"I Still Believe Homosexuality is a choice..."

[mauricio]

This is not the same.  It is possible to find genetic markers that strongly correlate with homosexuality and imply a connection, and a few physiological markers have already been found that are correlative (not causative) indicating there is something genetic involved at some level.  It is also possible to counter the "it's not natural" argument by finding examples in nature (which has been done repeatedly).

The (typically) conservative "it's a choice" argument is simply a value judgment made by those who wish to be judgmental.  It makes no testable hypothesis; it is made simply to provide one desperate and terrifically weak excuse to be a bigot.

Why you conflate liberalism with scientific inquiry I don't know, but I thank you for the compliment -- despite your attempt to cast aspersions.  In any case, reference to a theoretical'gay gene' at least provides something that can be tested, and there is already considerable evidence for a significant genetic component, and that evidence has been piling up over the last 20 years with no significant contradictory research.  Besides, 'gay gene' is generally understood to mean a series of genetic markers that play a role in sexual identity, not a single site on one's DNA that makes an absolute biochemical decision on the bearer's behalf.

I'm not going to get into the problem of mind; too many variables, and I freely admit that I rapidly get lost between what's philosophy and what's physiology there.

I meant liberal in the watered down sense of US politics. The thing is there is no such thing as a gay gene and no it is not just a set of genetic structures that cause homosexuality either, some of the most recent discoveries point to epigenetics, which is by definition something beyond the scope of the genetic influence. You are correct in pointing out those correlations but there's something that happens during fetal development that actives and deactivates certain genes, this type of phenomena are environmental and they are called epigenetic which means homesexuality may "arise from nongenetic influences on gene expression." You are pretty much correct in your interpretation of the vague concept "gay gene", but it is still a inaccurate statement which I have seen used terribly.

My main point was that I have seen tons of ''liberals'' many of them atheists using wrong/unfounded rhetoric to counter the appeal to nature that conservatives make which is pointless since the appeal to nature is fallacious in and of itself because natural does not necessarily mean ''good, correct or what we ought to do" I have to facepalm terrible at the pseudoscientific rhetorical mumbo jumbo some of them make up to try to naturalize in order to morally justify homsexuality or trans-sexuality which is completely unnecessary. Because even if it's natural or unnatural, it does not say shit about whether the act is ethical or not, that depends more on the actual effects of the action. If someone chooses to have gay sex as long as he's not infringing the auto-determination of someone then there's nothing ethically wrong about it.

[SoldierofFortune]

No, homosexuality is not a choice. It's an inherited character...

For instance, i feel ''man'' and i like woman; I didn't choose to be a man. It comes by born...

[trdsf]

I meant liberal in the watered down sense of US politics. The thing is there is no such thing as a gay gene and no it is not just a set of genetic structures that cause homosexuality either, some of the most recent discoveries point to epigenetics, which is by definition something beyond the scope of the genetic influence. You are correct in pointing out those correlations but there's something that happens during fetal development that actives and deactivates certain genes, this type of phenomena are environmental and they are called epigenetic which means homesexuality may "arise from nongenetic influences on gene expression." You are pretty much correct in your interpretation of the vague concept "gay gene", but it is still a inaccurate statement which I have seen used terribly.

My main point was that I have seen tons of ''liberals'' many of them atheists using wrong/unfounded rhetoric to counter the appeal to nature that conservatives make which is pointless since the appeal to nature is fallacious in and of itself because natural does not necessarily mean ''good, correct or what we ought to do" I have to facepalm terrible at the pseudoscientific rhetorical mumbo jumbo some of them make up to try to naturalize in order to morally justify homsexuality or trans-sexuality which is completely unnecessary. Because even if it's natural or unnatural, it does not say shit about whether the act is ethical or not, that depends more on the actual effects of the action. If someone chooses to have gay sex as long as he's not infringing the auto-determination of someone then there's nothing ethically wrong about it.

The problem is more in that the argument being countered is presented as an article of faith (funny that), and only a short, sound-bitey thing like 'gay gene' has a chance of breaking a few chips off brain that's determined to assert that homosexuality is a choice.

Which means the problem isn't the argument -- the problem is education.  And the reality of the situation isn't as simple as choice/genetics.  In the words of Facebook's relationship choices, "it's complicated".  Unfortunately, someone who accepts a simple "it's a choice" as their final argument does not, generally speaking, deal well with 'complicated', so it needs to be oversimplified to have any hope of making any headway at all.

[widdershins]

It is, of course, a misconception to assume "Since I can do it, everyone can do it".  My personal experience, however, is valid for determining whether homosexuality is or is not a choice because for me, it is not.  I am heterosexual and am simply not capable of being attracted to men.  In this case the thought process is "If I can't make that choice, not everyone can make that choice.", which is a valid conclusion as it isn't all-inclusive.

[stromboli]

Which means the problem isn't the argument -- the problem is education.  And the reality of the situation isn't as simple as choice/genetics.  In the words of Facebook's relationship choices, "it's complicated".  Unfortunately, someone who accepts a simple "it's a choice" as their final argument does not, generally speaking, deal well with 'complicated', so it needs to be oversimplified to have any hope of making any headway at all.

Been spending the last few days with my friend getting his shit together after being first robbed and beaten and then having his car stolen. Got his car cleaned out of the dope kit and mass of paraphenalia they left behind. Helped him out with a new cell phone to replace the one that was smashed. Tell you one thing for sure- gay isn't learned behavior. He and I together are complete polar opposites, me a fairly heavyset bearded man in jeans and a hoodie, him nattily dressed with an impeccable holiday motif and matching jewelry (yes, I'm serious). Quite a pair at Walgreens when we went to pick up his meds.

You can't spend time with a gay man and come back with the conclusion it is learned behavior. Everything about my friend speaks to innate behavior, nothing that is an affectation but naturally derived from his sexuality. I love Calvin like a brother, and he assures me the feeling is mutual. But honestly we are as different as two people can be, both physically and every other way.

[Jannabear]

If it were a choice then what would be the motivation? There are many plausible biological causes to why people are gay, typically involving things that happen when you're developing in the womb, hormonal imbalances, defects, etc. If it were a choice to be gay then I would probably not be pansexual, because It confuses the fuck out of most people and can cause me to get treated like shit, I know it's not a choice because it's not something I just decided on, saying it's a choice would be akin to creationists who say you subconsciously worship the devil.

[Baruch]

I am not picking on any minority by saying this ... but no regular person volunteers to be a minority in any society, particularly a despised minority.  I am not saying that being conformist is all peaches and cream either.  Some people's deviation is visible (Black skin etc), for many it is invisible as long as it is unexpressed.  If one can't even express who you are, even in private, even all alone ... then you have internalized that oppression.  At minimum, everyone, even people who "do" roadkill animals ... should admit to themselves who and what they are ... non-prejudicial.  Anything less is neurotic.  The question remains, should one act on this.  If one can then be honest with oneself ... then finding a friend that you can discuss the most intimate things in private with them ... is of benefit.  Depending on who and what you are, and depending on your society, you may never be able to opening admit who and what you are ... except maybe on the anonymity of the Internet.  That doesn't mean that people will be comfortable with your coming out of the closet ... that depends on the specific audience.  One thing I can say is, that no matter who or what you are ... you are not alone.  And hopefully you will find a sympathetic ear.

[widdershins]

...no regular person volunteers to be a minority in any society, particularly a despised minority...

A very good point, but not entirely accurate.  I mean, I see where you're going with it and you are very right in that context.  But in a literal sense it isn't true as pretty much every fundamentalist not only chooses to be, but actually relishes being a despised minority, even when they're not actually a despised minority.  They at least have to pretend that they're a despised minority (the persecution complex) and some of them go out of their way to make themselves obviously different so that it's easier to identify who one needs to despise.

Not that any of that really has any relevance whatsoever to what you were actually saying, and I'm certainly not saying that, in context, you are in any way wrong.  That first bit just caught my eye.

[stromboli]

I don't know that anyone would choose to be gay, but I can tell you some people definitely accept it. My gay friend dresses up to go to a drive through pharmacy. I mean we are talking jewelry, for fucks sake.

[Munch]

I don't know that anyone would choose to be gay, but I can tell you some people definitely accept it. My gay friend dresses up to go to a drive through pharmacy. I mean we are talking jewelry, for fucks sake.

thats not being gay, thats being non-conservative within his gender -'norm'.
All the gay friends and boyfriends I've had over the years are just regular guys, big hairy men, regular shaped men, theri gamers, sports fans, guys working a 9-5 job, and i've only were meet men who drag it up at public events like parties.

[SoldierofFortune]

not completely related to the topic but i am wondering how male gays get pleasure from the rectal massage...i mean what is the physiological mechanism...

[Munch]

not completely related to the topic but i am wondering how male gays get pleasure from the rectal massage...i mean what is the physiological mechanism...

A magical button known as the G-spot.

All men have it, but only those daring to venture into uncharted territories can know its divinity.

[stromboli]

A magical button known as the G-spot.

All men have it, but only those daring to venture into uncharted territories can know its divinity.

The shit I learn on here.....

[SoldierofFortune]

A magical button known as the G-spot.

All men have it, but only those daring to venture into uncharted territories can know its divinity.

People wrongly suppose that they would be a gay if sth enters their ass, whereas they wouldn't, right... but i don't think i can take that risk...D

[AllPurposeAtheist]

It all started with that choice of whether or not to watch the Flintstones as a child..That ONE LITTLE phrase... "We'll have a GAY old time."  What more proof does anybody really need?  Heavens to Betsy!
It's all part of the Jewish conspiracy to make gentiles stop having babies..