Homosexuality: 'Disease', genetics, or choice?

I vote for neither, just part of human nature

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great Nebuchadnezzar. But that doesnt explain why you disagree with people here. I mean, you suggest its choice, yet dont really say why or how, and then say we wont ever solve the nature versus nurture debate. I'm just trying to say we have a rough outline of the answer, and that its not choice, except in perhaps a few occiasions.


Besides, I said probably because I don know exactly how others are defining it, and it seems to me that bringing it homosexuality in Sparta 2,500 years ago and yet the people concerned get married later, suggests that definitions are in danger of confusion.
oh aye, and i agree about the equal rights thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*flashes back to A Clockwork Orange* "Are you now, or have you ever been a HOMOSEXUAL?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

please elaborate? your point sounds interesting, cos' this thread bites.

 

he didn't have a point, just watch the movie, its one of the most hilariously delivered lines in the history of film.

 

This is no overstatement, it cracks me up every time!

 

Gay people are not born gay. That is a lie they say is true to make the rest of the world accept them, and to feel inocent. They want the culture of the world to believe that being gay is perfectly fine and that there is nothing wrong with it. This generation of people is the first generation that has been brought up with the belief that this type of behavior is okay. I for one do not like gays. I think their beleifs and motives are discusting. It is wrong for one, marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. Their life style is also discusting. Sure, lets have sex with other men, then try and convince the whole world that it is fine, right...

 

You left out the combination Woman and Woman. Also, this lie that you allege, is also told by the American Psychological Association. But who cares what doctors think, right?

 

First, pure genetics is right out. Biologically, a gene for homosexuality would over time remove itself from the gene pool.

Assuming that by "disease," you meant "disorder" (a disease by definition causes pain or weakness), what constitutes a disorder is pretty much just a subjective evaluation by the APA as to whether a given behavior deviates from the norm. Since the APA no longer considers homosexuality a disorder, that's out too.

Of the three options presented in the poll, that leaves "choice," which I can't rule out personally. I think that we naturally have the potential to pursue any behaviors we want (this applies to all of life, not just sexuality), thus making every behavior a choice. Obviously, our brains being biological entities, biology factors into the choices we make, but that does not diminish the fact that all nonreflexive behavior is the result of a conscious choice

 

Uuuum, what about the Greeks? And the Egyptians, and certain Native American tribes, and certainly various other civilizations and peoples throughout time and the world that accepted homosexuality?

True though that may be, the conscious act of satisfying your natural biological urges (as is common to all humans, and really all species of all life everywhere on the planet) comes quite easily and guilt free when there is no genuine or rational moral stipulation in doing so.

You feel the urge to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, and come up with all sorts of wonderful untouchable justifications for doing so. Other people don’t' share your enthusiasm and follow the path that makes the most sense for them. It's that simple, and really not so hard to get along with if we could all just drop the "my people are better than yours" bullshit that we tend to be so inclined toward.

 

Not necessarily.

There is not a gene as such for homosexuality, so we have to think about many genetic factors that can give the brain a predisposition to a certain mindset which favours homosexuality (yes, I am trying to be careful here).

Now we may ask if this genetic character has any benefit in the light of reproductive success. It is not uncommon for homosexual persons to start off their 'reproductive career' in a heterosexual manner. They might first get married, have a baby, and then 'come out of the closet'. This would already garantee evolutionary success for the 'gay genetic character'.

But maybe a homosexual genetic character actually has been beneficial in the past. Strong bonds between men could have helped them in our early phase of evolution, for instance during hunting. 'Love' for other men could have helped this process of male bonding.

In a way being homosexual might have been an ancient evolutionary stable strategy.

(edit - this post is based on the assumption that homosexuality is genetic, for which I have no evidence. I am just speculating if it could have a genetic basis)

 

I still stand by my theory.
That seeing as how humans are a social species, homosexuality need not be something that exists to assist the individual in reproduction(obviously it doesn't). It merely has to be something that assists in the success of the social group.
Humans could have evolved to occassionally concieve homo-sexuals because social units with homo-sexuals might have been more successful than those without.
This sort of thing isn't outside the bounds of a social species' evolution. Baboons and wolves and (best example) ants that will never reproduce nor were intended to ever reproduce will often be born because they serve a different role in the group other than reproduction.
Once a species becomes social, every individual doesn't have to breed, the social unit needs to produce more social units and thats it.

 

*************
M*W: Since homosexuality is seen in animals, that sounds genetic to me. Also, it tends to run in families. I agree with what Tiassa said. It's all about the mother's health and hormones in utero, and I'm not just talking about sex hormones. When one gland is hypofunctional, they all are hypofunctional to some degree, and this plays a role in juvenile diabetes or homosexuality.

On a spiritual level, I believe humanity is evolving toward total androgyny. Someone earlier mentioned asexual reproduction, and when humanity has evolved a lot more, that will be the way they reproduce. Thankfully, it won't be in our lifetime.

 

How is homosexuality a disease?


Is it like the flu, or cholera or something?

 

if it's a choice as he believes then men are turned gay to him.

I have a brother who's gay .and he's been gay for as long as I can remember
allthough he admits to putting on a efeminate voice. he's say it works better.

but I must say mytech I came across you on another thead and you are extremely rude and abusive, this neb fellow has not once spoke out of turn about you he's just gave his opinion ,is'nt this what forum's are about.

 

Bah, I may have mentioned it to you once in the past in another thread, but hermaphrodites are far more spiritual than androgony.

 

If "rude and abusive" didn't also fit Neb's tone, in your mind, then you should probably give the thread another read through. When he crosses the line into outright trolling with inflammatory nonsense, then he should accept whatever venom is shot back at him.

 

Apparently, no society that ever failed had any heterosexuals in it. Never would have guessed were it not for Neb's note.

Oh, well. Live and learn, eh?

Actually, I've been thinking about getting my green hat out and forcing a single homosexuality-related debate topic. Largely because the diversity of smaller issues is generally overridden by single-track, one-size-fits-all (not after you've seen a Chinese man from Singapore try to buy condoms in the US) argument against homosexuality.

Such a topic would make it easier for all sides of the issue to find the relevant and crossover arguments, and people in general will have to repeat themselves less.

However, I'm also aware that if I do that, I will be unfairly singling out homosexuals despite the inordinate political focus, and will be obliged to open a topic specifically for insecure people to sing the praises of heterosexuality.

Flip a coin. Either way works. It's just that these all look like the same topic to me, but I won't hold y'all to that.

 

I would have to agree that homosexual issues dominate a dissproportionate amount of this boards space, although its the it toppic in morality at the moment. A good civil rights struggle is fun. Once homosexuals get all our due rights what civil rights threads are we going to have left? Atheists? Lets enjoy it while we can.