• 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!

Have We Found The "Straight" Gene Yet? (that's right, no typo)

American said:
No one every coached me to like girls when I reached a certain age.
Click to expand...

I guess you should be humanity's mascot then. Your slogan can be, "Nobody coached me to like girls! Give me a cookie!"

At this point, do you even realize that what you are arguing?
 
Lightdemon said:
Ever read any autobiographies of child sex slaves?

I've heard of a girl, I forget her name (or quite possibly the book I read only referred to her as anonymous; i forget), she grew up thinking that sex is everything good. When the pedophile was caught by the police, the little girl tried to have sex with one of the officers, because that was the only thing she knew how to do.

In the case of Nature v. Nurture, I believe Nurture wins this round.
Click to expand...

What's your point?

That somehow all gay people were somehow coached to have sex with people of the same gender?
 
razz said:
What's your point?

That somehow all gay people were somehow coached to have sex with people of the same gender?
Click to expand...

No, you need to go further back into the argument (to see my point). The "desire to procreate" isn't even relevant. Gay partners do not procreate. They are attracted to each other. Attraction is both taught and instinctual. When it comes to Nature v. Nurture, there is never a black and white side, though clearly there are white and black spots that you can see.

Mostly, however, my response was just trying to engage American, at least beyond his one-liners. I'd say it's a personal goal of mine.
 
walleye said:
Good question. I guess you would be schizophrenic.
Click to expand...

What would you call someone who is unnecessarily concerned with what other people do with their genetalia?
 
razz said:
So earlier today in class we were having a discussion on sexuality and, of course, the arguments for and against homosexuality came up. One of the students, a fervent opponent to homosexuality (or as he calls it, 'sodomy') and "ironically" enough a creationist decided to put his two cents in.

Now we all know how much creationists love "science" right, so he decided to reuse one of the most popular and flawed arguments against homosexuality and said

"I can't believe the majority of this class buy that homosexuality is something you're born with, people CHOOSE it, it's just not natural!"

A couple of jib-jabs between him and some other classmates lead to the creationist saying:

"when the scientists find me the gay gene THEN I'll believe it isn't a choice"

Nevermind the fact that I believe the argument for its biological basis is a non-sequitur, I decided to take him up on his statement and simply said:

"Have they found the straight gene?"
"So you're actually telling me that you think people choose to be straight?"
"Well, based on your logic why not? You know and I know that there isn't a gene that tells us who is and is not heterosexual, and thereby we can assume it's a choice just as you assume homosexuality is a choice..."
"Heterosexuality is NATURAL, homosexuality is NOT"
"So what? Natural just means existing or conforming with nature...and speaking of nature, scientists found approximately 40,000 species of animals in homosexual behaviors"
"Homosexuals can't reproduce now can they, so how is that natural?"
"A sterile woman can't reproduce either, so she must've chose that lifestyle too, right? And besides, homosexuals can still reproduce, just not with the same sex...just as you can reproduce with a woman you have zero attraction to"

Teacher interrupted as he had nothing to say, and I added another comment and said:

"It's like saying Curtis [a black student in our class] decided to be black because of the lack of a 'black gene', it's a complete red herring to the actual issue"

I wanted your thoughts on this, I love the discussions that go on around here and wanted to know what you think of the argument and issue in general?
Click to expand...

Oh no, not another 'nature of homosexuality' thread....

Was the creationist speaking of born-homosexuality, as in the genuine sexual orientation, or was he speaking of homosexuality as in a behavior even heterosexuals do?

Was he speaking of sex-related stress disorders?

Some are choices, some are not. Some are curable, some are not. Did he qualify his argument in any way in regard to what exactly he was referring to?

IMO, his first error was in assuming that the issue was so simplistic that "homosexuality" has a single universal meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom