Random Politics & Religion #06

Uhm, maybe from some point of view it can be that way, I guess from a taxonomic point of view maybe?

But if we're talking about what I think is the most common point of view, the world of "sexuality" is divided into four different indicators according to the currently accepted modern science (Psychology, Medicine)
1) Sexual Orientation
2) Gender Identity
3) Gender Role
4) Biological Sex

These are the four indicators to describe "sexuality" in humans.
If you go to the definition of "homosexuality" it goes beyond just sexuality.
It is part of it, but there's more in the definition.
I guess you were trying to stay away from social implications and all that stuff?
But as it stands, they do exist and interact with each other so I'm not sure what use it can be to pretend they're not there?

An homosexual woman is not just a woman who wants to have sex with other women.
I mean, that statement is probably true but it's just part of a more complex reality :D


But, again, I think we're delving deeper than necessary into something that's likely beyond the purpose and scale of the topic.


If we're talking about "natural" attraction I agree, a 100% straight cannot feel even a 0.01% homosexual attraction because if he does then it means he's not 100% straight at all.
But I feel limitating the full sphere of such a complex scenario into just two possible and opposite values (Hetero, Homo) would be quite the naive simplification of reality.

To go further beyond that I said that yes, if we're talking about "innate attraction" I agree with you if something is black, it cannot be white at the same time.
Thing is, human beings are perfectly able to do things even if they're against their "innate" stuff.
One guy might not feel "innately attracted" by men at all, but this doesn't mean he's not able to have sex with another man, maybe for money? Or for whatever other reason?
At the same time, while this of course doesn't apply to every single one of them, a gay man is in theory perfectly able to have sex with a woman (and hence children) even though if he's not naturally attracted by women. As a matter of fact this happens more often than many people may think, which leads us back to my original post in this thread.

I'm not sure if you're denying this or if you simply were not interested in this particular perspective.


Absolutely, that's all about social conventions, stygmas and interpretations of non-verbal language.
As a matter of fact a kiss between straight men would seem very much out of place in some countries while it's perfectly normal (and totally straight) in many others.
Just to give a very naive example of the very same thing you were saying.
I absolutely agree but I'm not sure why we're talking about this here D:

What does it have to do with the original "it's a choice!" vs "No it's genetic!" statement?

Yes, this leads us back to the final part of my first post in this thread.

Estabilishing wether it's a choice or not is "important" to some people exactely for that reason, because if they can demonstrate it's a choice, then they can have a valid excuse to blame those people for making a "bad choice".
Same exact reason why the opposing party is trying to demonstrate the opposite, of course. "No it's not a choice, you can't blame them".

What I was trying to say is that unless you have very specific (and hence biased) reasons to prove one way or the other, it shouldn't really matter to us in the end, beyond some healthy curiosity.

What should be the focus in my opinion is why some people think it's bad to begin with, wether it's a choice or not.
And even more beyond that, since I think people are more than entitled to have their personal opinions, it's more a matter of why do you think what you think is wrong should be enforced unto every other single human being, even those who do not agree with your view of the topic.

It's always nice to wake up in the morning and read a bunch of made up stuff.

Despite what some might believe I'm sure there is a strong psychological connotation to homosexual behaviour, however to say that it's a choice is complete and utter bovine feces.
We don't have good genetic studies about this for a number of obvious reasons (you can't study kids as they are asexual, hardly anyone cares, and not less important many gay communities would get up in arms over the thing being explained scientifically - let's not pretend that isn't a thing).
I would put my money on mutations on certain receptors, but *** if I know. And neither you do, no one of us here has made a study about gaynetics.

And now my favourite part the evolutionary biology argument. Which falls flat once you realize that species don't use sex for procreation only. Sex has another great biologic advantage that is not creating offspring, but it's social bonding. Take bonobos, they *** to keep peace between tribes.
Now humans were a very weak species. What up with no claws, no fangs, no layers to fight cold, no particularly big scary size. We have a thumb which is great, but the thing that made us thrive the most is our social ability.
In that sense you can see homosexuality as a useful tool as well.

And honestly even if you wanna say they aren't useful at all it's not like the randomness of mutations cares. Otherwise we'd have no autistic people.

gay today & straight tomorrow & vice versa cuz we're all just slaves to genetic code... right? If you're not looking at the same sex in a sexual manner do your gay genetics override self control? It is without a doubt a choice to be LGBT cuz even if such genetics are real you still have the ability to not look at the same sex in such a manner.
I guess pedophiles shouldnt take responsibility for thier actions. Nobody should really for anything. Everything is predetermined from birth.... those genetics

This sentence makes no sense. It contradicts itself °-°

No? Attraction has biologic roots too. If you like big boobs over small ones it's not a choice, you're wired that way. Engaging is a choice, but then again why should you chose to engage with something you don't like over something you do? It's not a choice to be attracted to the same sex, it's a choice to follow this attraction when finding a partner. Get the difference.

They cause harm. It's not their fault if they are like that, but it's their fault if they don't seek help and even worse act upon this desire.
Gay people cause no harm so they can do whatever they want. HUGE difference.

Blame would assume that being homosexual is a bad thing or something to be ashamed of, it's neither. It's no different then liking a particular color or type of food. It's most definitely not genetically hard coded, for the reasons I explained earlier, but neither is it this great evil thing that many extremists make it out to be.


It only gets brought up whenever someone attempts to deprive every LGBT person of their humanity by declaring they "don't have a choice". Choice is a powerful thing and taking it from someone only diminishes their worth. I've made it clear on other subjects that I'm a very strong believer in the sanctity of free will and I won't be silent while others us social bullying to remove it.

Actually sexual attractions only purpose is reproduction. The action of sex can be used for other things but the attraction and mate selection portion are 100% definitely about procreation. It's how genetic fitness testing work.

It's fun to see how little people know about our primal world even though they worship it.

That's the progressive theory and it fails to actually be useful for anything.

"I'm a tunip identifying as a trans-tomato" is valid under that concept. Which is why we only genetics and neural programming since that's what really matters. Neural programming gets it's framework from genetics with specifics coming from environmental stimuli. Sexual attraction is a core biological function, like eating, shitting, breathing and moving. It's how biological creatures select out which genetics to be passed on and the vast majority of it is based on fertility / genetic health markers and not only any ethereal "beauty standard".

Now if we're talking the much bigger concept of sexual identity, then ***gets really complicated because our higher order thinking connected to our modern information heavy world comes into play. You take that base sexual attraction and interconnect it with other parts of the brain and suddenly things that weren't possible before now become possible. This all happens long after birth and while genetics likely play a role in predisposition, someone is more likely to likely to feel X vs Y, they aren't the primary driver of those feelings.

Ultimately humans are entitled to feel however they want and identify with whatever sexuality they wish. Just don't go around being "respect my choice of lifestyle because I didn't have a choice".

Honestly I think the nail has alrdy been hit on the head. The whole concept and debate itself has zero to do with genetics and how one is "wired". Rather it's more based on being different and being able to defend your lifestyle claiming you have no other options but to be as you were born. I dont buy into such theories cuz one could make such a case on just about anything deflecting any and all opposition. With this logic every single criminal, murderer, rapist and whatever else just needs a psychiatrist while they take zero responsibility for anything they do

Yes the whole "It's not my fault I was born this way" was a defensive line used by homosexual people against disapproving family / society. It admits the homosexual is an "inferior" person with a disability but it's not their fault because "they were born that way". It's an attempt at playing a victim.

Homosexuals should never take such a position because homosexuality is neither inferior nor a disability, it's merely a lifestyle choice. If someone chooses that lifestyle they should be proud of their choice and proudly tell anyone criticizing them to *** off. I'm proud of my lifestyle (heterosexual playboy) and anytime someone criticizes it, I tell them to go *** themselves.

It blows my mind people don't understand that it's not a conscious choice to like something, but it's only a choice to act according to said preference.

It's an incredibly simple concept.

Ive had enough of seeing terrorist attacks so I rather not even look into this one further. If we claim we need higher restrictions placed on Muslims entering the US to prevent such from happening. Yall immediately hear cries of prejudice and racism so why even bother paying attention. Idgaf if nobody else gives one. Carry on.

Except most animals have no idea that sex = procreation.

You are the person talking about how women have "hidden ovulation" and so men can't know if the woman they had sex with really is carrying their child.

Sex has immediate gratification for humans via the release of Oxycontin and a variety of other hormones, not only through an organism but merely prolonged skin to skin contact.

Throughout most of human history we had no definite understanding of how sex worked to create other tiny humans.

Now you come onto an internet forum and claim men had to compete physically to be the best sexual partner in order to claim a woman's hand before humans had language development or a society.


So, where did this ritual develop? Were they then monogamous until the male impregnated a woman? Since you've already stated women can trick the poor men with their "hidden ovulation", how does this procedure work where the male fitness test winner actually impregnated this woman and she didn't have sex with someone else when he wasn't looking? Did they chain the women up so they weren't having sex with other men?

Many researchers and scientists have spent their lives trying to figure this out and it is still not 100% conclusive when humanity figured out how babies were made. However, it seems pretty evident via cave wall drawings and other memorabilia that survived hundreds of thousands of years that we didn't understand the mechanics of it very well until the last 10,000 to 20,000 years.

Evolution made sex feel good for humans and released hormones which bonded communities. Good feelings meant people did it a lot because statistically speaking it usually takes more than once to get pregnant.

However, understanding the how and why of a situation is not immediately inserted into an animals brain at birth. Every culture had their own theory on how humans were made and how to go about making one.

oi, I miss the edit button
organism = orgasism

Backreading somewhat.

Mainly, people are arguing that being gay isn't a choice, which is wrong.

Being gay means falling in love and being loved by members of the same sex. In other words, you choose the partner you be with. If it's not a choice, then people will go up to each other and declare their love with people uninterested with them and tell them "too bad, I was born with this, it's not my fault! So you have to be with me because my genes demand that I am with you, the first person I'm attracted to."

People choose to be with members of the opposite sex. People choose to be with members of the same sex. People even choose to be with neither members.

Because *gasp* it's all a choice. You have the choice to be with the people you want to be, and to think that you don't, just shows how little and weak minded you are.

See, even with all the weak mindedness around here, I still choose to be here on this forum. There is no gene in me that demands that I should or should not associate with people on this forum.

But if you want to believe that gay is not a choice, then think about the following: Is murdering people a choice in your mind? Because one can argue about that also.....

Sure if you want to blame an object for an issue that is a people issue.

While the argument has boiled down to being if being gay is a choice, the crux of the argument is:
Is sexual attraction a choice or genetically hardwired? Does this apply to people who are attracted to the same sex?

Not is it a choice on who you fall in love with or how you act on it.

So, to you, rape is not a choice.

Bolded so you can't say I'm putting words in your mouth.

whatt....

No, that's not what I meant at all with what I wrote. Which is why the sentence started with the word NOT.

Your entire argument is that everything is a choice, like who you fall in love with and how you act on it.

Which is correct to a very large extent.

My point was in the 3 sentences you ignored

I have given no opinion on this statement at all.

My opinion for future reference: sexual attraction is probably a combination of both nature and nurture, both genetically entrenched on certain fronts and formed via social interactions.

You're very welcome to believe that. I'm very welcome to disagree.

It is worrying that a lot of people still think sexual orientation is a choice.

At least for some people it is, according to themselves (e.g. Cynthia Nixon). My whole argument is just that it's not as cut and dry as people make it out to be. I'd say that most of the time orientation is due to factors that are out of one's control, but it's not like I'm an expert on the matter.

More worrying to me is that people still try to relate/equate sexual orientation to pedophilia, rape, and other distasteful things.

Yet more worrying is that there's a single person who applauds these acts or somehow think the victims got their deserved fate as a result of their "deviate behavior."

It's just upsetting all around.