Poll: Is Sexual Orientation Nurture or Nature?

[Seekster]

Nature---->Hetero

Nurture----->Homo, Auto, Bestiality and every other perversion.

So its goes both ways.

Nail on head.

 

[Seekster]

Nature---->Hetero

Nurture----->Homo, Auto, Bestiality and every other perversion.

So its goes both ways.

Nail on head.

Nature---->Bisexual

Nurture----->Homo, Hetero, Auto, Bestiality and every other perversion.

Nail pulled out with clawhammer.

Clawhammer melted with blowtorch. Nail welded back into place.

 

[Biek]

I believe homosexuality is natures answer to overpopulation somehow.

 

[Seekster]

Nature---->Hetero

Nurture----->Homo, Auto, Bestiality and every other perversion.

So its goes both ways.

Nail on head.

Nature---->Bisexual

Nurture----->Homo, Hetero, Auto, Bestiality and every other perversion.

Nail pulled out with clawhammer.

Clawhammer melted with blowtorch. Nail welded back into place.

Making a victorious analogy without presenting an actual argument is like buying a trophy from a store and holding a party for yourself because you're a winner.

Trying to make an actual argument on a forum like this is like trying to make an analogy about try to make an actual argument on this forum...it just goes around in circles and accomplishes nothing. At least I can have more fun with a blowtorch.

Seriously though I already made my main argument a few pages back.

Oh and Bierk...if that turns out to be the case, you get a medal.

 

[Seekster]

Trying to make an actual argument on a forum like this is like trying to make an analogy about try to make an actual argument on this forum...it just goes around in circles and accomplishes nothing.

Why don't you leave this forum then, if making actual arguments goes around in circles?

Its called entertainment.

Seriously though I already made my main argument a few pages back.

Mind pointing it out?

My longest post on page 7, it should be around the middle of the page. (Not the one about how guys that think dudes are hotter than girls have something wrong with them...that was said half-jokingly. The one before that.)

 

[Seekster]

Therefore it is reasonably possible that some people are born MORE LIKELY THAN OTHERS to be prone to homosexual acts but the fact that cases of homosexuality are relatively rare (in terms of percentage of the population, even assuming that some or even many people who believe they are homosexual do not identify themselves as such) simply means that it is most abnormal and irregular and should not be considered "natural".

I wouldn't say there anywhere close to being rare enough to be called "abnormal and irregular."

Especially if we move beyond the simplistic model of hetero vs. homo and consider how common bisexual behavior is.

I would say they are. Bisexual behavior isnt really that common...outside of southern California.

Most people have a natural ability to know right from wrong (emphasis on the word "most") and the fact that homosexuality has long been stigmatized and looked down upon in most cultures even prior to Christianity lends weight to that argument.

Female scholars have "long been stigmatized and looked down upon in most cultures even prior to Christianity": does that lend weight to the argument that it's unnatural for women to aspire to higher education?

You are misunderstanding my observation (possibly on purpose). Take slavery for example, there are numerous instances of writings from long before the Civil War where several individuals (from Founding Fathers to average Joes) whose words reveal that the "knew" the slavery was wrong.

All things considered however, what two adults do in private is their own business and I do not want to know about it. They have the freedom if they wish to do what they want in private however that does not mean other people have to accept what they are doing as totally acceptable, normal, and natural.

See, here's the thing: what do you mean by "accept what they are doing as totally acceptable, normal, and natural"? Would you say the same about a black man and a white woman? A Christian and a Jew?

I'm not saying you wouldn't, but check if you're equivocating when it comes to that word "accept" depending on whether you're talking about a homosexual, interracial, or interfaith marriage.

Especially because when it comes to 'choice' a homosexual marriage is certainly no more of a choice than an interfaith marriage, and probably the closer of the two to an interracial one. As a straight Catholic, I think there's a lot less nurture involved in me being into girls than into religions where they wear funny hats.

Ok I cant quite see where you are coming from here. If you want to get into a discussion of gay marriage then we will fill another page but what I meant when I said "accept" was that I do not accept homosexual behavior as natural or acceptable however my opinion on the matter is irrelevant when I am not affected by it. In other words if two guys want to "have fun" together in a private setting, well I dont aprove of it but so what, they are both consenting adults and their behavior isnt affecting me at all. Now if those two guys then turned around and said that I had to recognize their behavior/lifestyle as natural and acceptable by say...wanting me to acknowledge that they are married...then yes I have a major problem with that.

Marrying someone outside your race or religion is in my own personal opinion perfectly acceptable...it does usually lead to complications particularly when dealing with in-laws but as long as a Man and a Woman are getting married they can be whatever race or religion they want. Homosexuality is not a race and to compare the Gay Pride movement to the Civil Rights movement is insulting to those who were in the Civil Rights movement.

Well im about to head off to bed now so ill leave this thread alone unless someone calls me out or something, but before I do I would like to mention the most simple and yet brilliant "argument" I have heard on the subject, and I really wish I was the person who said this but I wasnt: "Any dude that things guys are more attractive than girls has something wrong with them."

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. Because why doesn't it apply to chicks? If looking at dudes is somehow wrong then that sucks for all us straight guys. Especially now that chicks have equipment. I mean, my cock is in the top 1% of cocks in terms of giving women pleasure, but even a sexual tyrannosaurus like me will never have the kind of things women can buy, like g-spot stimulation barring a very fortunately placed dick tumor.

As I said earlier that last part was meant half-jokingly.

 

[elemenetal150]

They don't choose a sexual orientation because they don't have one, so it's totally up to nature.

However you can't make a direct comparison between animals and humans as they are a bit more complex than basic primal instict even if it doesn't seem like it.

Hmm good point, "gay" and "hetero" are indeed human-made labels for sexuality. But ofcourse, the acts still stand, even without the label: some animals screw the same sex and don't screw the opposite sex, we're 1 of those animals. How would those feelings be nurtured then, is there a common non-biological factor between all gay people?

Anyway, yes it's true that we humans are concious and have more then just primal instincts, we still have those primal instincts. Afterall, we're still animals.

Since shitloads of animals can be gay, including a large number of animals who are not self-aware, it's nature.

This ARG is too weak, people should stop spewing it.

As Erana sad: why? Humans are animals as well, we still have primal instincts apart from our self-awareness.

Oh if you are on the same level as a goat..good for you

So because animals engage in incest, my dogs hump objects and themselves all the time, it also means its natural for Humans to hump lampposts, your father, your mother, brother and sister.

Until someone shows me the genetic code for homosexuality, i still stand that it isnt natural, and even while being unnatural doesn't make it right or wrong, its left for people to judge for themselves.

The only person im inclined to believe is a true homosexual is a Lesbian (i kinda met) who doesn't believe homosexuals should have children, in her words "if it takes a Man and a Woman to actually make a child, doesn't it follow that they should be the ones to raise them, that there's actually a need for the both of them in the child's life. if not you reduce a Whole human with a phenomenal brain and thinking faculty and billions of cells into just a sperm/egg. .not nice at all and selfish too"

I feel sorry for this self hating lesbian. This argument is so weak. Straight single women get knocked up all the time, sometimes in a medical lab because they can't get with a man. Parents die leaving the other parent to raise the kids alone, or one parent leaves and never has anything to do with the child they left behind again (child support isn't as useful or easy to get as most people think).

Or better yet a child has two parents and one of them beats the shit out of the child every day or molest them. Oh and then there is the parents who are so worthless because of drugs or just not caring about the kids, that the children have to live with relatives or worse the state. This whole defense of the family argument is weak because it's based on an ideal of what the family should be and not on what eh family is in real life. I'm a social worker, I out in the world working with people from every walk of life and no one has the model family.

There isn't enough research out there to definitely say that children would be harmed in anyway by being raised by two homosexuals and what studies are out there say it is better to be raised by two homosexuals then to be raised by only one straight parent.

It is easy to say a kid should only be raised by a man and a women when you want to stop two gay people from doing it or to say that gay marriage is wrong because gays can't reproduce, but then you would have a hard time defending the right of someone who is straight and sterile to get married using that logic or of the rights of a single parent raising a child using this logic. The truth is you and people like you hate gays because of a religious conviction that doesn't in any way justify hatred but is so often used to.

 

[Lios]

Why is it so hard to stay away from making such threads like this?

They always end up in two-sided conversations that no one can win, and mainly just frustrate everyone.

 

[Ramthundar]

Why is it so hard to stay away from making such threads like this?

They always end up in two-sided conversations that no one can win, and mainly just frustrate everyone.

It may infurated a few, but not everyone will agree to a debate's topic.

And it may be two sided, but that's really the fun of a debate on a topic like this. There's till no definite proof to who's right and who's wrong, so we can go back and forth till the night's end. It's my defenition of a good debate. We may not have a set point figured, but the mere spure of the debate and the thrill of the descussion is the intellectual's version of a cowboy's cow rassling, or something on those lines.

 

[Seekster]

...but what I meant when I said "accept" was that I do not accept homosexual behavior as natural or acceptable however my opinion on the matter is irrelevant when I am not affected by it...Now if those two guys then turned around and said that I had to recognize their behavior/lifestyle as natural and acceptable by say...wanting me to acknowledge that they are married...then yes I have a major problem with that.

Marrying someone outside your race or religion is in my own personal opinion perfectly acceptable...it does usually lead to complications particularly when dealing with in-laws but as long as a Man and a Woman are getting married they can be whatever race or religion they want.

This is what I was getting at--you use that word 'accept' in two different ways. You mean it in some places as 'you have the right to engage in it without my interference but not to force me to acknowledge it in any way' in one place, and in the different sense of not only agreeing not to interfere but thinking it natural and enforceable against you in another.

Homosexuality is not a race and to compare the Gay Pride movement to the Civil Rights movement is insulting to those who were in the Civil Rights movement.

Why? The Civil Rights movement was about judging people based on the contents of their character. It wasn't just about indelible characteristics like the color of their skin, because religion is not a race, and is most certainly a choice--in fact, most religions in America are missionary religions which stress the idea of religion being a choice.

What is lacking in the content of the character of gay people? That was what the Civil Rights movement was about, wasn't it? Ignoring everything about another person in judging them but the contents of their character?

Predictable. I considered including at the end of my last topic, my personal stance on homosexuals as individuals but I wanted to see if you would question me on that and you did so here we go.

I have met many people who were or are gay and most of them I found to be generally good people, I may not approve of their private lives but that is really none of my business and as long as a someone who practices homosexuality doesnt try to get me to approve of or accept their behavior (to date none have asked me to do so outside of a protest for obvious reasons) then I am find.

Since you seem so eager to point out religion (which as you correctly said is in fact a choice and thus makes a wonderful comparison given the topic) let me use it to illustrate my point. Have you seen the thread on this forum about whether or not "Atheism is logical" (or whatever its called). I firmly believe that Atheism is not logical (if you want to debate me on this too then feel free to post on that board) however that does not mean that I refuse to associate with atheists. The same concept applies with an individual's political affiliation. I have many people whom I considered friends though I disagree with them politically, the simple solution is to focus on what you do agree on rather than what you dont.

If you tell me a person is a homosexual then the only judgement I can make on their character is that they engage in private (hopefully private) behavior which I do not approve of, which is of course none of my business. Individuals are more than the groups which they can be categorized into.

As for the Civil Rights movement, it was about obtaining equal rights for a race who had long been unjustly denied rights which they had every right to. Although I disapprove of some of Martin Luther King Jr's actions (mostly his private life) as I said earlier I do not judge an individual based upon a single aspect of who they are. MLK was in my opinion a great man whose words have been twisted. His dream was for "People to be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character."

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

its the way you are and not anyone fault