Most homosexuality is a choice

a reply to: Navieko

You're not right. Science doesn't even try to define the word "natural." Point to the study that does.

LOL ... hurts hearing what? That you think gay people are unnatural? Dude (or dudette) I couldn't care less what you think.

I wasn't born with any deviations certainly not the fact that I'm gay; thanks for confirming that you were just making noise when you pretended that you in any way felt otherwise about the subject.

I can't accept the statement you keep making as generally true because you're incorrect. And for some reason, you can't accept that it is your ONLY YOUR opinion that homosexuality is not natural. Don't try to put it on me. You're the one who wandered in here and said it, and expected everyone to just say "well, that's his/her opinion." Well, it is your opinion, and you have a right to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. Scientifically, medically, psychologically, philosophically, semantically, linguistically PROVABLY so ... anyway you want to judge it.

Homosexuality occurs naturally. In and of itself, homosexuality causes no harm. In most commonly accepted senses of the words "natural" and "normal" homosexuals are both. This is not a "belief" nor is it an "opinion."

You are welcome to your opinion as I think I stated at the outset. You are, however, mistaken.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
The only way you could possibly prescribe intent to a biological process, such as evolution, is with a heavy dose of anthropomorphism.

That seems like a narrow-minded point of view to me. There are many species of animals, not including humans, that will go out of their way and at great effort - to find the most desirable mate - with the intent being, whether they are conscious of the intent or not, to increase their chances of successful procreation and give birth to offspring that are as healthy and fit to survive as possible. Why would this be an inherent trait within various species - if not to serve the purpose/intent of their continual survival.

And yet I don't believe having a driving intent behind evolution/adaptation necessarily has to mean there exists some "God" or deity. Clearly we are capable of intent and purpose, and yet here we are - a "by-product" of evolution/adaptation. What's to say life in general does not have an embedded trait that conforms to a universal law to help keep life spreading, growing and living.

In any case - the observations make it pretty obvious to those willing to open their eyes - whether there is a God or not, there does seem to be a driving intent - or universal law (if that's easier for your mind to digest) - that shapes the way we evolve/adapt over millions of years, and as well the way we (life in general) instinctively take action within our life cycles to increase the success rate of our survival.

I'm not going to try and presume to know any more on the how and why - just that it is what it is - and we are more than likely no where near enough sufficiently equipped with the intellect and/or resources to say definitively one way or the other.

Now I'm really off to bed.

a reply to: AMPTAH

I call it heterosexual body, because it is designed for reproductive sex, has overlies, womb, testicles, etc.. all there for the purpose of producing new "human bodies" from the sex act. "Hetero" simply means, requiring two "opposite sex" partners to facilitate the proper functioning of the body, including all of its design parameters.

Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. The human body doesn't have a sexual orientation. It is just a human body.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: AMPTAH

I call it heterosexual body, because it is designed for reproductive sex, has overlies, womb, testicles, etc.. all there for the purpose of producing new "human bodies" from the sex act. "Hetero" simply means, requiring two "opposite sex" partners to facilitate the proper functioning of the body, including all of its design parameters.

Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. The human body doesn't have a sexual orientation. It is just a human body.

Any yet, there are two different "opposite sex" bodies: male and female

Or, are you saying male and female have the same body?

a reply to: AMPTAH

You either seem not to know what Sexual-Orientation is, or just pretending you don't

a reply to: AMPTAH

Or, are you saying male and female have the same body?

Male has male body, female has female body.

Please read and study up on sexual orientation.

originally posted by: pompel9
I said there are no scientific studies proving that homosexuality exists in the animal world (except for humans).

Why do people keep falsely claiming this? It's like your church gave you a bunch of fake talking points to promote homophobia. This is a blatant lie, and suggests you have not read the thread because it's been posted 3 times at minimum.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: AMPTAH

Or, are you saying male and female have the same body?

Male has male body, female has female body.

Please read and study up on sexual orientation.

I understand that sexual orientation is a persons individual sexual preference for a certain type of sexual activity. Some people like to have sex with sheep, for example, their sexual orientation is towards animals. But, that's not what I was trying to getting at. I was talking specifically about the human. Not just anybody's sexual orientation. But the relationship between the genetic reproductive tools on the body, and the human function using those tools. I know you can use a cheese knife to cut wood, or do gardening. So, I'm not talking about exploring alternative uses of the tools the human body has, rather about the optimum use of those tools, as evident by the body's design itself.

Do you agree that "Hetero" refers to the "opposite sex" ?
Do you agree that there are two and only two opposite sexes: male and female?
Do you agree that "Hetero-sexual" relationship is required to produce a new human baby from sexual activity today?

I'm just trying to understand where our differences in comprehending the design of the world is coming from.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Do you agree that "Hetero" refers to the "opposite sex" ? Do you agree that there are two and only two opposite sexes: male and female? Do you agree that "Hetero-sexual" relationship is required to produce a new human baby from sexual activity today?

Yes I understand what you are saying. But the human body has no sexual orientation. It just doesn't care who you have sex with. It's your body.

a reply to: AMPTAH

What about Intersex?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Yes I understand what you are saying. But the human body has no sexual orientation. It just doesn't care who you have sex with. It's your body.

I got ya. In other words, only the mind can have a sexual orientation. The body doesn't know anything about it. That explains why a person can claim to feel they have a female mind, but a male body, and so feel that they are in the wrong body type for them. Also explains why an apparent male, like Bruce Jenner, would transform the body into female.

However, the problem here with the mind theory is, how do we explain dressing up like a female? Men wear pants, and women wear dresses, but this is not biologically conditioned, nor is it in the mind of anyone at birth. This aspect of male and female is entirely created by us, the society, there's nothing "natural" about it. The Scots wear Kilts, which are dresses, for example. So, it's just custom. What makes a person want to cross dress, and put on makeup, lipstick, and look like the "society's" definition of opposite sex?

That part of a person's mind, cannot be said to be given to them at birth.

Does this not show that much of what is in a person's mind, is "conditioned by us". We, the society, put these ideas into the mind of the person. That person is not born with these things in mind.

Doesn't that show that a person "learns to be female" and "learns to be male" in our society?

And aren't we then "teaching them to be homosexuals", because we say what you have to dress like, talk like, look like to be this gender or that?

The norms and standards of behavior we set, determines whether or not gays and lesbians exist. We create them.

They are not born that way. They have no clue how to dress when they come out of the womb.

Every person has to look around and learn how to act, speak, and "fit in" with the rest of humanity.

So, all homosexuals are created by the society, not by God, not by Nature, we create them with lots of "subliminal" clues.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Yeah the way we dress is a product of our society. However, transvestites just like to look and dress like women. I am not too familiar with it but I think it's mainly for show. Some men just feel good in dresses. Most transvestites are hetrosexual. Hopefully someone else who are more knowledgeable about this will explain.

Doesn't that show that a person "learns to be female" and "learns to be male" in our society?

And aren't we then "teaching them to be homosexuals", because we say what you have to dress like, talk like, look like to be this gender or that?

Homosexuals don't dress like the opposite sex. That's transvestism. Actually usually you wouldn't know that most homosexual people you meet are homosexuals.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Transgender/Transsexual has Nothing to do with Sexual-Orientation.

It is Gender-Identity, that is something else you are Born with, Gender-Identity doesn't always Match the Assigned Sex at Birth, nor your "Sexual-Identity" these are all independent.

Gender-Expression has nothing to do with Sexual-Orientation or Gender-Identity.

somehow society decided it could dictate what makes a "Male" and "Female" through Colors, toys, Clothes, social situations, mannerism etc

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Good. So, you agree that there is only one body type. No distinction between gays and straights. They share exactly the same body. You call it human body. I call it heterosexual body, because it is designed for reproductive sex, has overlies, womb, testicles, etc.. all there for the purpose of producing new "human bodies" from the sex act. "Hetero" simply means, requiring two "opposite sex" partners to facilitate the proper functioning of the body, including all of its design parameters.

Then you're still getting it wrong, heterosexual refers to a sexuality and not 'requiring two "opposite sex" partners to facilitate the proper functioning of the body' which i'm pretty sure you pulled out from your ass.

Don't worry about the fat bald guy's impression of me, he and I get on just fine. There's too much worry on this site, about what other people think about this or that person. Let's just get the definitions, get educated, and find the truth through dialog.

I couldn't care less about that particular set of superstitions, I just find it pretty hilarious that on one hand you claim to be in tune or in contact with ghosts/spirits (w/e) and still behave as you have in this thread. But that's pretty typical of all superstitionists I guess....

originally posted by: Navieko
That seems like a narrow-minded point of view to me. There are many species of animals, not including humans, that will go out of their way and at great effort - to find the most desirable mate - with the intent being, whether they are conscious of the intent or not, to increase their chances of successful procreation and give birth to offspring that are as healthy and fit to survive as possible. Why would this be an inherent trait within various species - if not to serve the purpose/intent of their continual survival.

Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life, and while the urge to survive and propagate is part of that process, they're certainly not the whole.

And yet I don't believe having a driving intent behind evolution/adaptation necessarily has to mean there exists some "God" or deity. Clearly we are capable of intent and purpose, and yet here we are - a "by-product" of evolution/adaptation. What's to say life in general does not have an embedded trait that conforms to a universal law to help keep life spreading, growing and living.

That might be true, all organisms will fight to survive. But then evolution via natural selection is a lot more than just the urge to survive...

In any case - the observations make it pretty obvious to those willing to open their eyes - whether there is a God or not, there does seem to be a driving intent - or universal law (if that's easier for your mind to digest) - that shapes the way we evolve/adapt over millions of years, and as well the way we (life in general) instinctively take action within our life cycles to increase the success rate of our survival.

Ah the old line 'those willing to open their eyes'.......very familiar with some folk.

Seems you're making things up here....

This should help...

a reply to: Prezbo369

You are correct but I see where he is coming from. He thinks there is some undiscovered law that will make life inevitable and direct evolution.

I'm taking my third college course in anatomy & physiology this semester. Have yet to hear mention of this "heterosexual body".

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Have yet to hear mention of this "heterosexual body".

Apparently you haven't heard of the Re-Animator movie. The body has a mind of it's own.

Anyway AMPTAH has admitted he was wrong.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Have a few pages to catch up on.

I have seen that film! I'm a total horror aficionado.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy



The body has a mind of it's own.