General Question

JLeslie's avatar

Why do people care if being gay is something you're born with or something you choose?

Asked by JLeslie (59361points) June 30th, 2009

Seems like a non-issue…if someone prefers to be with their own sex more power to them.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

77 Answers

bpeoples's avatar

The logic is:

If you choose it, it’s a moral issue, and “reasonable” people can be against moral issues. If you’re born with it, it’s more of a discrimination issue (sort of like race), so you can’t be opposed to it unless you’re a bigot.

One shouldn’t care, but those who wish to impose their own morality on others, care what you do on your own time.

Blondesjon's avatar

There are a lot of people out there who have lost control somewhere in their lives and try to find different ways to get that feeling of control back.

Policing what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is one of these ways.


JLeslie's avatar

I just don’t get it. It seems that there are plenty of people who knew from a very young age that they are gay…I understand that science is finding some things to support the idea that you are “born” that way. So, does that mean these moral police people will accept gay people who knew when they were 5, but then someone who chose later will not be accepted? Once you are willing to accept it at all, don’t you have to accept for everyone?

JLeslie's avatar

@Blondesjon interesting take. I have always felt these people come from a place of fear.

JLeslie's avatar

By the way if a monitor is watching can you edit my question to correct your to you’re.

Thammuz's avatar

@JLeslie See the problem is that, born gay or not, it’s the moralist bigoted dumbasses who are the issue here.

Demonstrating that you’re born gay will, in time, sensibilize the people that sit in that “grey area” of those who don’t give a shit. Much like the racial equality movement is doing.
There will still be racists and there still will be bigoted dicks, as @Blondesjon said, but at least society at large will frown upon them and life will be easier for gay people.

Or, as George Carlin once said: “we could simply outlaw religion and all of these ‘sex crimes’ would simply go away in a couple of generations, but we don’t have time for rational solutions!”

Thammuz's avatar

By the way, a little addendum: Isn’t it stange that all these bigoted fuckers don’t think being gay is somethign caused by environment, or by child abuse, they specifically say that it’s a CHOICE?

I dunno about you people but i couldn’t get a boner to a naked man even if i wanted to.

What does their mindset tell you?

Qingu's avatar

I care because calling sexual desires a “choice” is annoyingly illogical. I don’t even think conservative Christians who say that it’s a choice actually understand what they are saying.

I like chocolate ice cream more than vanilla ice cream. I don’t know if this preference is something I was born with, or if it’s something I developed culturally. Probably a mix of both. But whether it’s one or the other, my preference for chocolate over vanilla would not a choice.

It’s another annoying example of conservative Christians using words that are bereft of any meaning. Like being “pro-life.”

JLeslie's avatar

Kind of a follow up. Is it the moral police crazies who want to know if it is someting you are born with? Or, is it the gay community who is trying to say that they are born with it, so the moral police should be understanding?

Thammuz's avatar

@JLeslie as far as i know it’s the scientific community that’sinterested, for what reasons i don0t know.

JLeslie's avatar

@Qingu you’re ice cream example though plays into the idea that it is something you can cultivate or learn. So you might not have loved vanilla much as a child, but over time as your tastes became more sophistaced and you were exposed to more flavors, your tastes might change. I do think this can happen with sexuality. I also believe that some people are gay from birth…I think both are true…I’m fine with both.

Qingu's avatar

@JLeslie, I agree with you on all your points—my point was only that the question of whether homosexuality can be “cultivated” has nothing to do with whether or not it’s a “choice.”

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

What other people do at home doesn’t bother me in the least. Whether people’s sexual orientation is due to choice or genetics, it doesn’t change that we should be respectful to people.

Usually people care because it conflicts with their religious beliefs or they have some personal connection with the issue.

Qingu's avatar

@The_Compassionate_Heretic, it’s not between “choice” and genetics. It’s between environment and genetics.

You can’t “choose” to think girls or boys are attractive.

skfinkel's avatar

If it’s something you choose, you can be blamed for it. If you are born that way, you are blameless.

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

@Qingu It was my understanding that this question was about why people care, not if it’s a choice.

Qingu's avatar

@The_Compassionate_Heretic, I know, but I’m saying the formulation of the question doesn’t make sense.

I don’t think that anti-gay people who claim “it’s a choice” actually think people choose to like the same-sex. Their argument is that it’s acculturated, not genetic. Which is probably wrong, but also different from saying it’s a choice.

Again, my beef here is that I don’t even want to buy into the language. I think words mean things. Just like “pro-life,” calling homosexuality a “choice” is a confusing, illogical slogan more than an actual statement of beliefs.

galileogirl's avatar

Even if it were proven to be a genetic or in utero event with no possibility of “choice”, the conservative religious would not be mollified. They would simply carry on with the idea that faith can move mountains and claim one can pray gay away.

Usually those who demand we all conform to their belief systems do so because they are so unsure of themselves that they only feel secure when they don’t have to question. If you take away that certainty, they will only come up with something else.

Of course it isn’t only religious people. We see the same thing when people are insecure about other cultures (they should learn to speak English or go back where they came from), political systems (it is our mandate to spread Democracy) or economic systems (Socialism is evil)

Lightlyseared's avatar

If it is something you are born with then you would get a different set of legal rights to if it is a choice. In particular if it was genetic it would mean discrimination of people based on sexuality would be a similar offense to discrimination of people based on race.

laureth's avatar

If being gay is a choice, it validates the belief system of those who say it’s a choice – usually because it means that their moral system is in the clear (and, usually, it would mean that being gay is a sin, like it says in their book).

If they are wrong, and being gay is not a choice, it throws their whole worldview into a tailspin. If one thing in the book is false, might not the others be false as well? But that can’t be possible, because everything depends on the book being true, so it must be true.

They care, because in an indirect sense, everything they know depends on it.

Now, there are also people who care and say that it is not a choice, it is inborn. I think that if the people who believe in what the book says were not in the picture, there wouldn’t be a big need for people in this second group to go around making a big deal about how inborn they believe The Gay is. They could just have their relationships, or be cool with other peoples’ relationships. It’s the pesky need to be safe walking down the street, or live in a community, or be able to get married that, I believe, compels them to defend the “not a choice” origin of homosexuality. They care because if it’s declared “a choice,” then the people that believe in the book have some kind of right (in their own eyes) to make life rather hellish for the gay people (and those who love and support them).

They care, because their life depends on it, in some cases.

bpeoples's avatar

@laureth good points, but there are many places that “literal bible” folks conviently ignore things in the book, but still look at homosexuality as an abomination.

laureth's avatar

I couldn’t agree more, @bpeoples.

JLeslie's avatar

@laureth I had forgotten about this very point you make. Just about a year ago someone I was talking to said that if one thing is not true (in the bible) then you might as well throw the whole book away. I had never heard that before. I gave an example of my aunt and my mother (sisters) describing an event my grandmother had experienced completely differently. They are not lying or misleading, just remembering it differently, so it does not mean that everything my grandmother ever said or taught is a lie. Just like God did not actually write the bible, or Jesus for that matter, let alone it was not written in English origially, so if the person who wrote the bible remembered things slightly differently than what actually happened in history it does not mean that everything Jesus taught was invaluable or an untruth.

These people who take everything literally from the bible are ridiculous. Just the childhood game of telephone tells you it is impossible for the book to be perfectly accurate…please. But, now I am off topic.

Qingu's avatar

I’d say the Bible is more than just a “little” inaccurate. It’s largely mythology, and it’s also deeply immoral. Why anyone should care what a book that condones rape, slavery and genocide says about the morality of homosexuality is utterly beyond me.

Bri_L's avatar

@galileogirl – I think you just gave them their next big slogan.

Pray Gay Away*

*or if not litigate into oblivian

That will be on a bumper sticker soon. Lock down rights!

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@Thammuz you just haven’t met the right guy. :-P

evelyns_pet_zebra's avatar

@JLeslie the bible is more than just inaccurate, it is a copy of a copy times twelve, (and then some) and we no longer have access to the original because the early scribes always destroyed the previous copy when making a new one. And whenever translating between languages there is a broad likelihood for mistakes. The Christian Bible is no more inerrant than the book Horton Hears A Who by Dr. Suess is inerrant.

JLeslie's avatar

@evelyns_pet_zebra I agree. I was just giving the response that I gave to this person who thinks it is the gospel. I am fairly fluent in Spanish and I know how much can get lost in translation…and the stories were written years after Jesus…I completely agree with you. I will say that I do think that some of the stories have merit, merit in terms of you can learn from them just like any other story.

Jack79's avatar

the question was answered already in the first post.

The discussion is central to the issue of homosexuality. Sure, if homosexuality were not an issue (like hair colour for example), we wouldn’t discuss its origins either. People do not discriminate against blondes (yeah, ok, the odd joke, but it’s not as bad as being gay). And you can easily dye your hair, and it is quite clear that it’s all about DNA.

But when it comes to homosexuality, the argument is that it is something immoral/antisocial etc, and a good question on the part of the individual is “why can’t I simply change my sexual preferences and avoid this discrimination?” That’s where science comes into play, and the debate starts. And the reason is simple: homosexuality is biologically based, and whatever causes it (in our species as well as others) cannot be controlled. Sure, for centuries homosexuals went on to get married and ignore/supress/control/hide their own feelings, but they still existed, whether we knew about them or not.

I know the homosexuals here on fluther (ie 87.3% of the population here) will not like the next bit, but here goes: the scientific explanation as to what makes a person homosexual serves two purposes: the first is to be used as an alibi from the side of the gay community, saying “look, we were born like this, there’s nothing we can do about it, so bugger off”. But the second, more sinister, is to allow us to use genetic engineering in the future, changing whatever gene or hormone causes this “anomaly”, and making people “normal”. I know that none of the scientists working on this are thinking like that now, but it’s only a matter of time before we see such a development too.

Disclaimer: I am not homosexual, and neither is my friend Nick. Nor his boyfriend.

ABoyNamedBoobs03's avatar

if you’re born into it you “don’t have a choice” where as if it’s a learned preference you can change.

Either way it shouldn’t be an issue but everyone wants to figure out a reason why Terry from the hair salon liked boys when he was 12…

prude's avatar

I agree. don’t understand why people make such a big deal about it…..

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

I certainly don’t care why people are queer, they should still be treated the same as everyone else – it’s not just religious homophobes who like it to be ‘something they’re born with, they can’t help it those diseased freaks’...I’ve heard gay people themselves SCREAM it’s not a choice ‘they were born this way’...I don’t like that either because it sounds like they’re trying to defend themselves as if their sexuality is something that needs to be’s not and no one should care why people are the way they are…

CMaz's avatar

“I understand that science is finding some things to support the idea that you are “born” that way.”

That is still currently speculation and theory. If and when the scientific and medical community finally get to the root of the matter, hopefully soon. (this debate is getting so old)
There will be a conclusion. It is either genetic, finding a natural reason for homosexuality, it is environmental or possibly a genetic flaw.
Quit comparing chocolate or vanilla ice cream to homosexuality. Survival of the species does not depend on which you decide to eat. I would like an intelligent conversation, do not be so quick to trip out.
Can we educate without getting emotional?

“Even if it were proven to be a genetic or in utero event with no possibility of “choice”, the conservative religious would not be mollified. They would simply carry on with the idea that faith can move mountains and claim one can pray gay away.”
That is not Christian. And christians that bash gays or anyone for that matter needs to blow the dust off their bible. We are to love one another. Removing the absolute no possibility of choice scenario. They would have to re evaluate their teachings. Bottom line, passing judgment on something you do not fully understand, is wrong. And right now we do not know. It is a confusing issue, love and compassion is better then bigotry and hate. That goes for both sides.

“But the second, more sinister, is to allow us to use genetic engineering in the future, changing whatever gene or hormone causes this “anomaly”, and making people “normal”.”

Going to get some heat for what i am about to say, here it goes. If homosexuality is found to be a environmental or genetic flaw. Then just like dwarfism we would want to correct the issue.
If we find that Homosexuality is a natural occurrence that works with the process of procreation. There would be no reason to fix it.
As a Man, I find women crazy. :-) Do we find a way to eliminate that from the gene pool. No, their “craziness” is part of the beauty of a woman.

When a conclusion is made, we can then remove all the anger that accompanies the “great debate:”. Then we can logically and intelligently go on with our lives. Leaving this issue in the dust.

Qingu's avatar

Survival of the species does not depend on a small percentage of the population refusing to procreate either.

Honestly, when I hear people say that homosexuality somehow threatens the survival of the species, I almost have to assume that they’re simply gay themselves, and projecting their closeted gayness to all other human beings. Why is it so hard for homophobes to understand that not everyone is gay?

CMaz's avatar

I asked to try to avoid emotion.
Everything plays a part. As simpleminded as you might want to think about how the world spins.
There is a process, action and reaction. Some create an explosion and some create harmony. I really want to believe that there is a harmony to homosexuality in the big scheme of life. But I want a real answer, not just because you say so. And, by having a hissy fit you can avoid the discussion all together.
You do want a real answer, don’t you? Not just what you want to hear.

JLeslie's avatar

@ChazMaz you said, “If we find that Homosexuality is a natural occurrence that works with the process of procreation. There would be no reason to fix it.” This could be argued too, because things happen in nature that we question or want to currect. Down syndrome happens seemingly randomly, along with other mutations, yet sometimes people judge whether it is normal, but it seems to naturally occur. So, I don’t mean to compare being gay to a genetic anomaly, I am just arguing your statement, and saying people will still say it should be fixed. What is remarkeable and hypocritical is the very people who try to save every fetus with whatever “defect” would want to “fix” the gay gene, People suck man.

CMaz's avatar

I totally agree, people do suck.
Using your example of Downs Syndrome that it might seem random and some people might see it as “normal.” Too many other factors to use that example. 200 years ago, not many individuals with that illness survived. That defect ended in death. Survival of the fittest.
Modern science has allowed that individual to not only survive but live a good life. If we, and hopefully find a way to correct that genetic flaw, that “defect” could be corrected. I have not read anywhere that downs syndrome is a natural process. The natural process for that and other illness of that nature was death. Till modern science came along and allowed human compassion to get a bit more mileage.

JLeslie's avatar

@ChazMaz good argument…my analogy is flawed.

Qingu's avatar

@ChazMaz, I’m not emotional at all.

You strongly implied that the existence of homosexuality can somehow imperil the “survival of our species.” How?

CMaz's avatar

If it turns out not be a natural process, but we accept it. Then what is right and what is wrong? In general in anything.
People will still do what they want, but making something expectable that is not natural or normal, especially in the big scheme of things. Can create a breakdown in our social values.
Based on the theory that homosexuality is not “normal” I am sure at that point you would want to correct that issue. It would there by be a moot point.

It is not that homosexuality will imperil the survival of our species. But we live and exist for procreation. So our species will live on. If homosexuality fits into that equation, then cool. If not, then it is something that has to be understood and corrected.

ABoyNamedBoobs03's avatar

this thread is totally gay… o.O

JLeslie's avatar

@ChazMaz wait. Homosexuals CAN procreate. Their sexual activity does not lead to pregnancy, but heterosexuals participate in sexual activities that doesn’t either. Men and women who are infertile can’t procreate, some of them are heterosexual. To bring up what I brought up before I am pretty sure, someone correct me if I am wrong, that down syndrome people cannot procreate.

Qingu's avatar

@ChazMaz, again, I simply don’t understand how the existence of homosexuality would ever “not fit into the equation” of our species’ survival. Can you explain how this could even possibly work?

Again, you do understand that not everyone is gay, right?

CMaz's avatar

” don’t understand how the existence of homosexuality would ever “not fit into the equation” of our species’ survival.”
Like I said, it is a moot point. If it turns out to be wrong it would be corrected.
If you want to have the idea of, if it feels good and it does not hurt anyone then it should be ok. Fine, but don’t think that that attitude should go any further then your bedroom.
I would like to find some sense to Homosexuality. Don’t care what the conclusion is either one is good.
Basic fundamental of life. We mate. And it is only modern science that has allowed homosexuals to have children, since copulation would not be acceptable.

Infertility is a medical disorder.

Qingu's avatar

@ChazMaz, I’m not sure you’re getting this.

Do you understand that “the survival of the species” is not in any way dependent on every single human being procreating?

JLeslie's avatar

@Qingu I don’t think he is going to get it. I wonder how many kids he has?

CMaz's avatar

Here we go again. Fall back on ganging up on the outsider.

I have already answered your questions. Try reading all of what I wrote instead of choice pieces. :-)

Qingu's avatar

You really haven’t.

Do you understand what I said in my last post? I’d at least like some acknowledgment that we’re actually communicating here.

CMaz's avatar

We are. You are giving me the impression that if it feels good and it does not hurt anyone, then what is the big deal right?
You are trying to inject a hypothetical argument.
If homosexuality is found to be “wrong”. It will be fixed or corrected. Why have it around?
If it is a normal process, then we will have the answer why. Then we can see how its purpose fits into the big scheme of things. All is nicey nice.
Some people tend to think homosexuality is normal as a form of culling the population. I can see that theory. If it becomes a fact, I can live with that. Can you?
If it is not normal but we say it is not hurting anyone. That is a contradiction. That type of thinking would cause society to fold. There are not only laws to keep us safe but laws of nature.
Lets make everything that anyone else thinks is not a problem ok. I know plenty of people with cancer that should not be cured, give them enough pot and they wont care any way. Lets remove the age on consent, there are people that would not find that a problem.

You want me to explain how Homosexuality can disrupt procreation?
Ok lets play the game.. This would be based on it not being normal.
Well first, back into the closet you would go. What do I tell my children? I tell them that what they are doing serves no purpose, and we have found that it is wrong. But hey if it feels good and it does not hurt anyone so be it.
That makes no sense.
The point of it disrupting procreation and human existence, is on the grounds that it is not a process indicative for moving the human race into the future. If it is deemed not part of the normal human process then it is not a good thing. Is it?

Qingu's avatar

On what basis would you call an activity “wrong”?

And I understand how homosexuality disrupts procreation. I don’t follow how lack of procreation among some people = not moving the human race into the future. Are you defining the future of human race by everyone breeding as much as possible? That’s just weird.

CMaz's avatar

Well walking into a wall instead of going through the door is wrong.
I said if we look at it as being wrong. We are talking theory.
You are saying that since not all are gay there will still be procreation. So the human race will go on. Yes, if we can come to the conclusion that homosexuality serves a natural process. Action reaction.
I am saying that if we do things and accept things that are not right and do not make sense. where do you draw the line? Or we don’t? Before you know it we will have mayhem disarray and social breakdown. THAT can prevent a culture and a society and a race from moving forward.

cwilbur's avatar

If it’s a choice, the bigots can eradicate homosexuality by punishing the choice.

If it’s innate, the bigots can eradicate homosexuality through genetic engineering.

That’s why they care.

Qingu's avatar

Walking into a wall causes harm. (Or property damage, which is also harm.) So it sounds like you agree that if something doesn’t cause harm, it’s not wrong?

Whether or not homosexuality “serves a natural process” (whatever the hell that means) is irrelevant. The human race will go on.

Regarding “mayhem” and “social breakdown,” how on earth would the open existence of homosexuality cause this? Gay marriage is legal in several Western countries. They’re doing fine.

CMaz's avatar

I see harm as wrong. If I am harming you, that is wrong. You want to give the argument that homosexuality is not wrong.
We do not know what it is or does. Or, weather it is right or wrong or does harm or not.
If you cant understand the concept of natural process I do not know what to tell you.
Molecules move slow, water is cold, they speed up it is hot. But I am glad to give you a hot glass of water on a hot summers day if you see it as irrelevant.
Now you want to talk that because it is legal that makes it right. So was burning the jews during W.W.II. I guess that is irrelevant.
I understand your desire to feel and accept that the life you are living is ok. More power to you. I am just saying we do not know. And I for one would like to get all the pieces of the puzzle together before I make a decision. Not going to make a decision on what you want to tell me is right and wrong. Nor do I expect you to do the same.
I am not bashing homosexuality, I just want an answer. I will not accept the attitude that I left the front door open and since you are already in the house it is now your home too.

If I fill a space ship up with lesbians and put them on a planet they will die off. Unless you send a jug of sperm and some solid modern technology. And, their culture will survive due to their heterosexual offspring or the continuing shipments of sperm.
If I do the same thing with gay men, they will die off. Unless you send some women along.
If I do that with heterosexuals they will proliferate like bunnies.
No matter what, the gay man and the lesbian need the opposing sex in order to move down the time line.

I am saying there has to be a logical reason for homosexuality. And, you have to be willing to accept what that answer is. If you like it or not. I am ready to. We do not have the answers yet. In the meantime I will not bash you, I will respect you as another human.
But you feel the laws have to change or now I have to re think how we look at human existence. I will wait for the lab test to come back before I make a decision.

“Regarding “mayhem” and “social breakdown,” how on earth would the open existence of homosexuality cause this?”
Like I said. If under the theory that it was wrong. Allowing wrong to be considered right would cause problems.
“Gay marriage is legal in several Western countries. They’re doing fine.”
My dirty sock’s (excuse the analogy) are doing just find under my bed. But if my room was piled up with dirty laundry it would be a different experience. Not a large enough demographic to make that point of “doing fine.” It is a big world.

Qingu's avatar

We don’t know if consentual homosexuality between adults does harm? Who would it harm? And what is this nonsense about “we don’t know”? Homosexuals have existed since the dawn of humanity. What tests do you need to determine harm?

Also, let me get this straight. Homosexuality might endanger the human race’s survival… in the event that earth gets blown up and only homosexuals are left to populate a space ship. Okay.

Similarly, allowing people to become doctors might endanger the human race’s survival. If you put only a bunch of doctors on a spaceship, who would know how to work the controls? Or farm the new planet? They’d die off within a couple of generations.

There’s a reason you get such a bad rap with your posts on here. Your argument is so idiotic that it’s hard to believe you’re not just flailing around trying to rationalize some deeper prejudice.

Jack79's avatar

@ChazMaz you should have read that tiny bit in my post where I mentioned the percentage of homosexuals on fluther…and sometimes I think it’s an understatement! lol

Now you’re in for it…this post will go on forever…

CMaz's avatar

“Your argument is so idiotic that its hard to believe you’re not just flailing around trying to rationalize some deeper prejudice.”
Great, now we are back to you just having a hissy fit so I will go away. And, you can do what you want. That is all it is about any way, hang prejudice on it and my opinions are void. Cool if it makes you sleep better at night. Does not change anything. :-)
Besides, war, rape, child molestation, food poisoning and bad breath has been going on for centuries also. So that makes it ok? We at least know why it has been going on and are always looking for solutions to stop it.

I did read about your percentages. So what does that mean? I will continue to post till someone gives me a good reason besides, because that is how I want it to be.
I did not know that fluther was a homosexual site. I am allowed my opinion as are you. No animosity here, just looking for the truth.

Qingu's avatar

War, rape, child molestation and food poisoning cause harm.

You have yet to show how homosexuality causes harm. We’re waiting.

Bri_L's avatar

@ChazMaz – from your scientific stand point, homosexuality has existed for longer than organized law and currently applicable science and yet we grow.

By logic alone one could use that as the “test subject” of your concern that people could be in danger of harm. We could then conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that it has no adverse affect on the human race and its propagation what so ever.

laureth's avatar

@ChazMaz – it is worth noting that my natural, birth, genetic mother is a lesbian. She just had sex with a man to get pregnant is all. Didn’t need to be particularly attracted to him, just had to want a baby enough to overcome that nauseating circumstance. (It was 1971.)

Homosexuals, assuming they’re fertile, can procreate. Sexual attraction has very little to do with it, assuming you can get laid. ;)

Thammuz's avatar

@ChazMaz Might i make you notice that with all this yammering about nature and social structure you’re just being ridiculous? If we really were to follow nature’s laws we wouldn’t have created our social structure as it is. Animals don’t do that, because such big groups are bound to have no internal harmony.
Just look at whatever country in the world: even in between their CITIES thare are different group of people who hate eachother, ever heard of soccer fans?

Furthermore homosexuality and heterosexuality are just labels that indicate a tendency. Nobody is 100% either of them. See the Kinsey scale.

In ancient greece homosexuality was more than accepted, it was the fucking norm, ok?
They were convinced that true love could exist only between same sex individuals because men and women had nothing in common as far as life was concerned, because their society had them living completely separated lives, and they didn’t go extinct.
They knew that procreation was necessary so they had wives and fucked them, but that was about it, after a “goodmorning” they’d go out having buttsecks with other men and their wives would go out scissoring me timbers. That didn’t stop them from creating a good 70% of the base upon which western culture is built upon. Even the fucking terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are partly greek.

Not to mention that homosexuality is observed in nature: male lions have anal sex with eachother, when the females aren’t in heat. And a lot of other species have similar behaviours.

Oh and do me a favour: don’t create obviously biased hypotheticals, it’s just ridiculous.
Saying: “what if we sent a lot of gay men on a far away planet” as if “gay” was the problem with that idea is simply trying to bullshit us, a 3 year old would see through that.
Let’s say we send a lot of straight males, what would it change? they still wouldn’t be able to reproduce. The problem doesn’t lie within the fact that they’re gay, it’s the fact that they don’t have vaginas! If they really cared wether or not their species would survive even gay men would manage a boner, the greeks did that, so why not some white middle aged american gay guy?

And for the record, the opposite isn’t true: sure, a group of humans would procreate in good numbers, but don’t forget that without modern technology (the very same thing that would have made gays and lesbians be able to procreate, how odd) mortality at birth, both of mothers and of children would be very fucking high. Not to mention that after a while the gene pool would be stagnant, and we’d have a bunch of space inbreds. Procreation isn’t everything, it needs variety, lots of space and often enough some people whose genes aren’t going anywhere to just stop procreating.

If homosexuality is such a terribly detrimental trait (and if it turns out to be geetic) it’s better to let it live out in the open, where it won’t cause closet gays like Fred Phelps to reproduce thus furthering not only their genes but their mind boggling stupidity, so that it will, eventually, naturally die out. If, on the other hand, it is not, then nothing will change: people will have buttsecks and i dare you to try ad stop them.

And most surely it will not be YOU who picks out wether or not it is detrimental.
Natural selection still works, it’s only taking longer than you will live to see, think abut all the poeple who die everyday because they’re too stupid or distracted to look both sides when they cross the road, what do you think that is, intelligent design? That’s survival of the fittest, adapted to the new circumstances of our environment.

JLeslie's avatar

People contribute more to society than just adding more people to it. We are human beings…our society is complex. Some people birth babies, some figure out quadratic equations, some build houses, we all have value. There is enough popluation on earth that not everyone has to have 10 kids to be valuable to the species.

mbubbles's avatar

Americans are idiots. They care if you’re gay at all.

Bri_L's avatar

Americans are almost as idiotic as people who generalize.

CMaz's avatar

All theory and opinion. As wordy and generically creative you have been it does not give an answer.
Everything I gave was theory. I said it many times. With the hope of a logical answer.
I also said I am not trying to gay bash but look for an answer.
The difference between what I said and what you all are saying is you are taking partial information and making it fact.
I continue to try to make sense.
Then you have to get nasty, that just stereotypes you. You get pissed off and rude.
Is it so hard for you to help explain why? I want to know I said that plenty of times.
I said I do not care what the conclusion is in either way, but I want to know why. Except because…
Because they have been doing it for thousands of years? Because it in not in your face “wrong”.
I have a clothing store. I sell 60 thousand dollars of merchandise every week. My employee takes $20 of clothing out the back door every week. Since it is so monetarily insignificant it is ok? Eventually if he gets away with it it could be 100, or a 1,000. Maybe after half my inventory goes out the back door. I should say since it has been going on so long I should just make him a partner?
I guess you can say, that shirt and shoe laces he is taking every week is not hurting anyone. Such an insignificant #. But, if he can give me a good reason. It might have good business sense. I just cant find a reason. So I ask, and he says, ” I have been doing if for years,” that now makes it ok. Or he says, “other people are doing it, other cultures have been doing it.” That makes it ok?
I feel for you, you love someone. Or you are attracted to someone of the same sex. I know what it feels like to love someone and people think it is wrong. But, if they can give me a good reason. I cant deny that.
I can still say I see your point but I still love this person. My decision. But I do not expect them to follow along.
As far a lions or any other animals being homosexual. They show actions that can be looked at as homosexual. They are not homosexual.
My boy dog humps another boy dog to express dominance. Not to get laid. Animals operate on an animal level and purely function to keep the species going. Do not try to make them human because it helps your theory.
Is it so hard to say, I do not know? I am not say, this is what I am saying and it is right.
I am trying to makes sense and so far you have been giving theory, just as I have.
There has to be a logical reason. I would like to know. Woulden’t you.
I am not afraid of what the conclusion. I just want to know it is the gest on.
The world does not spin because it just does. There is a logical reason.

Qingu's avatar

Why are you comparing homosexuality to stealing?

Stealing is harmful, even a small amount is harmful as it’s a breach of trust.

Is homosexuality?

Bonobo homosexuality is often not dominance-related. Neither is penguin, I believe. They enjoy it.

On the one hand, you claim to be open to answers. But you aren’t actually listening. Can you actually demonstrate that homosexuality is wrong? If you can’t, why do you keep on comparing it to harmful activities?

CMaz's avatar

There is either a right or a wrong.
If you can show me it is right. Good.
I have not been given any right reason as I have not been given any wrong.
Since I cant seem to make sense of it I will tend to go in the direction of the “wrong”.
And, as much as theory goes either way. Right now I have not been given a good right reason. I will compare it to wrong.
We do not know if it is right or wrong.
Harmful for some might not be considered for others.

So you talk to penguins now? Not helping? That is theory also.

Qingu's avatar

So if you can’t personally understand how something is “right,” you tend to assume it’s wrong. What a wonderful moral philosophy.

Please tell me how you would define “right.”

Thammuz's avatar

@ChazMaz You know what pisses me off and makes me be “rude”? The fact that you keep making this a moral argument while using scientific terms. I don’t know what twisted view you have of science but science doesn’t give qualitative judgements, it doesn’t say that positive and negative electric fields are “good” and “bad” they’re positive or negative because one adds and the other detracts energy (not precisely that but you get the point)

So how about you start reasoning and stop yammering: right or wrong are just LABELS. You decide to what you apply them, they’re subjective and have no root in science whatsoever. Is death wrong? No. Is it right? No. From a naturalistic standpoint death IS. You decide wether it is right or wrong, so don’t try and blame science for your decisions.
And for that matter if homosexuality is actually genetic, again, it isn’t up to you to decide wether it is detrimental to the species. You’re just being an arrogant wannabe-demigod trying to decide if a dna mutation in your own species is good or not. Natural selection is there for a reason, you don’t get to argue with it.

And for the record: we are shoveling shitloads of proof that your standpoint is idiotic, you’re just avoiding to actually evauate them.

You say that accepting homosexuality would lead to more homosexuality and eventually extinction. I say “bullshit, the greeks didn’t go extinct and they were flaming homos.” This is called “proof that you’re wrong”: your “hypotetical” has already been verified and gave different results, sorry, you lose.

And for the record i’m not even gay, since you seem to think that since i debunked your bullshit of a theory i must be obviously gay, why would a striaght guy give half a shit if some dumbass is spreding misinformation about gays?
No, I’m just incredibly bugged by your willful ignorance.

As for homosexuality in animals: Wikipedia has some news for you.
And don’t go around saying “It’s wikipedia! it isn’t reliable, hurr durr” It’s quoting sources, see for yourself. i already did.

And might you concede on the fact that your examples of “why homosexuality is detrimental to the species” are bullshit? that’d be so intellectually honest on your part you might actually get me to rethink the idea i’m getting of you.

P.S. If my vulgar language makes you think i’m angry or something like that, no, i’m not angry. But i do have a lot of contempt for people like you that ignore perfectly sound evidence and intentionally misinterpret the mechanism, purpose and results of science and scientific theories to further reassure preconcieved positions.
As for the language, i always argue like that, if that’s not ok with you, it’s your problem, not mine.

CMaz's avatar

Again, emotional with no merit. I have been level headed and open minded.

“science doesn’t give qualitative judgments.” No one is judging here. “it doesn’t say that positive and negative electric fields are “good” and “bad” Are you reading what you are righting?
Ok, instead of “good” and “bad” we will use “positive” and “negative”. Homosexuality is either a positive process or a negative.

” And for that matter if homosexuality is actually genetic.” Still theory and when and if discovered. I will sleep the same at night. But, we have not found the “gay” gene yet. As much as people would like to believe it. But, lets go there. Lets say there is the gene for it. For what purpose? A positive one (culling over population) or a negative one (genetic mutation)? Don’t trip out only examples.
The greeks being flaming Homo’s’ is again assumption, to fit your argument..
As far as your P.S. goes. It goes both ways. I just do not have to get mouthy to make a point. Or being civilized is irrelevant in our society also?
Weather you are Gay or not makes no difference. This is not about gay. It is about figuring out how this process fits into the big picture. Knowing that will determine weather it is a lifestyle or a classification.

Death as much as we do not like, is a natural process. So it is right. Ooops, I mean a positive.
Right and wrong are just labels? That reeks of insecurity. Not helping your case.

Wikipedia means nothing. Don’t live on what that says being correct or not.

Qingu's avatar

Genes don’t have “purposes.” Except to replicate themselves.

Still waiting for you to define what you mean by “right.”

Thammuz's avatar

@ChazMaz Ok, it’s offical. You can’t be that dumb so you have to be willfully ignorant.

If you really don’t get that “Ok, instead of “good” and “bad” we will use “positive” and “negative”.” is simply proving that you have no idea of what the fuck you’re talking about i swear i don’t know what to say.
A “qualitative judgement” is “good” and “bad” used as hierarchical terms. Terms to which one can be preferred to the other, terms that identify qualities which one would desire or avoid. “Positive” and “Negative” in science only mean that the two forces are in opposition, which one you label as “positive” or “negative” doesn’t make any difference to the all in all concept, you reverse the sings in the equation and it all still works just peachy. If tomorrow we decided that from now on the electric field of electrons was to be called “positive” and the one of protons “negative” there would be no problem, we just reverse all the equations and related diagrams and that’s it.

Are you really telling me you couldn’t get this the first time i wrote this?

As for homosexuality being genetic, again, I did put a goddam if in there, didn’t I?
and for the record: “Lets say there is the gene for it. For what purpose? A positive one (culling over population) or a negative one (genetic mutation)? Don’t trip out only examples.” I will have to trip out, sorry.
Positive and negative, as explained before, are labels. And labels are applied upon witnessing the consequences, not simply making bullshit predictions and crossing fingers, hoping that the gene you might end up wiping out didn’t also do something else (only examples, don’t trip out). You’re not entitled to say wether a trait is detrimental until you have witnessed the detrimental effects. And a few people not reproducing, as far as i’m concerned, is not necessarily a bad thing.
Natural selection is precisely that: people who die before reproducing weren’t meant to repdroduce in the first place.

_“Death as much as we do not like, is a natural process.” _ Let me give you some news here: EVERYTHING is a NATURAL process. The process that makes your keyboard work allowing you to type on this site showing how little you know of how actually science works is a natural process. There is no such thing as an “arificial” process because if it wasn’t natural, it wouldn’t happen. If buttsex wasn’t natural it wouldn’t work. But alas, yes, if you stick your dick in some tight relatively warm orifice, whatever it might be, a vagina, an asshole, a sock filled with mashed potatoes (Drawn Together anyone?), you can still ejaculate. And that’s a natural process. Males of any mammal species who derive an orgasm from prostate stimulation, is a natural process, ask any vet, he will tell you if you don’t believe me. How do you think they do to get male horse sperm to breed racing horses? Prostate massage.

Dolphins have sex for pleasure, and homosexual sex: Wikipedia.
Yes, wikipedia again. If you don’t believe it, go check the peer reviewed science it quotes, if you don’t and dismiss it as you did just, after i shoveled tons of instances IN NATURE of homosexual behaviour, (Homosexual being getting humped and not trying to rebel against it, but actually having erections for that, which, if i recall, isn’t precisely a sign of displeasure or pain, unless you’re into S&M) then you can kindly shut the fuck up, you can think whatever you like but you’ve been proven wrong and you’re just ignoring it.
Wikipedia isn’t reliable? Fine, check the sources, we’ll see if they tell you any different.

You know what pisses me off? Debating iwth you is like playng chess with a pigeon: he knocks over all the pieces and shits on the board, then flies off thinking he’s won the game: First you say that if it turns out to be genetic then it’s a flaw, even though it would be NATURAL, then you say that death “is a natural process. So it is right”. Well sorry genius, if it is genetic then it is natural, and in your own words: “as we do not like, is a natural process. So it is right. Ooops, I mean a positive.”

Seriously, study before you ask us to “educate without being emotional”.
I’m not here to teach you the base of scientific knowledge any college student has if you start debating as if you already had it. You don’t know how science works. You don’t understand the purpose and method of science, and you don’t understand that, from a scientific standpoint our existence has no more merit than ANYTHING else. Evolution doesn’t have a purpose, it simply works that way, it produced us, but it could have not produced us and this wouldn’t have changed anything as far as nature itself is concerned. Nothing is necessary and so there is no objective way to define a Right or Wrong.

How about you show some sign of actual interest in debating, and understanding facts as they are observed, and not simply repeating the same wrong and overall FALSE shit ad nauseam? You keep ignoring science and data where it suits you, be my guest, just don’t expect me to say you’re right, or intelligent, or knowledgeable or heck, even a decent debater.

galileogirl's avatar

@ChazMaz I don’t know if anyone here actually gets your point. What you have done in this thread is to claim everyone here is wrong without putting forth any logical thesis of your own. It also seems you do this without thoroughly reading the thread’ You disagreed with my answer by saying that Christians are not biased against gays. In fact I never mentioned Christians in my post, that was one giant leap you made. I think when you misstate someone’s post and in a critical way, they may be offended.

Other people might be upset at some of your illogical statements. You said
“You want me to explain how Homosexuality can disrupt procreation?
The point of it disrupting procreation and human existence, is on the grounds that it is not a process indicative for moving the human race into the future. If it is deemed not part of the normal human process then it is not a good thing. Is it?”

If homosexuality is bad because it disrupts procreation, then by your standards menopause, celibacy and birth control are bad too. An awful lot of educated people think that population control might be a good thing.

Your logic is very circular. To date the subject of what causes homosexuality is still theory. Still you complain that no one gives you answers while you admit there can only be theories. Even though current answers must be theoretical, many past theories have been proven wrong. Even into the 1970’s homosexuality was viewed as a psychological condition caused by bad mothers. I think the genetic theory is on its way out, too. If it were strictly genetic then both identical twins would always be gay or straight-they aren’t. The most likely theory seems to be that at some time in the development of the fetus, there is a difference in the brain or hormonal development. In fact there are a lot of things that happen in utero. Currently no credible scientist or researcher believes homosexuality is a choice.

Unless you really crave confrontation, you might be more deliberative and less reactive in your answers.

Blondesjon's avatar

—I was gonna say what ^^ @galileogirl said…just shorter and funnier and with horrible grammar.

tiffyandthewall's avatar

the majority of people that care terribly much are either psychologists, or against homosexuals.

the latter need something to blame – the nurture or the nature. usually, it’s easier to hate if it’s a choice, so many people try their darndest to prove that it’s just a choice. many of the folks who argue back that it is a born trait aren’t as hateful, and the theories they believe in are more psychologically sound. i think that as a psychological issue, it is an interesting debate. as a ‘moral’ issue, it is ridiculous.

mebooba's avatar

whether by genes or by sociology, some people are gay. we do not choose our genes or our sociology. we only choose what to do about it.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther