• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 15.9%
  • No

    Votes: 136 65.7%
  • Maybe/Don't Know

    Votes: 38 18.4%

  • Total voters
    207
Hold on you just said:
Taking posts out of context isn't clever.

I don't believe in types of people.

Others do. And can typically explain it.

I find those two statements to be rather confusing if not contradictory. And let's be honest. Do you really think that in today's world most people are very introspective? Some days I really have to wonder.
They aren't contradictory. I don't have a type, I don't believe there are types. Others do and use such language. Its not confusing in the least once you realize I was talking about my own personal perspective.

I Believe that most people are introspective its quite obvious they are it just manifests itself different than you would expect.

I'm confused. I'm attracted to my own gender so I am homo- or bi-sexual. Homosexual and bisexual are orientations, not attractions. So I have an attraction but it's not an attraction because it's an orientation?
You wouldn't be sexually attracted to your own gender if you weren't in that orientation.

You are confused because you are thinking attraction and orientation are the same thing. Again orientation refers to your position in relation to others. Attraction refers to the draw towards certain things.
 
People might know what...but not why. I really dig the olive skinned, black eyes, dark hair...yadda, yadda, yadda. But in the end...I would "NOT" truly be able to tell you why. I can say something to the effect that ice blue eyes turn me on...or honey blond, yadda, yadda...but if I really and truly try to express where it comes from. I don't think I can.

edited: Added the word "NOT"

It comes from your mind, don't sell that part of you short.

Ice blue eyes turning you on is the reason you are attracted to ice blue eyes, simple as that. There is likely some psychological reason that ice blue eyes turn you on, but that is likely a different thing for everybody.
 
Well I am not going to be one for claiming "unlearn-able". If this is a possibility (and I'm one who believe in multiple sources for orientations) then it seems to be so ingrained that it would be next to impossible to unlearn it, or more accurately to learn something else to override it. What is the correlation on identical twins raised separately and then is there any difference in correlation that seems to vary with length of time separated? While I myself had noted that even identical twins would not share the exact same experiences growing up, they would indeed share many. Given that we don't know what combination of factors would cause the tip in one direction or the other, it is logical that there would be times when both twins would end up with the same orientation and times when they wouldn't. If they shared no experiences together and there was still a high correlation then that would be evidence weighing highly for biological.

Sexuality is one of those things people aren't always honest about. If raised apart, that is going to skew the data more because one will be in an accepting environment, and be open about it, and the other might not. Nonetheless, this study found .50 correlation - although notably it says this is not as high for lesbians: Science Versus Ideology | American Renaissance

I think a wide array of human traits has shown to be highly hereditary, looking at twins raised apart, more than we'd like to believe perhaps. I don't see why sexuality would be different. Fraternal twins share the same upbringing too, and the correlation in most studies is closer to 25%. This study indicates 65.8% vs 30.4% concordance (mono vs dizgotic): Pacific Center for Sex and Society - Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets

So again i'm afraid the weight of evidence, and recent studies on hormonal factors like CAH, all leans toward biology and prenatal environment. There have also notably been mothers of twins who've said they were noticeably "different" very early on. How they can do that or whether that's faulty memory on their part, I'm not sure.
 
Thanks for your perspective, from my reading we're not that far off in our views, we just get there through different methods. I am slightly familiar with evolutionary psychology and it's theories but have not done a thourough contemplation. I kind of dismissed it after two thick volumns of info that seemed a bit fanciful to me... btw In the first statement I didn't say sexual attraction, I said attraction.
Please forgive my misunderstanding Johndy__There are indeed attractions other than "sexual"_

I just assumed you were referring to sexual attraction because the thread topic is "homosexuality"_

I personally am attracted to such things as intelligence, honesty and courage; regardless of gender_
 
"[ . . . ] is considered a mistake of nature_". You're forgetting that it's only you who consider it a mistake of nature. Well, some others, as well, but that doesn't make it a de facto truth. I've shown you earlier that it's more likely a byproduct of nature doing what it does: selecting beneficial traits.
All abnormal variations are mistakes of nature, regardless of whether they are beneficial or inconsequential to the species_

If homosexuality was indeed a beneficial variation, it would be flooding the human species with its genetic material by now_

But homosexuality by its own design does not contribute to the gene pool, making it inconsequential to the human species_

But the evidence suggests that it is, because, while it carries with it an evolutionary cost, it's the byproduct of something that carries a greater evolutionary advantage.
I can't imagine what "evolutionary advantage" that might be unless homosexuality was the solution to future overpopulation_

But that would require homosexuals to be a large enough percentage of the world's population to effect such a change_

Which is unlikely since homosexuals by design do not reproduce, nor do they naturally reoccur in sufficient numbers_

Look, I'm not suggesting that nature's mistakes should be left out in the cold to die__I'm not a savage_

I'm simply saying that homosexuality is obviously a biological/psychological/evolutionary abnormality_

It may not be the politically correct thing to say or believe, but it is the truth whether we like it or not_

We're not children__As adults we should be able to discuss tough and sensitive issues honestly without all the sugar-coating_

As long as it keeps being selected for, you can't presume that it's making no genetic contribution.
Simply "keeps being selected for" is not an indication of genetic success_

History has shown nearly all of natures mistakes to be recurring with the only variant being how people react to them_

Humanity's compassion and acceptance has come a long way but making ridiculous claims could damage those advancements_
 
But homosexuality by its own design does not contribute to the gene pool, making it inconsequential to the human species_

Not true. Many homosexuals indeed contribute to the gene pool through many methods. Simply because they choose not to make a life with a member of the opposite gender does not automatically mean that they will not breed.
 
All abnormal variations are mistakes of nature

"Mistake" is an opinion. It's your opinion, not a fact. Nature can't make "mistakes" because it doesn't have a mind to have an aim and to make decisions so that it can make 'mistaken' decisions. Things happen, and if they're beneficial, they keep happening.

If homosexuality was indeed a beneficial variation, it would be flooding the human species with its genetic material by now_

But homosexuality by its own design does not contribute to the gene pool, making it inconsequential to the human species_

I can't imagine what "evolutionary advantage" that might be unless homosexuality was the solution to future overpopulation_

[ . . . ]

Humanity's compassion and acceptance has come a long way but making ridiculous claims could damage those advancements_

I already explained this. Current evidence suggests that homosexuality is a byproduct of the same genetic trait that causes the mother to reproduce more -- specifically, at a rate that offsets the evolutionary cost of a gay son. If that's the case, then your idea that homosexuality must be a "mistake" is incorrect, and that's what the current research suggests.

If homosexuality was indeed a beneficial variation, it would be flooding the human species with its genetic material by now_

Not everything is always beneficial, or always selected for. For example, sickle-cell anemia is selected for because it provides an evolutionary advantage . . . in certain circumstances. Specifically, in areas of dense tropical climate where malaria runs deep. Sickle-cell anemia will kill a person in such an area in about 35 or 40 years, but malaria can kill them in 35 or 40 days. Malaria doesn't grow well in sickle cells. Ergo, having sickle cell anemia provides an evolutionary advantage in those environments.

That makes sickle cell anemia an evolutionary success, not a 'mistake'. But, at teh same time, it hasn't proliferated all over the world. Genetic evolution just doesn't fit in the simple little box you're trying to put it in. It's far more complicated than that.


Which is unlikely since homosexuals by design do not reproduce, nor do they naturally reoccur in sufficient numbers_
I'm simply saying that homosexuality is obviously a biological/psychological/evolutionary abnormality_

Homosexuals may make up as much as 5% of the population. That's significant. Also, it's only an "abnormality" in the mathematical sense; a sense which has no application in this discussion. It occurs, it continues to occur, so it is not a 'mistake'.


It may not be the politically correct thing to say or believe, but it is the truth whether we like it or not_

We're not children__As adults we should be able to discuss tough and sensitive issues honestly without all the sugar-coating_

I'm neither interested in political correctness, nor in 'sugar-coating' anything. You are simply wrong. Current evidence suggests that homosexuality -- or at least it's common cause -- confers an evolutionary benefit on the family where the genetic markers are found. It's only very mildly complex to understand. If you try to force evolution into a simple explanation, then the explanation can be expected to be wrong.


Simply "keeps being selected for" is not an indication of genetic success_

Um. That's exactly what a genetic success is. That's the entire concept of evolution. Right there.
 
I don't see how anyone could honestly argue that sexual orientation is a choice unless they themselves sat down to think about it, determined that they had absolutely no predisposition to any orientation themselves, and decided arbitrarily what orientation they wanted. Has anyone EVER done that? How can anyone be arguing that other people are necessarily making conscious decisions about something they themselves determined by their innate nature? It makes no sense.
 
I don't see how anyone could honestly argue that sexual orientation is a choice unless they themselves sat down to think about it, determined that they had absolutely no predisposition to any orientation themselves, and decided arbitrarily what orientation they wanted. Has anyone EVER done that? How can anyone be arguing that other people are necessarily making conscious decisions about something they themselves determined by their innate nature? It makes no sense.

There are people who have claimed to have done so (and I believe that there is a thread somewhere way back about one of them) and then there are the people who claim that they know that person better than they know themselves and that the former person must be wrong.

Now I for one am one of those who makes the conjecture that maybe there are multiple paths to orientation. While I believe that there are those, few though they may be, that can and do make the decision, I do not claim to be one of them. However, given some of the feelings that I have been having lately and given a complete lack of those feelings earlier in life, I do have to wonder about orientation being fixed.
 
There are people who have claimed to have done so (and I believe that there is a thread somewhere way back about one of them) and then there are the people who claim that they know that person better than they know themselves and that the former person must be wrong.

Now I for one am one of those who makes the conjecture that maybe there are multiple paths to orientation. While I believe that there are those, few though they may be, that can and do make the decision, I do not claim to be one of them. However, given some of the feelings that I have been having lately and given a complete lack of those feelings earlier in life, I do have to wonder about orientation being fixed.

I always liken sexual orientation to a person's taste in music. What determines your taste in music? Is it your genes? Is it a choice? Is it learned behavior? It is dependent on what you were exposed to at various formative moments in your life? It is cultural? Or is it all of those things in intricate combinations that we can't really quantify?

I think sexual orientation is like that. What makes Iron Maiden wonderful to my ears and Justin Beiber unpalatable? What makes another person have the exact opposite reaction? Probably as complex a system as determines our sexuality. Our tastes in music certainly can and do change. But we really can't say why or how. And we certainly shouldn't discriminate against people based on their tastes in music or attempt to "cure" them.
 
Please forgive my misunderstanding Johndy__There are indeed attractions other than "sexual"_

I just assumed you were referring to sexual attraction because the thread topic is "homosexuality"_

I personally am attracted to such things as intelligence, honesty and courage; regardless of gender_

The reason why I made a general statement about attraction is because it is nearly self evident that attraction of all kinds is learned behavior or at minimum the strengthening of particular attractions are learned behavior. When one adds the word "sexual" to "attraction" it somehow becomes outrageous that it be learned in the mind of some. I'm glad you nibbled at the bait, because I would like to hear why such a definite distinction should be made, psychologically speaking, between attraction in general and sexual attraction. What are your thoughts?
 
Homosexuality is NOT a choice....but even if it were.....who are these idiots and self-righteous hypocrites to try to impose THEIR choice on someone else? Every adult human being in this country should have the right to make decisions for themselves. It is completely arrogant and foolish to believe that anyone has the right to make that decision for someone else. Period.
 
I always liken sexual orientation to a person's taste in music. What determines your taste in music? Is it your genes? Is it a choice? Is it learned behavior? It is dependent on what you were exposed to at various formative moments in your life? It is cultural? Or is it all of those things in intricate combinations that we can't really quantify?

I think sexual orientation is like that. What makes Iron Maiden wonderful to my ears and Justin Beiber unpalatable? What makes another person have the exact opposite reaction? Probably as complex a system as determines our sexuality. Our tastes in music certainly can and do change. But we really can't say why or how. And we certainly shouldn't discriminate against people based on their tastes in music or attempt to "cure" them.

I'd like to cure our world from gangsta rap
 
I would think that any heterosexual who believes homosexualty is a choice test out their theory by choosing homosexuality for a little while to see how well that works out for them.

Should be an easy matter if there is anything to their opinion.

I have said the same thing... it also reminds of that scene in Our Idiot Brother where Paul Rudd really wants to please the couple and have a three way but stops and says, "sorry, I really want to but your erection against my leg threw me" or something like that. :lol:
 
Homosexuality is NOT a choice....but even if it were.....who are these idiots and self-righteous hypocrites to try to impose THEIR choice on someone else? Every adult human being in this country should have the right to make decisions for themselves. It is completely arrogant and foolish to believe that anyone has the right to make that decision for someone else. Period.

Try as I might... I could never be physically attracted to a man.
 
It is a choice as sin always is. We have free choice to not sin.

1422575_10151696522871863_472571727_n.jpg
 
I think it's both.

Some are born, some by choice.

Who cares?


I like big breasts. Was it from birth or by choice?

Again, who cares?
 
I don't think your sexual orientation is a choice.




It looks like the vast majority of those who voted in the poll agree with you.




This time-wasting thread will solve nothing.


The debate will go on as long as there is one homophobe left on this planet.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Back
Top Bottom