Are homosexuals really born that way?

[Neutraligon]

No. What I am asking is what's preventing you from having sex with a man if he meets every criteria you want to find in a woman except for genitals?

If you find it disgusting or don't know, then you never had a choice.

If you would, then you're bi.

What if i consider the genitals to be a factor too ?

And why are genitals a factor? Maybe because you only find certain genitals attractive?

[Blekksprutia]

Then there's also bisexuals and pansexuals, are there bi and pan genes?

And asexual and demisexual genes?

[Mirage]

Why should we, you are the one who claimed it was a choice (even if you left room for other possibilities), you are the one who should back up and provide proof that it is a choice rather than claiming it is our job to prove it is not a choice. You are making as much a claim as we are, but we have provided proof that it is biological and inborn while you have failed to provide any proof that it is not, nor have you provided any proof positive that it is a choice. You claim to believe it is a choice and I want to know why you believe it is a choice, what evidence do you have to back up the belief that it is a choice. Prove to me that there isn't a teapot in the middle of mars, that is essentially what you are saying.

I never presented it as a fact while you did. Hence the burden of proof is on you. You haven't provided any conclusive proof either. I have already responded to your reason part and the teapot is a fail analogy.

Genitals reacting to certain stimuli has nothing to do with, "I choose to be sexually attracted to X." It is purely the result of your nervous system signaling certain parts of the body to react in certain ways.

Way to not understand the point.

[Mavorpen]

I never presented it as a fact while you did. Hence the burden of proof is on you. You haven't provided any conclusive proof either.

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Human sexual orientation most likely exists as a continuum from solely heterosexual to solely homosexual. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality as a sexual orientation or expression and not a mental disorder.12 The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.8,11

All of those quotes are from my three sources. I even highlighted important points in red so that you don't have to stress yourself with the difficult action of actually reading and comprehending sources.

Now, do you STILL want to pretend as though you've actually read them, despite making claims that are demonstrably false? Stop. Lying.

Way to not understand the point.

I understood the point. The point is that you're ignorant of basic biology.

[Mirage]

Then you never had a choice.

Only that is not how it is.

[Mirage]

...

Once, you have something that contradicts what i said, come back.

[Neutraligon]

Why should we, you are the one who claimed it was a choice (even if you left room for other possibilities), you are the one who should back up and provide proof that it is a choice rather than claiming it is our job to prove it is not a choice. You are making as much a claim as we are, but we have provided proof that it is biological and inborn while you have failed to provide any proof that it is not, nor have you provided any proof positive that it is a choice. You claim to believe it is a choice and I want to know why you believe it is a choice, what evidence do you have to back up the belief that it is a choice. Prove to me that there isn't a teapot in the middle of mars, that is essentially what you are saying.

I never presented it as a fact while you did. Hence the burden of proof is on you. You haven't provided any conclusive proof either. I have already responded to your reason part and the teapot is a fail analogy.

Genitals reacting to certain stimuli has nothing to do with, "I choose to be sexually attracted to X." It is purely the result of your nervous system signaling certain parts of the body to react in certain ways.

Way to not understand the point.

No what you did was say I believe this and where subsequently asked why you believe this. Your answer was basically I believe it because it makes sense at which point you were asked why it makes sense? You have made a claim, that the cause it likely choice. You have failed to explain why it is likely choice, or provided backup to the claim that it is likely choice. On the other hand others have claimed that it almost definitely not a choice, and provided evidence to show that it is almost definitely not a choice. In science it is impossible to completely rule out something, hell the theory of gravity, while almost definitely true, does not rule out the possibility of munchkins playing yoyo with everything, there is just no proof to back up that belief. Now please back up your belief that it is probably a choice.

[Mirage]

And why are genitals a factor? Maybe because you only find certain genitals attractive?

That is one reason. I also don't like anal or oral. Also my preferences. It is not just about genitals, but also about alot of things, including things like personalities.

[Mirage]

No what you did was say I believe this and where subsequently asked why you believe this. Your answer was basically I believe it because it makes sense at which point you were asked why it makes sense? You have made a claim, that the cause it likely choice. You have failed to explain why it is likely choice, or provided backup to the claim that it is likely choice. On the other hand others have claimed that it almost definitely not a choice, and provided evidence to show that it is almost definitely not a choice. In science it is impossible to completely rule out something, hell the theory of gravity, while almost definitely true does not rule out the possibility of munchkins laying yoyo with everything, there is just no proof to back up that belief.

If you want to go in circles, go ahead. But i rather not keep on repeating myself.

[Neutraligon]

And why are genitals a factor? Maybe because you only find certain genitals attractive?

That is one reason. I also don't like anal or oral. Also my preferences. It is not just about genitals, but also about alot of things, including things like personalities.

O so you prefer certain genitals, now why do you prefer those genitals?

[Mavorpen]

...

Once, you have something that contradicts what i said, come back.

Okay then. I'll hold your hand like a little child.
Here's a compilation of YOUR claims.

Sorry, i must have missed that post. Either way, there is no clear indication of what causes it if not choice. So i don't see a reason to take choice out of the equation yet.

Only evidence doesn't rule it out as a possibility. If it does then we go back to what causes it which no one has answered yet.

Then cite this "peer-reviewed scientific data" that completely rules out the possibility of choice being a factor.

One has to present an evidence first. (Don't bother with quoting yourself again)

And there is no evidence to the contrary. How did someone rule out the possibility of choice having any role in it again ?

You get the fucking idea, right? You've consistently claimed that there is NO evidence that answers what causes homosexuality. You claimed that there is NO evidence that rules out choice. I then gave you this:

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Human sexual orientation most likely exists as a continuum from solely heterosexual to solely homosexual. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association reclassified homosexuality as a sexual orientation or expression and not a mental disorder.12 The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.8,11

All of those quotes are from my three sources. I even highlighted important points in red so that you don't have to stress yourself with the difficult action of actually reading and comprehending sources.

Now, do you STILL want to pretend as though you've actually read them, despite making claims that are demonstrably false? Stop. Lying.

So again, stop fucking lying. I gave you PLENTY of evidence that contradicts you.

[Mirage]

That is one reason. I also don't like anal or oral. Also my preferences. It is not just about genitals, but also about alot of things, including things like personalities.

O so you prefer certain genitals, now why do you prefer those genitals?

"Why do you find it tasty" ...

I also prefer well toned women. Now "why do you prefer that ?" ?

[Neutraligon]

No what you did was say I believe this and where subsequently asked why you believe this. Your answer was basically I believe it because it makes sense at which point you were asked why it makes sense? You have made a claim, that the cause it likely choice. You have failed to explain why it is likely choice, or provided backup to the claim that it is likely choice. On the other hand others have claimed that it almost definitely not a choice, and provided evidence to show that it is almost definitely not a choice. In science it is impossible to completely rule out something, hell the theory of gravity, while almost definitely true does not rule out the possibility of munchkins laying yoyo with everything, there is just no proof to back up that belief.

If you want to go in circles, go ahead. But i rather not keep on repeating myself.

So basically, you have stated a belief, one that you are not willing to back up. One which appears to be contradicted by scientific studies. Your prove to me I am wrong is about as strong an argument as prove to me I am wrong about gods existence, that is to say not strong at all. If you are not here to debate, don't post.

[Neutraligon]

O so you prefer certain genitals, now why do you prefer those genitals?

"Why do you find it tasty" ...

I also prefer well toned women. Now "why do you prefer that ?" ?

Because you just do I assume. Now, where was the choice in that?

[Mirage]

...

Meh, i am just going to ignore you as unless you have something relevant.

[Lordieth]

Personally, I think it's a mental state. You can be born with it, conditioned to be in it, or naturally acquire it. "Choice" is such a vague, wishy-washy term when applied to something as complex as sexuality.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

...

Meh, i am just going to ignore you as unless you have something relevant.

As you've ignored everything relevant that he's posted so far, that doesn't leave you much.

[Mavorpen]

...

Meh, i am just going to ignore you as unless you have something relevant.

That's as good as a concession I'll get out of you, so that's perfectly fine with me.

[Mirage]

So basically, you have stated a belief, one that you are not willing to back up. One which appears to be contradicted by scientific studies. Your prove to me I am wrong is about as strong an argument as prove to me I am wrong about gods existence, that is to say not strong at all. If you are not here to debate, don't post.

I have already responded to your previous posts which are the same thing only slightly different.

And, you don't get to decide whether i can or cannot post.

Because you just do I assume. Now, where was the choice in that?

Because I choose to prefer that instead of something else.

[Mirage]

Meh, i am just going to ignore you as unless you have something relevant.

As you've ignored everything relevant that he's posted so far, that doesn't leave you much.

Only, what i did ignore is the irrelevant part.

[Neutraligon]

So basically, you have stated a belief, one that you are not willing to back up. One which appears to be contradicted by scientific studies. Your prove to me I am wrong is about as strong an argument as prove to me I am wrong about gods existence, that is to say not strong at all. If you are not here to debate, don't post.

I have already responded to your previous posts which are the same thing only slightly different.

And, you don't get to decide whether i can or cannot post.

Because you just do I assume. Now, where was the choice in that?

Because I choose to prefer that instead of something else.

You have responded by essentially refusing to post any evidence backing up your belief. This is a discussion board, one which believes heavily in the use of evidence to back up a belief. If you do not back up a belief then you really are going to be eaten alive on here. I have been very gentle with you.

Really so you thought I think "I want to be attracted to butch women today", or did you just happen to be attracted to them with no actual decision made on your part.

[Anachronous Rex]

...

Meh, i am just going to ignore you as unless you have something relevant.

Fatality. Flawless Victory.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

As you've ignored everything relevant that he's posted so far, that doesn't leave you much.

Only, what i did ignore is the irrelevant part.

No. Everything that you're ignoring is material that directly contradicts your beliefs. The fact that it does so does not make it irrelevant.

[Hajaland]

Why not?

There isn't even a single gene responsible for determining eye color. What makes you think sexuality only has one?

The amendment of but one gene can have 'dramatic' results. I am not saying it is necessarily determined by a single gene, or a gene at all; however I do not count it as implausible.

[Mavorpen]

As you've ignored everything relevant that he's posted so far, that doesn't leave you much.

Only, what i did ignore is the irrelevant part.

Which isn't what you did earlier:

How did they test it out again ? I mean, anyone can simply say anything.

That was your response. And once it was pointed out that this is the stupidest argument ever, you simply decided to ignore the fact that you were wrong.