselves!

I like the new guy.

[Herrebrugh]

In some countries like Uganda it is illegal to be gay so it is not consensual. If 2 men love each other and have sex in Uganda does this mean they are raping each other because they are breaking a law?

There is legal and moral consent. The 12 year old can have moral/personal consent but the law says it is not legal consent. Same with gays in Uganda. In your eyes the Uganda men are not hurting each other right? Is the 40 year old hurting the 12 year old?

I am tolerant though. I don't want homosexuality against the law, I just don't want it to be encouraged by legalizing gay marriage. Gays should also not be protected under the Civil Rights Act. Don't ban it but don't encourage it either. I am not liberal, I am a moderate on this issue. A hard core right winger would say ban it.

In short: You support treating us as second-class citizens.

Good to know, I guess that's settled then.

He's still tolerant, though. Don't worry