• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

born different

I don't know about the rest of you, but I wasn't born thinking about sex. I wasn't born even knowing what "gay" and "straight" were, much less preferring one over the other.

I was born surrounded by a lot of confusing shapes and colours, of which I tried to make sense. Every relationship I have ever had has been informed by how I chose to interperet those confusing shapes and colours, and the billions of choices I've made since then.

I wasn't born preferring Vivaldi to Hillary Duff, because I had heard neither. I wasn't born preferring Gibson to Fender. My tastes evolved as a result of lifestyle choices I have made, and being straight was one of them.

Why are so many gay people so emotionally attached to the idea that they had no choice in the matter?
 
First and foremost I would never unneccessarily concern myself with what two homosexuals decide to do in the privacy of their own homes - the less I know about it the better. However, when homosexuals publicly declare that their dubious lifestyle should be considered normative on the basis that it is genetically innate I take issue with that.

The genetic homosexuality camp is not content to be left alone, nor are they content to leave society alone. The media, academia, and the government are all awash with subtle social engineering programs that espouse, without presenting any conclusive evidence to support such a flimsy conclusion, the normalcy of homosexuality, nor do they make an attempt to provide their audience with any alternative theories that may undermine their biased presuppositions.

Secondly, what does the mystery of God have to do with homosexuality? Why does every asinine little thing in the universe have to tie into some divine plan? I blame Hollywood for this puerile sentiment - that everytime some simpleton finds themself at logical dead-end they refer to the mystery of life and God's plan, guy meets girl, guy gets girl, I puke, the end.

Lastly, when will society stop using our genes as a cop-out for just about every negative aspect of human nature? Probably when the "paedophilia is genetic" movement makes its first appearence - although I wouldn't be suprised if they're already out there. If homosexuality had a real basis in genetics then so would bisexuality, beastiality, paedophilia and any number of deviant sexual practices - what makes homosexuality so different apart from the aforementioned "lifestyles"?

Conclusion, you chose homosexuality out of sexual confusion or frustration, consciously or subconsciously, just like the alchoholic chooses to drink himself into a coma whenever they can't cope with reality, just like the murderer who chooses to wield a knife when they abandon reason and self-control, and just like the manic-depressive who chooses to wallow in self-pity all day and all night. If you're ashamed for being a human and fallable at least try to blame it on something other than your genes.
 
Its like ive said before gay people like mens *****, lesbians like fingering other women.

Sorry but there is nothing special about it its just what turns you on.If you must know there cant actually be a gay gene genes are more like a recipe a single gene would be stupid its more like there is several genes that make a likely statistical outcome combined with hormonal differences.
 
ps.I cant be believe the word c0ck is classed as a curse word what if i was a farmer.
 
Ethereal said:
If homosexuality had a real basis in genetics then so would bisexuality, beastiality, paedophilia and any number of deviant sexual practices - what makes homosexuality so different apart from the aforementioned "lifestyles"?
Click to expand...
First, you should try not to prejudge issues as you have done by using the
phrase "deviant sexual practices" in a way that could be interpreted as applying
to homosexuality and bisexuality.

Second, beastiality and paedophilia are distinct from and not directly related to
homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. They are "so different" because
they remove informed consent.

Conclusion, you chose homosexuality out of sexual confusion or frustration, consciously or subconsciously
Click to expand...
This is not a conclusion as your statements leading to it have no substance.
It is your opinion only, and is not supported by real evidence.
 
I'll just assume that you're in agreement with all the points you left unadressed in my previous post.

First, you should try not to prejudge issues as you have done by using the phrase "deviant sexual practices" in a way that could be interpreted as applying to homosexuality and bisexuality.
Click to expand...

What's innappropriate about refering to homosexuality or bisexuality as deviant? Characterising them as such would be entirely accurate within the context of biological and evolutionary normative behavior.

Second, beastiality and paedophilia are distinct from and not directly related to homosexuality, bisexuality or heterosexuality. They are "so different" because they remove informed consent.
Click to expand...

I never implied they were the same when viewed from a legal or moral standpoint, only from a genetic standpoint - I thought that was obvious.

This is not a conclusion as your statements leading to it have no substance.
Click to expand...

One does not require substance to reach a conclusion - just thought I'd point that out.

It is your opinion only, and is not supported by real evidence.
Click to expand...

Real evidence? Perhaps if those people espousing the genetic origins of homosexuality had provided any evidence of their own I might have felt obligated to do the same. Perhaps you can produce data or experimentation worthy of a more substantive rebuttal - I'd be more than happy to provide you with evidence to the contrary.
 

IMO some are born gay, although you got idiots who will use certain individuals who quote "kicked the evil lifestyle" to speak for all homosexuals. Personally someone being gay mean jack to me. I view competence and intelligence over religion, race, sexual orientation etc.
 
So do you all think the same is true of straight folk? Do they all want to have sex straight out of the womb? You think 3 year old girls are fantasizing about sexual encounters with guys?

Give me a break. No one is born with a fully developed sexual identity.:roll:
 
Ethereal said:
I'll just assume that you're in agreement with all the points you left unadressed in my previous post.
Click to expand...
You assume wrongly; they were not worth addressing.

What's innappropriate about refering to homosexuality or bisexuality as deviant? Characterising them as such would be entirely accurate within the context of biological and evolutionary normative behavior.
Click to expand...
As homosexual behaviour is common in many (I suspect, all) animal species,
you have no biological basis for calling it deviant. Evolution describes change
and in that context "normative behaviour" is meaningless.


I never implied they were the same when viewed from a legal or moral standpoint, only from a genetic standpoint - I thought that was obvious.
Click to expand...
Using the term "deviant" in the text gives the lie to your point not being
intended as a moral one.

One does not require substance to reach a conclusion - just thought I'd point that out.
Click to expand...
You are right if you were using the term in the sense of finishing, but in
context the meaning is clearly a judgment or inference. You do need
substance to make a judgment or an inference.

The evidence suggesting a genetic component to sexual orientation has been
referenced on this site many times. Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
 
For those of you STR8 people that don't believe "we" gay people are born this way...........WHEN did you decide to be STR8?????:roll: :doh
 
For those of you STR8 people that don't believe "we" gay people are born this way...........WHEN did you decide to be STR8?????
Click to expand...

I decide to be "STR8" every day. Why are you so ashamed of your decision to be gay that you feel the need to be absolved of responsibility for it.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for everyone having equal rights, and I don't think being gay is immoral, but serioiusly, its like saying "Its not my fault I'm a Goth, I was born this way," or "its not my fault I am a philanthropist, I was just born this way," or "its not my fault I'm a sports fan, I was just born this way.":roll:
 
Thinker said:
As homosexual behaviour is common in many (I suspect, all) animal species,
you have no biological basis for calling it deviant. Evolution describes change
and in that context "normative behaviour" is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Not at all. People attempt to describe how we are deviant of a common ancestor all the time. Supposedly, the ancestor was once the norm and through random positive and negative mutations the norm changed/emerged as guaged by what is most fit. You see, it has to be compared to the norm or else there is no way to guage a positive or negative mutation. It appears to be a negative deviation from the norm at this point.

Could it be common, that is, accross a spectrum of species, not common in making up a large percentage within any particular species, because the animals are merely confused by their unique environment and thus enjoy somehting they were not meant to? Is there any reason to rule that out? It would certainly account for its rarity if it only arrived when extremely unique environmental conditions appear.


The evidence suggesting a genetic component to sexual orientation has been
referenced on this site many times. Here's a summary:
Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Some points from the wikipedia article with my comments:

Not evidence of anything, only a few correlations which may point out to something of substance if many other unknown factors turn out to be true.
 
Get real!:doh
 
Last edited:
cherokee said:
I have a question....

Why do other people care so much about what others do or how they live if they are NOT breaking the law?
Do they stay up at night worrying about it?
Can anyone answer without telling me what Bible says?
Click to expand...
its b/c they have way too much time on their hands. Tell you what. Iam a gay male and when a STR8 person can PERFECT their selves then they can come back and tell me how to do it to. Untill then.....M.Y.O.B.!
 

You gotta be frickin kidding me...
 

Well it isnt like any of those though i understand your point it is a moral question.
 
I decide to be "STR8" every day.
Click to expand...

If you have to "decide to be straight every day", then I suspect you're not actually all that straight at all.
One of these days, you're going to wake up and not have the energy or the willpower to make the decision, and then what?
Life is long, my friend.
 

So if you decide to be straight each day, you are telling us that you have considered being gay? That is closer to a definition of being bisexual than being straight.

Comparing sexual orientation to wardrobe choices or hobbies is silly and non-analogous.
 
You assume wrongly; they were not worth addressing.
Click to expand...

Is this newspeak for, "I haven't the requisite knowledge of the current topic in order to intelligently address said points"?

As homosexual behaviour is common in many (I suspect, all) animal species, you have no biological basis for calling it deviant.
Click to expand...

Commonality does not denote something as being normative. Infanticide and cannibalism are relatively common within the animal kingdom but this does not confer normality upon said acts.

Also, since heterosexuality is the most prevalent sexual practice in the animal kingdom it would be considered the norm, and as such would denote homosexuality as being deviant from said norm.

Furthermore, I would venture to say that bisexuality is common within the animal kingdom as opposed to pure homosexuality. I doubt there are many other animals besides humans who have been observed to limit their sexual partners solely to those of the same sex. If you could provide a study that says otherwise I would be mightily impressed.

Evolution describes change and in that context "normative behaviour" is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Yes, change in respect to the increased perpetuation and survivability of the species - and since homosexuality contributes to neither of these (it could be said that it detracts from them) it can be appropriately characterized as deviant in the context of evolutionary normative behavior. Evolutionary normative behavior being any adaptation, characteristic, or practice that increases the perpetuation and survivability of a given species.

Using the term "deviant" in the text gives the lie to your point not being intended as a moral one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this statement is implying as your grammar is poor.

You are right if you were using the term in the sense of finishing, but in context the meaning is clearly a judgment or inference. You do need
substance to make a judgment or an inference.
Click to expand...

No, you need substance to make a valid inference. Anyone can make an inference that lacks substance. Just look at the KKK.

The evidence suggesting a genetic component to sexual orientation has been referenced on this site many times. Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation
Click to expand...

And I have refuted this so-called evidence many times as well. Also, posting a link in lieu of making an actual argument is a very poor and boring debate tactic. Perhaps you can harvest some pertinent information from this article and subsequently cite or reference said information as you describe to me, in your own words, the merits of your position.

However, if you want Wikipedia to debate in your stead I be happy to discuss the current topic with you by proxy.
 
Ethereal said:
I'm not sure what this statement is implying as your grammar is poor.
Click to expand...
The grammar is clear; it is your understanding that is questionable. Discussing
homosexuality by using words like "deviant" and "normality" has been shown
many times to be a tactic of those without any credible support for their points
of view.

In passing, I note that you wrote this:

However, if you want Wikipedia to debate in your stead I be happy to discuss the current topic with you by proxy.
Click to expand...
Would you care to comment on the grasp of modern English grammar that you
display in that sentence?
 
Ethereal said:
I doubt there are many other animals besides humans who have been observed to limit their sexual partners solely to those of the same sex. If you could provide a study that says otherwise I would be mightily impressed.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. You have given yourself a bolt-hole by adding the word "many" and
will probably dismiss cases where animals have periods of exclusive
homosexuality.

I am not going to copy the whole of the article as you seem to require
(references are the usual way to avoid wasting time and making errors),
but you might find these quotes of interest:

"Some male Humboldt Penguins are exclusively homosexual, remaining with
their male partners for their entire lives, or else re-pairing with another mail
should they lose their original partner."

"Many male Gorillas are probably "sequentially bisexual", spending portions of
their lives having only homosexual encounters in all male groups...some males
may also have primarily or exclusively homosexual interactions throughout
their lives"

"The lives of Bottleneck Dolphins are characterized by extensive bisexuality,
combined with periods of exclusive homosexuality."

"Anywhere from 65% to 75% of the male population does not participate in
breeding; many of these animals [antelope] are exclusively homosexual."

(all from "BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity"
by Bruce Bagemihl, quoted on http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/gayanimals.htm)
 
If you have to "decide to be straight every day", then I suspect you're not actually all that straight at all.
Click to expand...

Why would you suspect that? I don't have any reason to decide not to be straight.

So if you decide to be straight each day, you are telling us that you have considered being gay? That is closer to a definition of being bisexual than being straight.
Click to expand...

I never gave it any serious consideration. Just like I never gave any serious consideration to being a Goth. That does not mean it wasn't an option for me.

Comparing sexual orientation to wardrobe choices or hobbies is silly and non-analogous.
Click to expand...

The comparison was not to wardrobe choices and hobbies. It was to other lifestyle choices.

"Its not my fault I'm a Goth, I was born this way,"
Click to expand...

If you take a Goth and make them wear a green suit, does that mean they arn't a Goth anymore?

Goth is a lifestyle choice for people who are attracted to dark clothing, somber and serious countenance, good poetry and bad music.

Wearing black is something that a Goth does just like having sex with other men is something that a Gay man does.

Being attracted to the dark and macabre is a characteristic of who a Goth is, just like being attracted to men is a characteristic of who a gay man is.

Its silly to believe that people were born Goths, so why is it so important to everyone to say the Gays were born gay?

"its not my fault I am a philanthropist, I was just born this way,"
Click to expand...

A philanthropist is someone that helps people. So if a philanthropist is currently sleeping instead of helping people, does that mean that they are no longer a philanthropist?

Being a philanthropist is a lifestyle choice, just like being a Goth is a lifestyle choice, just like being straight is a lifestyle choice, just like being gay is a lifestyle choice.

"its not my fault I'm a sports fan, I was just born this way."
Click to expand...

Sports fans are attracted to sports. Gay men are attracted to other men. Obviously a sports fan can choose whether or not to watch the cubs play, but they were born being a Cubs fan right? Just like a Gay man can choose not to have sex but was born being gay?

1069:
One of these days, you're going to wake up and not have the energy or the willpower to make the decision, and then what?
Click to expand...

If a sports fan wakes up and doesn't have the energy to or willpower to make the decision to be a sports fan, then what?

If a philanthropist wakes up and doesn't have the willpower or the energy to make the decision to be a philanthropist, then what? If a sports fan wakes up and doesn't have the energy or willpower to decide to be a sports fan, then what?

Maybe I am just some sort of freak of nature, not having popped out of the womb with a fully formed sexual identity like everyone else.:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.