Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is because I have seen it from both sides. I grew up with people who were heterosexual and turned homosexual because it was a better fit for their life choice. If you want to be delusional and pretend life choices and circumstances don't play a part this is your choice.

One friend divorced a high school sweetheart. Met a woman who helped her a lot with her kids when their father split. They became good friends, had a lot in common and her kids loved her. They decided they wanted to be together so that's what they did. Is still currently working out for them.

I had a cousin, most popular in high school, dated the so called finest guy in the school, yada yada yada. She was married when she started seeing another woman. She was working at a strip club trying to make ends meet with her husband did what he wanted. The woman was already gay, they became friends and she decided being with her was a better choice.

My male friend who turned gay was actually abused as a young boy. His abuse didn't make him change but he decided he wanted to be homosexual. He used to live across the street from me. I was there for his full transformation. From small kids until high school. He takes hormone shots now although he has not taken the final step to transgender.

The limitation in your point of view is that you can't know with any degree of certainty what anyone else is thinking.

A compulsion to be a certain way isn't a conscious choice.

The fact that there are gay or transgender people who have previously been married to people of the opposite sex has more to do with social convention and the pressure of family expectations.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Just like global warming climate change, being born that way is settled science. That effectively ends the debate and closes the discussion. Dissenters will be frog-marched and destroyed. Or so, they would like to think. The right to choose is an American privilege. So is the right to disagree.

Edited November 5, 2014 by ExExpat

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think this topic has many similarities to the debate about evolution and creationism. One is clearly based on professional research, the other is highly politicised and promoted by people with an agenda. Take these two perspectives, for instance:

From Wikipedia:

The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation.^[1][2] Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are more popular,^[1] and biological factors may involve a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.^[3] These factors, which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual,bisexual or asexual orientation, include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

From Conservapedia:

The causes of homosexuality are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice. How important each factor is, though, is an issue that is debated. Those from the most liberal school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as an identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.^[1] The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.

The second perspective is very limited in scope. It's either X or Y. When the reality is that people simply don't know.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Effectively, choice or genetics or anything else; what difference does it make?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Effectively, choice or genetics or anything else; what difference does it make?

Well there is most definitely an agenda at work in seeing it as a matter of genetics (because people can't choose their biology) or a choice (because that brings in a moral judgement about whether or not it is a morally correct one).

Just saying the debate is framed this way for reasons that's are largely political.

The debate should be 'it OK to be gay?', rather than using the reasons for homosexuality as the reason for taking a moral position on it.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I know it is all BS, that is why I asked the question...

Morality is a subjective and personal notion, so it is really a waste of time to discuss sexuality in that context.

This seems like a thread, the premise of which backfired big time...

Of course it is ok to be gay. It is ok to be gay, black, American, blonde, tall, short, christian, blue-eyed, etc...

Well there is most definitely an agenda at work in seeing it as a matter of genetics (because people can't choose their biology) or a choice (because that brings in a moral judgement about whether or not it is a morally correct one).

Just saying the debate is framed this way for reasons that's are largely political.

The debate should be 'it OK to be gay?', rather than using the reasons for homosexuality as the reason for taking a moral position on it.

[aaydrian 479]

The limitation in your point of view is that you can't know with any degree of certainty what anyone else is thinking.

A compulsion to be a certain way isn't a conscious choice.

The fact that there are gay or transgender people who have previously been married to people of the opposite sex has more to do with social convention and the pressure of family expectations.

That is true but how do we know what is compulsion and what is a choice? As you pointed out earlier, it is impossible to retrace the total effects of influences on an individual's lifestyle. There are so many situations where the love of things such as money, notoriety or affection (not sexual) for someone else will lead people to have relations with people of the same sex. Are these persons really gay, bisexual or just a heterosexual person engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same gender?

[JohnR! 5,495]

It really doesn't matter, does it? It is no different that discussing why some people like blue and others green.

That is true but how do we know what is compulsion and what is a choice? As you pointed out earlier, it is impossible to retrace the total effects of influences on an individual's lifestyle. There are so many situations where the love of things such as money, notoriety or affection (not sexual) for someone else will lead people to have relations with people of the same sex. Are these persons really gay, bisexual or just a heterosexual person engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same gender?

[aaydrian 479]

It really doesn't matter, does it? It is no different that discussing why some people like blue and others green.

It's important to me because some folks claim that being gay doesn't involve a choice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I know it is all BS, that is why I asked the question...

Morality is a subjective and personal notion, so it is really a waste of time to discuss sexuality in that context.

This seems like a thread, the premise of which backfired big time...

Of course it is ok to be gay. It is ok to be gay, black, American, blonde, tall, short, christian, blue-eyed, etc...

Well that's it really isn't it. I have a suspicion as to what the intention was in the OP - that it was meant to put 'liberal' types on a defensive by challenging the idea that people are genetically born gay, as if thats the only reason why people are fine with gays.

That certainly is an assumption of what some people think, going by the Conservapedia quote anyway.

Ult

[LiliBurd 85]

It's important to me because some folks claim that being gay doesn't involve a choice.

Why is it important? Would your respect gay people more or less if we had a definitive answer to that question?

Edited November 5, 2014 by LiliBurd

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is true but how do we know what is compulsion and what is a choice? As you pointed out earlier, it is impossible to retrace the total effects of influences on an individual's lifestyle. There are so many situations where the love of things such as money, notoriety or affection (not sexual) for someone else will lead people to have relations with people of the same sex. Are these persons really gay, bisexual or just a heterosexual person engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same gender?

You don't know. But I think you know whether or not you chose your own sexuality or whether its something you never questioned.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's important to me because some folks claim that being gay doesn't involve a choice.

What choice did it involve for you to be hetero and when, specifically, did you make that choice?

[JohnR! 5,495]

I believe we can only speak for our own sexuality. I take people's testimonials at face value.

Many tell us it is not a choice. I believe them.

Some tell us they chose to be x. I believe them.

What is your personal experience? Did you choose to be gay? (or straight, or bi?)

It's important to me because some folks claim that being gay doesn't involve a choice.

Edited November 5, 2014 by JohnR!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's important to me because some folks claim that being gay doesn't involve a choice.

You can only answer it from your own experience. If you're straight are you aware of a time when you weren't. Did you make a conscious reasoned choice to be straight?

If you did then you are probably bisexual.

If you didn't, then it wasn't a choice at all.

Sexuality is a spectrum at the end of the day.