Most homosexuality is a choice

originally posted by: Barcs

Your points are absurd and have nothing to do with one another.

Actually I have questions, and what is a general assumption about homosexual interest in heterosexual reproduction.

Attraction to same gender has absolutely nothing to do with wanting kids.

Getting warm...

It has to do with who you are attracted to.

So you say that ‘wanting kids’ has to do with who you are attracted to. How are those related?

Why can you see this?

I am a biologist – trained in the zoological, cellular and micro aspects. I have been trained in population models, genetics, hormone pathways, pheromone theories, a plethora of disciplines. I have studied the theories of human evolution and general animal development in mammals.

When you try to say that wanting kids has to do with who you are attracted to, and that person is the same gender, I get a chuckle. Not in a mean way, it’s more irony.

Why can't you understand that people value sex as more than just a reproductive tool?

Can you understand that your DNA and animal brain don’t care?

I don't see the connection between your partner type and the desire for children. If you know, please post it.

Millions of years of heterosexual animal reproduction.

The question is, *why* do they have that biological need when they lack the heterosexual attraction to the opposite gender?

Why wouldn't they? (I bet you dodge this question again)

So you answer my question with a question, and expect my answer before yours? Two can play at that game. How do sexually reproducing species go about creating offspring, especially the 99.99% that don’t have access to AI technology?

It's simple. Attraction is not related to biological instincts like wanting children.

Your DNA and millions of years of biological development say otherwise.

2 homosexuals can love each other and want to have a child the same way that heterosexuals can.

Agreed. Absolutely. I have never asserted otherwise. Why do they want to have a child, especially if they are satisfying their sexual urges?

Remember you asked WHY do they WANT to have kids, not HOW they CAN biologically have kids.

At least you are paying attention. And I’ve never said their reproductive organs were damaged by their orientation. They can have kids like anyone else.

The answer is simple. They are in love and want to raise a child together.

Except it’s not that simple. Humans aren’t just hardwired to want kids. Every instinctive impulse we experience comes from genetic programming, from hormonal feedback, in this case known as ‘Ye Olde Biological Clock.’ Reproduction and child rearing are extremely resource-heavy pursuits. Hell, having sex of any type is a resource-intensive activity, that’s why it feels so damn good to have it. Our bodies developed a positive feedback to waste those resources. Those nerve endings down there aren’t hyper sensitive just for kicks (pun intended.)

If a homosexual has sex his body functions in the same exact way as if it were procreating with a woman. There is no difference in that aspect as far as the body is concerned.

I never said there was. One of my earlier posts spoke of how the majority of children born from homosexuals occurred with heterosexual partners who were able to stimulate their partner enough to accomplish the deed.

Just because they can't procreate through direct sex, doesn't mean they don't want to.

Getting warmer...

It seems you are grasping at straws here. Can you please just make your point instead of playing this tedious guessing game?

I’m not grasping at anything. I think of it more as leading horses to water.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
I don't have movie references so..

showed me pictures of himself doing Drag.....

I'll post photos of myself instead

Hopefully it makes some of the bigots here upset too

As one of those people you probably think is a bigot, all I have to say is nice legs and ink

a reply to: hiddenNZ

I dont get it....do you guys dress like that cause you want to shock other people,or gewt attention from men.

Just because you are shocked doesn't mean everyone else is

One was at a friend's costume store, and the other was at Lovefest in San Francisco.

Also....do you all think you look good like that,lol.......

Everyone has their own take on what looks good on people. I don't really know how to answer that.

women look gorgeous in womens clothes in my opinion........

Yes, they do. In my opinion as well.

a reply to: hiddenNZ

Have you seen any Drag Queens? and i'm not talking about Dive Bar Queens... the Men are Gorgeous, and they are Gorgeous in drag as well

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I think of it more as leading horses to water.

How about we skip to the water bit.

Are you trying to suggest homosexuals want to be heterosexuals, or that homosexuality doesn't exist? O_o

a reply to: Darth_Prime
yeah ive seen the likes of them,and to be honest,they make me laugh,trying to be a sexy woman........makes me feel a little ill at how their head works to be even more honest

a reply to: hiddenNZ

makes me feel a little ill at how their head works

.
I'm sure the feeling is usually mutual.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

Are you trying to suggest homosexuals want to be heterosexuals, or that homosexuality doesn't exist? O_o

There are no homosexuals or heterosexuals, just people, man, just people. Isn't that the modern doctrine?

People, doing whatever they want.

Free love, started by the Hippy movement in the '60s. Spreading out and expanding over time to include all closet behaviors.

a reply to: hiddenNZ

I take that personally.. only because i am "One Of Them"

oh well, you don't have to enjoy it, Drag is a Sub-Culture of the GLBTQ+ Culture anyway

a reply to: AMPTAH

Only until it comes to Equal Rights and Protections, than we are "Defects" "Abominations" who make a "Lifestyle Choice" and have a "Mental Illness"

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

Only until it comes to Equal Rights and Protections, than we are "Defects" "Abominations" who make a "Lifestyle Choice" and have a "Mental Illness"

Well, one of the consequences of freedom of thought, and free speech, is that people are free to think and say they believe others are mentally ill, are abominations, and have defects, etc..it doesn't mean that these things are true, it's opinion, after all , and we all have opinions. Some think others are bigots, and tyrants, and religious zealots, and whatever...but it's still all people, man, just people, being who they are, and doing whatever they want.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
hehe,that was a great comment and doesnt bother me one bit



Darth...you can take that any way you want...i wasnt trying to offend anyone,but I guess if its a duck,and walks like a duck........

a reply to: AMPTAH

There are no homosexuals or heterosexuals, just people, man, just people.

Correct. People. People have various sexual orientations. We are all in this together.

Isn't that the modern doctrine?

People, doing whatever they want.

.
No. It's not.

Spreading out and expanding over time to include all closet behaviors.

Our support for LGBT+ in no way translates to us supporting pedophilia, bestiality, et cetera. That's a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy that's supported by ridiculous people. Unless you meant something else by "closet behaviors" this time.. I can only imagine what you deem as wrong and needing to be suppressed heh..

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: AMPTAH

There are no homosexuals or heterosexuals, just people, man, just people.

Correct. People. People have various sexual orientations. We are all in this together.

Nope. We're not in this together, I have no sexual orientation.

a reply to: AMPTAH

I wasn't including deities, Holy One. I said people.

originally posted by: pompel9
He can be both. But since he didn't write a scientific paper on this, but instead he chose to write a book tells me all I need to know. So no, he is not a scientist. He is a biologist that wrote a book in order to make money.

If there is scientific proof, then post it.


If that were possible they would be bisexual or straight.

A biologist IS a scientist. Just because he doesn't have peer reviewed papers doesn't detract from that. It sounds like you are trying to use defamation rather than facts to argue your case. Have you already read the book and checked the resources?

The proof has already been posted. Homosexuality occurs all over the animal kingdom. It's been posted in youtube videos here showing the exact action, then there has also been numerous witnessed accounts and observations.

Heck, I've seen it firsthand with my cats before they got neutered.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
But, we wouldn't label two men homosexuals because they find each other attractive, and seek each others company, because of this. There must be "sex" involved, before it becomes a sexual orientation.

Hence, there's no such thing as sexual orientation without sex.

Yes we would label them homosexuals if they find each other attractive. I can't believe you are still denying that attraction and taking action on that attraction are 2 different things.

It was not proven false. No one proved the test subjects lied.

The guy who did the experiment admitted that there were plants in the study.

originally posted by: Barcs
The proof has already been posted. Homosexuality occurs all over the animal kingdom. It's been posted in youtube videos here showing the exact action, then there has also been numerous witnessed accounts and observations.

No one has every observed homosexuality in animals.

First of all, all they ever observed was bisexual behavior, never homosexual behavior. We already established in this thread, that homosexuality is demonstrated by "exclusively preferring same-sex". If a male dog jumps on another male dog, that's same sex, but that same male dog jumps just as willingly on a female dog. So, the dog is not exhibiting homosexual behavior, but bisexual behavior. This is true throughout the animal kingdom. No animal has ever been found to demonstrate homosexual behavior, because you'd have to observe that animal from "birth" until "death" to be sure the animal never paired up with the opposite sex, and that has never been done.

Secondly, we already established that "homosexual behavior" is not the same as "homosexuality". The term homosexuality is reserved and defined as an internal mental characteristic called "sexual orientation" that is not observable, it's the "trait" that causes a person to want to exhibit homosexual behavior, but only humans can have homosexuality, because the person has to "tell you they are homosexual". There is no other way to know. And we haven't learned to talk to animals, and ask them that question yet.

Hence, homosexuality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom, has never been observed in animals, and is only known among humans.

a reply to: AMPTAH

And people can believe whatever they want, but when it starts to interfere with peoples lives, like denying services, Jobs, Housing and property or getting Fired that goes beyond "Freedom of speech and Belief"

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

And people can believe whatever they want, but when it starts to interfere with peoples lives, like denying services, Jobs, Housing and property or getting Fired that goes beyond "Freedom of speech and Belief"

There is no way to tell if a person is homosexual, unless that person wants you to know.

So, no homosexual can be denied any of these things you mention, if he or she keeps their private business private.

The issue therefore is not services, jobs, housing and property, or getting fired. That has nothing to do with it.

As long as a homosexual behaves "publically" just like any heterosexual, no one would ever know they are "different" in "private."

It is the desire to be known to be different that is the homosexual problem. It's exhibitionism.

If they were just people, they would be treated exactly like other people. Why wouldn't they?