Is sexuality a choice?

[Riku16]

One of the age old questions, I just wanted to see what the community of the Virtual Teen Forums had to say on the matter.

I, personally, do not think that sexuality is a choice, there are many people who would argue that it is, but I am a believer that everybody is born bi-sexual but it all depends on what sexuality people are influenced to take, this can depend on a number of things, which parent they are closest to, also social media can play a vital part. For example, straight people hold more onto their heterosexual feelings during puberty and due to this are straight, and the opposite for homosexuals. There are some who hold onto the homosexual feelings but repress them to bend to modern societies corrupt view of what is normal. These are people who are in the closet.

By the way, when I say we hold onto the feelings, I mean sub-consciously.

So, what is your opinion on this matter?

[Rdsxbaseballfan]

I'm not really sure if your 100% right in my mind but I do agree with you the sexuality is not really a choice, you can choose to like a certain gender cause that's just not the way it work

[Stryker125]

nope, not a choice.

[TigerBoy]

No it isn't a choice. Medical science has determined that it is established before birth, and that there are immutable physiological and psychological factors.

This is the official position of the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx), the World Health Organisation, the British Psychological Society (http://www.bps.org.uk/) and other expert authorities.

A scientific paper discussing physiological differences relating to gender and sexuality (http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580%2803%2900059-9/abstract)

Do Gays Have a Choice - Scientific American (Mar 06) (http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein%20-%20Do%20Gays%20Have%20a%20Choice%20-%20SciAm%20MIND%20-%203-06.pdf)

A recent study (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html)

Your theory about everyone being naturally bi is not bourne out by science. Studies show that the bi population is something around 16% (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf) in teens, and other studies (http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Michael.Berger/lit/McClintock.pdf)indicate this can be confirmed before puberty even begins.

[squibles976]

It's a choice

[Elysium]

I don't think it is at all. I think it's affected by both nature and nurture (to an extent), but I can say with 100% certainty that it is not a conscious choice.

[TigerBoy]

It's a choice

Where's your scientific basis for this statement? Explain to us why we should believe it more than the consensus view of national and global organisations of experts?

[squibles976]

You don't have to believe it, and I don't care if u do, its my opinion, now bugger off

[TigerBoy]

Oh dear "squibles976" - no one has any reason to believe you if you can't explain your 'opinions', so if you just wanted us to ignore you in the first place, why bother posting?

[DerBear]

Since this is more of a debate than a "help" thread. I think this would be better if placed in the Ramblings of the Wise Forum.

Furthermore, I suggest people keep this debate clean and friendly. If people cross the line into arguing warnings/infractions will be handed out. We are Teenagers, surely we can have a civilized discussion/debate?

[Lost in the Echo]

No, it's not.

You can't control who you are, or what you like, it's all determined by your genetics.
You can't control genetics, therefore you have no control over what sexual orientation you are.

[Drew5]

you said age old question and then said some people stay in the closet, but what did they do before there were closets? lol

I don't think we can control who we are attracted to, but we can control our actions. I don't know when that part of us is determined because it feels like it's always been one way, but that doesn't mean that's how we were conceived or born or if it happens before we start remembering a lot.

I don't feel like I ever sat around and decided to be straight, it's just the way I've been for as long as i can remember.

[Jess]

No it's not a choice. We can't control who we're attracted to.

[Gigablue]

All the scientific evidence suggests that sexuality is the result of genetic factors and prenatal environment. It is basically set at birth and cannot be changed. There isn't any evidence to suggest that it is a choice.

[squibles976]

Oh dear "squibles976" - no one has any reason to believe you if you can't explain your 'opinions', so if you just wanted us to ignore you in the first place, why bother posting?

Because we are my with freedom of choice that's a fact, and honestly I only posted to very Private messaging, and your arrogance, and shoving what you believe in my face and "ignoring" my opinion is why gays are looked down on, I'm not saying gays are bad, I'm simply saying its a choice IN MY OPINION

[Camazotz]

No it isn't a choice. Medical science has determined that it is established before birth, and that there are immutable physiological and psychological factors.

This is the official position of the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx), the World Health Organisation, the British Psychological Society (http://www.bps.org.uk/) and other expert authorities.

A scientific paper discussing physiological differences relating to gender and sexuality (http://www.neurobiologyofaging.org/article/S0197-4580%2803%2900059-9/abstract)

Do Gays Have a Choice - Scientific American (Mar 06) (http://drrobertepstein.com/pdf/Epstein%20-%20Do%20Gays%20Have%20a%20Choice%20-%20SciAm%20MIND%20-%203-06.pdf)

A recent study (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html)

Your theory about everyone being naturally bi is not bourne out by science. Studies show that the bi population is something around 16% (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf) in teens, and other studies (http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Michael.Berger/lit/McClintock.pdf)indicate this can be confirmed before puberty even begins.
Where's your scientific basis for this statement? Explain to us why we should believe it more than the consensus view of national and global organisations of experts?
Oh dear "squibles976" - no one has any reason to believe you if you can't explain your 'opinions', so if you just wanted us to ignore you in the first place, why bother posting?

This.

It's a choice
You don't have to believe it, and I don't care if u do, its my opinion, now bugger off
Because we are my with freedom of choice that's a fact, and honestly I only posted to very Private messaging, and your arrogance, and shoving what you believe in my face and "ignoring" my opinion is why gays are looked down on, I'm not saying gays are bad, I'm simply saying its a choice IN MY OPINION

Not this. Not any of this.

[Jess]

Because we are my with freedom of choice that's a fact, and honestly I only posted to very Private messaging, and your arrogance, and shoving what you believe in my face and "ignoring" my opinion is why gays are looked down on, I'm not saying gays are bad, I'm simply saying its a choice IN MY OPINION

We just want to know why you think it's a choice, when there's not a single shred of evidence to show it's true.

[Elysium]

Because we are my with freedom of choice that's a fact, and honestly I only posted to very Private messaging, and your arrogance, and shoving what you believe in my face and "ignoring" my opinion is why gays are looked down on, I'm not saying gays are bad, I'm simply saying its a choice IN MY OPINION
With all due respect, what is your sexuality as of right now?

Assuming you identify with heterosexuality, hypothetically, be attracted to guys. Just for a minute, have absolutely no interest or response to females, and only have eyes for the male population. Become homosexual for a minute to humor me.

You couldn't do that, could you? Think about all the bullying we hear about and all the kids and teenagers and even adults who kill themselves because of their homosexuality. Do you honestly want to tell me that they consciously, willingly chose to subject themselves to that cruelty? Do you think they decided they wanted to suffer to the point where they could no longer live with themselves?

[squibles976]

We have freedom of choice, unless your saying we don't have any choice over our lives at all, now I respect your opinions so I expect the same courtesy in return, I'm not looking to change anyone's opinion I'm simply offering my own

[Professional Russian]

No sexuality is not a choice. Its not like over night I can turn gay its just not possible.

[LouBerry]

I don't think it's a choice, I think it's a temptation. I have no doubt that those feelings are real and unavoidable, I just think that it's something that was meant to be overcome.

[Abyssal Echo]

All the scientific evidence suggests that sexuality is the result of genetic factors and prenatal environment. It is basically set at birth and cannot be changed. There isn't any evidence to suggest that it is a choice.

I agree with Gigablue :D its in the genes

[Cicero]

We have freedom of choice, unless your saying we don't have any choice over our lives at all, now I respect your opinions so I expect the same courtesy in return, I'm not looking to change anyone's opinion I'm simply offering my own

With all due respect, what is your sexuality as of right now?

Assuming you identify with heterosexuality, hypothetically, be attracted to guys. Just for a minute, have absolutely no interest or response to females, and only have eyes for the male population. Become homosexual for a minute to humor me.

You couldn't do that, could you? Think about all the bullying we hear about and all the kids and teenagers and even adults who kill themselves because of their homosexuality. Do you honestly want to tell me that they consciously, willingly chose to subject themselves to that cruelty? Do you think they decided they wanted to suffer to the point where they could no longer live with themselves?

We just want to know why you think it's a choice, when there's not a single shred of evidence to show it's true.

Oh dear "squibles976" - no one has any reason to believe you if you can't explain your 'opinions', so if you just wanted us to ignore you in the first place, why bother posting?

There is no need to harass him about what he believes in. Some people just believe it because they were raised to, while others just believe it because they think nothing is permanent about themselves. He has said countless times that you don't need to agree with his opinion. He just wanted to say his opinion, cause this thread is asking "Is sexuality a choice?". So with his opinion he said "Its not a choice".

I don't think it's a choice, I think it's a temptation. I have no doubt that those feelings are real and unavoidable, I just think that it's something that was meant to be overcome.

I agree with this.

Do not double post ~ Mike

[squibles976]

I agree with this.

I agree, like I said choice

[aldabanana]

I think that it is a choice

[Elysium]

There is no need to harass him about what he believes in. Some people just believe it because they were raised to, while others just believe it because they think nothing is permanent about themselves. He has said countless times that you don't need to agree with his opinion. He just wanted to say his opinion, cause this thread is asking "Is sexuality a choice?". So with his opinion he said "Its not a choice".
Personally, I was aiming for a debate or a discussion. There's a difference between discussing and harassing. It's my belief that if you're going to state your opinion, you should be able and ready to explain it.

The general consensus (or, rather, the majority agrees) is that sexuality is not a choice, so I'm curious as to why he thinks otherwise.

Of course, it's not necessary that that be shared, but I'm definitely interested.

[OrKing]

I think it's about as much of a choice as choosing your gender, although there are certain things that make me think on it sometimes, like the huge amount of homosexuals that were believed to be in the Celtic era, I wonder what affected that, although I'm pretty sure it had very little to do with science and more to do with tradition and all that jazz, but then that contradicts my own modern belief. Basically, who the fuck knows, apart from the experts listed above that is. :P

[squibles976]

Personally, I was aiming for a debate or a discussion. There's a difference between discussing and harassing. It's my belief that if you're going to state your opinion, you should be able and ready to explain it.

The general consensus (or, rather, the majority agrees) is that sexuality is not a choice, so I'm curious as to why he thinks otherwise.

Of course, it's not necessary that that be shared, but I'm definitely interested.

I already explained why

[ImCoolBeans]

I tried very hard to be straight for a long time and it didn't work out for me. Something I've noticed is that people who believe that it is a choice tend to be straight, and I don't think that you guys fully see the other side of the picture. I tried dating girls, I put myself through a lot of rough situations with people whom I had neither emotional nor physical attraction to just to try to be "normal" like everyone else was; but at the end of the day I knew who I really had feelings for. Sexuality is certainly not a choice. I chose to be straight but nature had other intentions. If it were a choice then I would have been straight and I would have never continued to have feelings for other men; but here I am.

[Gordo]

I tried very hard to be straight for a long time and it didn't work out for me. Something I've noticed is that people who believe that it is a choice tend to be straight, and I don't think that you guys fully see the other side of the picture. I tried dating girls, I put myself through a lot of rough situations with people whom I had neither emotional nor physical attraction to just to try to be "normal" like everyone else was; but at the end of the day I knew who I really had feelings for. Sexuality is certainly not a choice. I chose to be straight but nature had other intentions. If it were a choice then I would have been straight and I would have never continued to have feelings for other men; but here I am.


That's actually incredible! I'm trying to imagine what that would be like to force myself to date guys.

I can see some up sides to two guys because they are both horny all the time so the other dude would "get that" and not think we're just complete perverts and our crazy sex drive is just part of us.

I gotta admit that the girls I know seem to have a lot of drama in their lives compared to guys and I could do with less drama. IDK, seems like guys can have an issue, be mad, get over it and it's over and that girls just don't move on that easily. Yet here I am attracted to them even though I like hanging with my guy friends, love my some of my guy friends, but can't imagine being in love with one of them. It just doesn't.... IDK, yuk is what comes to mind.

So if you had "yuk" in your head when you were trying to be straight, I don't know how you did it. Okay, I'm kidding in the next sentence: You could consider a career in acting because that's an performance that must have been going on 23/7 with a tiny amount of time for you to just be yourself when you were alone or sleeping. So I guess I exaggerated the amount of time, but pretty much all your waking moments.

I'm curious, would you check girls out at all? Was that part of the act or was there some amount of you that was attracted to girls? Or did you just do what other guys were doing?

Man that would wear me out.

[ImCoolBeans]

That's actually incredible! I'm trying to imagine what that would be like to force myself to date guys.

I can see some up sides to two guys because they are both horny all the time so the other dude would "get that" and not think we're just complete perverts and our crazy sex drive is just part of us.

I gotta admit that the girls I know seem to have a lot of drama in their lives compared to guys and I could do with less drama. IDK, seems like guys can have an issue, be mad, get over it and it's over and that girls just don't move on that easily. Yet here I am attracted to them even though I like hanging with my guy friends, love my some of my guy friends, but can't imagine being in love with one of them. It just doesn't.... IDK, yuk is what comes to mind.

So if you had "yuk" in your head when you were trying to be straight, I don't know how you did it. Okay, I'm kidding in the next sentence: You could consider a career in acting because that's an performance that must have been going on 23/7 with a tiny amount of time for you to just be yourself when you were alone or sleeping. So I guess I exaggerated the amount of time, but pretty much all your waking moments.

I'm curious, would you check girls out at all? Was that part of the act or was there some amount of you that was attracted to girls? Or did you just do what other guys were doing?

Man that would wear me out.

I would just act like the other guys would. It's actually extremely common. Mostly anybody who has ever been in the closet has gone through that at some point, or they just didn't date at all. I know people who did the same thing that I did and I know people who just kept to themselves and never tried to "fit in" with the other guys.

[Sph2015]

I say no, not a choice. I also say that as a devout Catholic so, sadly, the religion card doesn't work on me. Anyone who can ignore countless scientific studies baffles me.

[FreeFall]

It's a choice? Hot damn! I think I'll dump my boyfriend tonight and wake up a lesbian tomorrow! Maybe On Tuesdays I'll be straight and every other Thursday I'll be bi-sexual...then on Holidays, a homosexual.

Oh wait. It doesn't work like that.

Now being a heterosexual, I suck at trying to see it from a point of view from someone of a different orientation. But honestly, why's it need to be a choice? Why isn't healthy love, healthy love? Why're we picking it a part, making one side "right" and one side "wrong"?

If you feel it's a choice, that's fine. But don't go trying to convince a stuggling homosexual that they can change their attractions, it's as helpful as congratulating someone on a traumatic misscarriage. It's not something people can control. It's out of their hands and they are whom they are. No need to beat them over the heads in something they're already trying to cope with. With how our society reacts to homosexuals, in this day and age even, don't you think there'd be much less of them? That all of them would've jumped ship and boarded the S.S. Heterosexual? Don't you think enough of them would be sick of being discrimnated and hated and just said "fuck this, I give up"? It's not as simple as picking who you love at 7 or 15. Experiment yes, self discovery yes, but once you go down a road where you discover who you are, how can you change the path?

[CharlieFinley]

You don't have to believe it, and I don't care if u do, its my opinion, now bugger off

Your opinion is factually inaccurate.

[squibles976]

Not really, all these things about it being scientifically proven its genetic is a THEORY, which means its not a fact, it is my opinion and may or may not be right, same as urs

If they did the scientific studies 30 years ago I bet the results would be much different

And free fall, again not trying to convince anyone cuz I don't care if some guy wants to blow another guy, but its my belief that its a choice, I'm not saying you can change it over night same as, its impossible for me to love a girl then not have any emotional feeling for her the next day, but if I wanted to I could distance myself and eventually overcome those feelings, we all have freedom of choice and I'm not saying homosexuality is a bad choice I just believe it IS a choice, I honestly believe I could love a dude if I tried, but its my choice to be heterosexual

Please don't make multiple posts. -Gigablue

[CharlieFinley]

Not really, all these things about it being scientifically proven its genetic is a THEORY, which means its not a fact, it is my opinion and may or may not be right, same as urs

I want you to realize how incredibly stupid that statement was. Evolution is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. "Theory," in the scientific sense, means roughly "something that we are ABSO-GOSHDURN-LUTELY positive is correct." There is no more absolute classification. The difference between your "opinion" and my fact is that there is direct evidence contradicting your opinion. Your opinion is incorrect. There is no "it may be right." It is WRONG.

There has never been any scientifically valid evidence that sexuality is a choice. There is a great deal of scientifically valid evidence that sexuality is not a choice. You. Are. Wrong. Even if you stand on top of a mountain and yell "OPINION!" with all the force you can muster for the rest of your natural life, you. will. still. be. dead. wrong.

You could have a choir of dadgummed angels singing "opinion!" for all of eternity and you would still be wrong. You can stick your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand (if you ever remove it from up your own rectum) and get Chuck Norris to say it if you want, but that does not make you correct.

You are wrong, and if you still cannot or will not understand this, then you have lowered the bar for stupidity on the internet. Your sheer folly is the stuff of legend; I never thought I would ever truly meet someone stupid enough to try the "it's just a theory" defense. I never thought I would find someone stupid enough to think that theory, in the scientific sense, means anything other than "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

I finally have.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[squibles976]

Same as it use to be aFACT according to science that earth was the center of which the sun and planets revolved around, same as according to science, it was a FACT the earth was flat, theories change, and you have no idea how incredibly stupid YOUR sounding right now, you being ignorant and denying other polar opinions and complaining cuz they don't go along with yours, and I don't need a "defense" if your going to try to degrade someone for simply stating how i see it then there's no end to how incredibly wrong you are, there's ppl who will tell me I'm right ppl who tell me I'm wrong Idc, but throwing a fit and insulting me does nothing but but show your ignorance and make you look like an ass, and your saying if you were gay you couldn't force Urself to be with a woman, or you simply wouldn't want to? There's always a choice even if one choice has absolutely no appeal to you at all

[CharlieFinley]

Same as it use to be aFACT according to science that earth was the center of which the sun and planets revolved around, same as according to science, it was a FACT the earth was flat, theories change, and you have no idea how incredibly stupid YOUR sounding right now, you being ignorant and denying other polar opinions and complaining cuz they don't go along with yours, and I don't need a "defense" if your going to try to degrade someone for simply stating how i see it then there's no end to how incredibly wrong you are, there's ppl who will tell me I'm right ppl who tell me I'm wrong Idc, but throwing a fit and insulting me does nothing but but show your ignorance and make you look like an ass, and your saying if you were gay you couldn't force Urself to be with a woman, or you simply wouldn't want to? There's always a choice even if one choice has absolutely no appeal to you at all

Sit down, son. This is going to hurt. The interesting thing about the scientific method is that ever since its key "failures" have all been due to inadequate equipment, and I cannot off the top of my head think of a single instance in which adequate technology produced a false positive, like you have opined is the case for homosexuality. Think, for the first time, about what would have to happen for that to be the case: it would be necessary for any correlation between sexuality and genetics to be explained by a confounding variable, like, say, the fact that children of carriers of the "gay gene" are raised by parents who may have attitudes more welcoming of homosexuality. But that's wrong, because the correlation holds true even for adopted children.

The scientific method works. You cannot expect to be taken seriously while demanding that the scientific method prove something absolutely and incontrovertibly when all it ever can do is asymptotically approach 100%. Do you doubt the theory of plate tectonics? Do you doubt quantum physicists? Do you have any compelling reason, any at all, to justify your belief that homosexuality is a choice?

Two side notes: the scientific concept of a theory did not exist when the earth was thought to be flat or when the sun was thought to orbit the earth, and neither belief was, in point of fact, a product of the scientific method. So, surprisingly enough, you are again incorrect.

Also, nobody's saying a homosexual person couldn't force himself to be with a female. They're saying that one's sexual orientation is outside of one's own control.

Finally, if you feel comfortable describing me as "sounding stupid," perhaps you should pay your sixth-grade English teacher a visit. I'm sure she'd have some choice words to say on the subject of your grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

[squibles976]

I'm not saying parenting decides the sexuality of someone, and perhaps we are born with a bias, but that doesn't mean we aren't free to choose, I've already said I may be wrong but its my opinion, bitching and moaning about it won't change how I feel about it, I keep an open mind about the possibility of you being right, but being closed minded and saying "no ur wrong the scientists said so" and not respecting others opinions is just ignorant and plain stupid

[CharlieFinley]

It's not that I don't respect your opinion on this subject, I don't even respect the fact that you HAVE an opinion on this subject. This is a matter for facts, because we have facts available to us. Your opinion is no more appropriate in this situation than it would be in math class. "Well, my OPINION is that two and four make eight."

That's roughly analogous to what you are saying right now. There is no "may be wrong." You ARE wrong, just as you would be wrong to say "my opinion is that two and four are eight."

I swear, son, if you don't either fix your English or stop calling me ignorant or stupid, I will make a bigger fool of you than I have already.

[MaximumR]

If sexuality was a choice, I think everyone would be straight. Who would choose a lifestyle that is so frowned upon? I wanted to be straight so badly, and I sure as hell tried to convince myself to like girls, but really it just doesn't work that way. Anyone who says it's a choice is probably straight and has no idea what it's like to try so hard to be normal, to be accepted.

[squibles976]

You haven't made a fool of me at all, so you can keep dreaming, and I am NOT wrong, your saying we have absolutely no choice on how we act or what we do? Bull, we do, to say otherwise is ridiculous, now if all your gonna do is say, shut up your wrong there's no other possibility, then stfu cuz your a Fucking idiot who doesn't deserve to speak, so shut it you made ur point I've made mine, and in an attempt to make a fool out of me you've made an ass out of yourself, to carry on is immature and pointless

And Maximum, there's nothing wrong with being gay my point is simply that you could choose to be with a girl it just wouldn't be what you wanted and would be miserable, god knows women can have that effect, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with you being with a guy if that's what makes you happy, I'm simply saying you have the option of being with a girl, its just in ur case it'd be a lousy option, but an option nonetheless

Merged double post. -Gigablue

[MaximumR]

Well of course people have the option of who they date, but not an option in who they're attracted to

[workingatperfect]

Well, to support Caleb (squibbles), one could say that it's an unconscious choice that a person makes, which technically supports both sides. :P Which I actually sort of believe. I don't think believe actively say "Hmm, I'm gonna be gay." But I think it could possibly be something that is the result of deep seated desires that we don't acknowledge, in which case you can't just up and change your sexuality. I don't know, nature vs. nurture is one of the hardest psychological debates out there. On the one hand, nurture seems to be a huge part of it for some people, but on the other hand, their environment doesn't seem to affect it at all.

I wanted to be bi a couple years ago. I was really into this girl, I was and still am sexually attracted to her. She liked me, we dated. It just didn't work. I loved her, but not the way I love, say, my current boyfriend. Something was missing. No matter how freaking badly I wanted to be with her, because I did love her- just not in the right way- it would never work because I'm not romantically interested in girls. There's something unfulfilling about it for me.

Now, I kind of think that if I was able to figure out exactly what it is that leaves me feeling kinda empty with a girl, I could probably work on those individual issues and therefore, overcome that feeling, making a relationship with a girl possible for me. But I don't want to lol.


Or maybe not, maybe I'm just a bisexual hetero-romantic and I was born that way and always will be no matter what. Who knows.

[squibles976]

Now that I agree with, but it also depends on how you define homosexuality, for me I define it as having relations with someone of the same gender, but for your definition I concede that your probably right, we can't always control who we are attracted to, I know there's been women I wish I could forget but can't, and that's a good book by the way, "Maximum Ride" I mean, or series of books I should say

[Apollo.]

And Maximum, there's nothing wrong with being gay my point is simply that you could choose to be with a girl it just wouldn't be what you wanted and would be miserable, god knows women can have that effect, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with you being with a guy if that's what makes you happy, I'm simply saying you have the option of being with a girl, its just in ur case it'd be a lousy option, but an option nonetheless

Even if a gay guy chooses to be with a girl he's still gay. I know from experience trust me I tried being with a girl, I had no attraction to her and it didn't work I was living a lie and was still gay just chose to be with a girl for a short while does that make me straight? No! Your just becoming abusive towards other members because your 'opinion' is ridiculous and wrong.

[squibles976]

I'm not being abusive at all but ok, and your not gonna convince me

[Apollo.]

You haven't made a fool of me at all, so you can keep dreaming, and I am NOT wrong, your saying we have absolutely no choice on how we act or what we do? Bull, we do, to say otherwise is ridiculous, now if all your gonna do is say, shut up your wrong there's no other possibility, then stfu cuz your a Fucking idiot who doesn't deserve to speak, so shut it you made ur point I've made mine, and in an attempt to make a fool out of me you've made an ass out of yourself, to carry on is immature and pointless

If that's not abusive I don't know what is.

[squibles976]

Ok so now do u care to go even further back and see what he was saying rather than just choosing the parts that suit you?

[Elysium]

I think I'm understanding you a little more, squibles. If I understand you correctly, the relationship is what you actually define as homosexuality; the feelings of either party aren't taken into account. I apologize if I misinterpreted you.

I agree with that. A straight guy can force himself to be in a relationship with another guy and he could absolutely hate it, but it was his choice whether or not to enter the relationship. But the actual feelings of attraction - whether or not you gravitate towards males, females, or otherwise - is not a choice.

[Apollo.]

I have read what was said before And nothing was as abusive as what you said, your nothing more than a bully. If you have a clearly controversial opinion obviously people are going to pull you up for it so there is no need to react like that

[DerBear]

Once upon a time when I was new to this site and didn't think enough or think logically on this subject, I did think sexuality was a choice. I thought you couldn't be born gay. The idea to me at the time so illogical.

However I spoke to people on this site and did some scientific research into the matter at hand and I found evidence and have talked to people and listened to views. I believe now, that sexuality is something you are born with and I have believed this for quite sometime now. This is something I'd say VT has changed my opinion on.

[Gigablue]

This is a reminder to everyone in this thread to remain polite. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, but name calling is unnecessary. If it continues, the thread will be locked.

[Riku16]

Guys, this is a good thread, definitely my best. So please, don't argue, I don't want to see the best thread I have created destroyed by prejudice and a conflict of opinions.

[Gigablue]

I don't think it's a choice, I think it's a temptation. I have no doubt that those feelings are real and unavoidable, I just think that it's something that was meant to be overcome.

Do you think it's bad, then? I don't really see why someone would need to overcome homosexuality, since it doesn't hurt anyone.

Not really, all these things about it being scientifically proven its genetic is a THEORY, which means its not a fact, it is my opinion and may or may not be right, same as urs

Firstly, it isn't a theory, but a hypothesis that has been supported by much evidence. A theory is something like gravity, evolution or atomic theory, which has been so established that it is unlikely to be overturned.

The genetic component of homosexuality has been established in many studies. Studies have also shown that prenatal hormones affect sexuality later in life. No good studies have shown that sexuality is a choice.

Also, you keep mentioning that it is only your opinion, and that we should respect it. This isn't a matter of opinion; one side is right, and the other is wrong. When your opinion goes against science, it should be criticized.

[Danielle757]

No it's not a choice cuz we can't control who we are attracted to

[Twilly F. Sniper]

All the scientific evidence suggests that sexuality is the result of genetic factors and prenatal environment. It is basically set at birth and cannot be changed. There isn't any evidence to suggest that it is a choice.

This guy is 100 percent correct.

[CharlieFinley]

Now that I agree with, but it also depends on how you define homosexuality, for me I define it as having relations with someone of the same gender, And that definition is incorrect.

[ImCoolBeans]

If you guys continue to post disrespectfully then this thread will be locked and infractions will be handed out. We will not tolerate any kind of bashing here, and just because you're participating in a debate does not make it okay. If you think that calling people names is going to help your point then I strongly suggest that you never participate in a debate again. The flaming and name calling ends now.


And Maximum, there's nothing wrong with being gay my point is simply that you could choose to be with a girl it just wouldn't be what you wanted and would be miserable, god knows women can have that effect, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with you being with a guy if that's what makes you happy, I'm simply saying you have the option of being with a girl, its just in ur case it'd be a lousy option, but an option nonetheless


See but that does not change a person's sexuality. If I'm gay and I force myself to date a girl, that does not make me a straight man. That makes me a gay man forcing myself to date a girl. I see the logic behind what you're saying, but I would not have a change in sexuality because of a situation like that.

Not really, all these things about it being scientifically proven its genetic is a THEORY, which means its not a fact

The word theory has a different meaning in science than it does in literary use. In literature (when used as "In theory"), it's meaning would be something that is supposed to happen, or could possibly happen. In science a theory is a hypothesis which has been tested as much as it can be, and has been accepted by the scientific community. If it is being called a theory then you can't get much more proven/accepted than that.

[Professional Russian]

well appearently my comment didnt get through last night. anyways. homosexuality is not a choice. i cant force myself to be gay. it doesnt work like that. im pretty sure your sexuality is made before you are born

[nfs4394]

I think it is a choice to an extent. For example, I could just go out and tell everyone today that I am gay if I wanted to. Whether or not they believe it to be true is another story. However, I think there is something within our minds that just naturally makes us feel attracted to one sex or the other. So, while I may think to myself that a guy is good looking, I've only ever been attracted to girls through no choice of my own.

[CharlieFinley]

I think it is a choice to an extent. For example, I could just go out and tell everyone today that I am gay if I wanted to. Whether or not they believe it to be true is another story. However, I think there is something within our minds that just naturally makes us feel attracted to one sex or the other. So, while I may think to myself that a guy is good looking, I've only ever been attracted to girls through no choice of my own.

You could do that, but you wouldn't actually be gay. You'd just be pretending. That's why it's not a choice.

[nfs4394]

I realize that, but I would still be selectively changing my sexuality from the point of view of someone else

[ImCoolBeans]

I realize that, but I would still be selectively changing my sexuality from the point of view of someone else

I'm labeled as straight at school because the majority of people do not know that I am gay. That does not mean that I am straight. That is not my sexuality. You're missing the point here.

[MaximumR]

Because the majority of people think you are straight does not always mean that you are actually straight. A gay person can stay in the closet but that would not automatically make him straight

[CharlieFinley]

I'm labeled as straight at school because the majority of people do not know that I am gay. That does not mean that I am straight. That is not my sexuality. You're missing the point here.

+1

If I had registered as "Jamal Kareem" and posted pictures of a dark-skinned man so that you guys thought I was black, that would not actually make me black.

[Sugaree]

No sexuality is not a choice. Its not like over night I can turn gay its just not possible.

Don't try to test that out :P

[Danny_boi 16]

I wounder if you guys think its genetics or epigenetics. Because saying its genetics doesn't seem right. Or like the Nature over Nurture argument. Its one or the other. So I'm not sure, maybe someone can shed some light on this.

[Professional Russian]

Don't try to test that out :P

Damn :P

[Gigablue]

I wounder if you guys think its genetics or epigenetics. Because saying its genetics doesn't seem right. Or like the Nature over Nurture argument. Its one or the other. So I'm not sure, maybe someone can shed some light on this.

I don't think there is any evidence of the nurture side, since it seems that sexuality is set a birth. However, the exact role played by genetics is unknown. It isn't really possible for homosexuality to be purely genetic, since the genes responsible for it would have died out over time. Also, we know that prenatal hormones play a significant role in determining sexuality.

[Gordo]

Sit down, son. This is going to hurt. The interesting thing about the scientific method is that ever since its key "failures" have all been due to inadequate equipment, and I cannot off the top of my head think of a single instance in which adequate technology produced a false positive, like you have opined is the case for homosexuality. Think, for the first time, about what would have to happen for that to be the case: it would be necessary for any correlation between sexuality and genetics to be explained by a confounding variable, like, say, the fact that children of carriers of the "gay gene" are raised by parents who may have attitudes more welcoming of homosexuality. But that's wrong, because the correlation holds true even for adopted children.

The scientific method works. You cannot expect to be taken seriously while demanding that the scientific method prove something absolutely and incontrovertibly when all it ever can do is asymptotically approach 100%. Do you doubt the theory of plate tectonics? Do you doubt quantum physicists? Do you have any compelling reason, any at all, to justify your belief that homosexuality is a choice?

Two side notes: the scientific concept of a theory did not exist when the earth was thought to be flat or when the sun was thought to orbit the earth, and neither belief was, in point of fact, a product of the scientific method. So, surprisingly enough, you are again incorrect.

Also, nobody's saying a homosexual person couldn't force himself to be with a female. They're saying that one's sexual orientation is outside of one's own control.

Finally, if you feel comfortable describing me as "sounding stupid," perhaps you should pay your sixth-grade English teacher a visit. I'm sure she'd have some choice words to say on the subject of your grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

So you think the theory of evolution and relativity are bullet proof and just as good as facts? Theory is just that - a theory. It's probable, but not a fact.

How about electrons? particle or wave?

Personally, I don't think there is much choice in sexuality other than deciding to act on our urges, but let this guy have his opinion w/o insulting him. I'm sure you can do that if you tried to.

Also, for anyone thinking that it's genetic, that's a dangerous proposition.

[Gigablue]

So you think the theory of evolution and relativity are bullet proof and just as good as facts? Theory is just that - a theory. It's probable, but not a fact.

How about electrons? particle or wave?

Personally, I don't think there is much choice in sexuality other than deciding to act on our urges, but let this guy have his opinion w/o insulting him. I'm sure you can do that if you tried to.

Also, for anyone thinking that it's genetic, that's a dangerous proposition.

The use of the word theory in science is very different from the colloquial use. A theory can be defined as:

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

A theory isn't less certain that a fact, because a scientific theory is a fact. People also think that a theory is less certain than a law, though that isn't true either. A law describes a phenomenon, while a theory describes the mechanism responsible for a phenomenon.

Examples of theories are relativity, evolution or atomic theory. These are very well established and describe well documented natural phenomena.

As for electrons, they are both particles and waves, as they exhibit particle wave duality.

Also, how is saying homosexuality is genetic a dangerous proposition?

[Apollo.]

So you think the theory of evolution and relativity are bullet proof and just as good as facts? Theory is just that - a theory. It's probable, but not a fact.

How about electrons? particle or wave?

Personally, I don't think there is much choice in sexuality other than deciding to act on our urges, but let this guy have his opinion w/o insulting him. I'm sure you can do that if you tried to.

Also, for anyone thinking that it's genetic, that's a dangerous proposition.

The guy would get his opinion, I think everyone's problem is that he is insulting them and telling everyone that 'gays get looked down on' yeah maybe they do in the scummy red neck, hick towns but not in a normal society. Also the simple fact is I KNOW he is wrong because I am gay and it certainly was not a choice!

[Gordo]

The use of the word theory in science is very different from the colloquial use. A theory can be defined as:



A theory isn't less certain that a fact, because a scientific theory is a fact. People also think that a theory is less certain than a law, though that isn't true either. A law describes a phenomenon, while a theory describes the mechanism responsible for a phenomenon.

Examples of theories are relativity, evolution or atomic theory. These are very well established and describe well documented natural phenomena.

As for electrons, they are both particles and waves, as they exhibit particle wave duality.

Also, how is saying homosexuality is genetic a dangerous proposition?

The use of the terms theory and fact are pretty important and I'm glad you posted about that and that's why I mentioned the electron wave particle, because I knew what the answer was.

For a long time, it was taught as a fact that electrons were particles as if it were a fact, along comes some guy and blows that away when he proves that it also behaves as a wave. So there is an example of something in the scientific community that was an accepted fact (which is more accepted than a theory) and then that fact, which was taught for so long had to be retracted.

Same is true for relativity. It's still the theory of relativity with an asterisk on the word theory, because we couldn't move the discussion beyond what it's been for quite some time. Then CERN is looking into their recent results that they think they've come across a particle that moves faster than the speed of light, which up until recently, was the ultimate speed limit. So there's another case of a theory, which was all but accepted as fact about to be blown apart. So I tend to accept theories as theories and not consider them facts until they become law like newtonian laws.

The dangerous proposition for sexuality being genetic is the human genome project, genetic selection and altering genes. As soon as man figures out where on our DNA the gene for sexuality is, look out!

People in China already value baby boys over girls. If they determine that in the womb, they can abort. Once we know where the gene for sexuality is, the same thing will happen.

On one hand, the gay community can say a big "I told you so" and "see we told ya we didn't have a choice" and at the same time, straight couples could then conceive out side the womb, determine the genetics and choose what they want.

Many people here and around the world in general are gay, fought being gay, didn't wanna be gay, but realized they cant change it. So when straight parents are given the choice, do you think they are going to choose gay? I don't think they will.

So, oddly, I think think not knowing, not being able to prove why and when sexuality is determined is in the best interest of the gay community, because I believe that potential parents, who also want to be accepted and have an easy time of raising kids and wanting their kids to be normal and accepted will choose the straight embyos.

I don't think that's right, but that's what I think will happen. Along with that they'll choose kids that don't have the gene for high cholesterol, poor vision etc because potential parents will want what's best for their kid or what's best for them. So they gay community better hurry up and become the norm or they might be in new fight.

The whole thing will be a big mess with ethics on one side and science on the other.

I wish or rather hope the straight community would just take a break, relax and accept the fact that gay people are out there. They've been out there all along and have been made to feel like they are defective because straights don't view them as normal. That's just sad to me. It really is and I'm a straight guy.

It just seems like a kinder and easier path to accept people for who they are, including ourselves, and not put people down for not being what some people have declared to be normal. Or maybe we need to be more deliberate about normal equating to good or right.

Look at all the really high IQ people like Newton for example who clearly weren't normal, yet awesome.

I'm afraid for the non-straight community to be honest. I think some or maybe even a lot of the great contributors to our society were not straight or at a minimum participated in homosexual activity, but didn't talk about it because they didn't want to be persecuted for who they were.

I think we'd be better off if bi, gay and straight people were more accepting of each other in every way without necessarily knowing all the answers. It just seems like the best choice and being accepting is our choice.

[nfs4394]

I'm labeled as straight at school because the majority of people do not know that I am gay. That does not mean that I am straight. That is not my sexuality. You're missing the point here.

My opinion is still that of we do not choose our sexuality. I am just trying to say that people who want to selectively change their sexuality can lie to themselves and do so in the hopes that they can manipulate the opinions of others. However, they will still be gay, straight, bi, etc. at their core.

[CharlieFinley]

So you think the theory of evolution and relativity are bullet proof and just as good as facts? Theory is just that - a theory. It's probable, but not a fact. There is no scientific evidence to justify disbelief in the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Futhermore, theoretical physics is a field that is fraught with uncertainty compared to human genetics.

Personally, I don't think there is much choice in sexuality other than deciding to act on our urges, but let this guy have his opinion w/o insulting him. I'm sure you can do that if you tried to. I'm sure I could, but I don't particularly care to.



Also, for anyone thinking that it's genetic, that's a dangerous proposition. it's neither a proposition nor dangerous. It's simply the truth.

[Gigablue]

The use of the terms theory and fact are pretty important and I'm glad you posted about that and that's why I mentioned the electron wave particle, because I knew what the answer was.

For a long time, it was taught as a fact that electrons were particles as if it were a fact, along comes some guy and blows that away when he proves that it also behaves as a wave. So there is an example of something in the scientific community that was an accepted fact (which is more accepted than a theory) and then that fact, which was taught for so long had to be retracted.

Same is true for relativity. It's still the theory of relativity with an asterisk on the word theory, because we couldn't move the discussion beyond what it's been for quite some time. Then CERN is looking into their recent results that they think they've come across a particle that moves faster than the speed of light, which up until recently, was the ultimate speed limit. So there's another case of a theory, which was all but accepted as fact about to be blown apart. So I tend to accept theories as theories and not consider them facts until they become law like newtonian laws.

You still misunderstand the terminology. Here is how I'm using it, and how most scientists use the terminology.

Hypothesis: An educated guess which can be tested by an experiment

Theory: A hypothesis which has withstood all attempts as falsification, and which provides an explanation for an observed phenomenon

Law: A description of an observed phenomenon

Fact: A law or theory (Note: This isn't really used, since it is ambiguous.)

The most important thing to remember is that a theory can't become a law based on more evidence. A theory explains a phenomenon, while a law just describes one.

Also, on a separate note, the faster than light particles (they were neutrinos, by the way) were proven to be an error with the detector. The speed of light is the fastest possible speed.

The dangerous proposition for sexuality being genetic is the human genome project, genetic selection and altering genes. As soon as man figures out where on our DNA the gene for sexuality is, look out!

People in China already value baby boys over girls. If they determine that in the womb, they can abort. Once we know where the gene for sexuality is, the same thing will happen.

On one hand, the gay community can say a big "I told you so" and "see we told ya we didn't have a choice" and at the same time, straight couples could then conceive out side the womb, determine the genetics and choose what they want.

Many people here and around the world in general are gay, fought being gay, didn't wanna be gay, but realized they cant change it. So when straight parents are given the choice, do you think they are going to choose gay? I don't think they will.

So, oddly, I think think not knowing, not being able to prove why and when sexuality is determined is in the best interest of the gay community, because I believe that potential parents, who also want to be accepted and have an easy time of raising kids and wanting their kids to be normal and accepted will choose the straight embyos.

I don't think that's right, but that's what I think will happen. Along with that they'll choose kids that don't have the gene for high cholesterol, poor vision etc because potential parents will want what's best for their kid or what's best for them. So they gay community better hurry up and become the norm or they might be in new fight.

The whole thing will be a big mess with ethics on one side and science on the other.

I wish or rather hope the straight community would just take a break, relax and accept the fact that gay people are out there. They've been out there all along and have been made to feel like they are defective because straights don't view them as normal. That's just sad to me. It really is and I'm a straight guy.

It just seems like a kinder and easier path to accept people for who they are, including ourselves, and not put people down for not being what some people have declared to be normal. Or maybe we need to be more deliberate about normal equating to good or right.

Look at all the really high IQ people like Newton for example who clearly weren't normal, yet awesome.

I'm afraid for the non-straight community to be honest. I think some or maybe even a lot of the great contributors to our society were not straight or at a minimum participated in homosexual activity, but didn't talk about it because they didn't want to be persecuted for who they were.

I think we'd be better off if bi, gay and straight people were more accepting of each other in every way without necessarily knowing all the answers. It just seems like the best choice and being accepting is our choice.

I think there would be some repercussions if they found a gene responsible for homosexuality, but I don't think that we should prevent scientific progress because of possible social issues.

[Gordo]

You still misunderstand the terminology. Here is how I'm using it, and how most scientists use the terminology.

Hypothesis: An educated guess which can be tested by an experiment

Theory: A hypothesis which has withstood all attempts as falsification, and which provides an explanation for an observed phenomenon

Law: A description of an observed phenomenon

Fact: A law or theory (Note: This isn't really used, since it is ambiguous.)

The most important thing to remember is that a theory can't become a law based on more evidence. A theory explains a phenomenon, while a law just describes one.

Also, on a separate note, the faster than light particles (they were neutrinos, by the way) were proven to be an error with the detector. The speed of light is the fastest possible speed.



I think there would be some repercussions if they found a gene responsible for homosexuality, but I don't think that we should prevent scientific progress because of possible social issues.

Love science and scientific progress. Just not sure giving us the choice to select our offspring's genetic make up is progress. Look at society now. Something becomes popular for a while, people go for whatever it is and then realize it's not so great.

That mentality will lead to a freak show society and probably boring and ill equipped for the future because there won't be enough variations during the next selection period.

BTW awesome explanation on Theory, hypothesis, law . Thanks.

[Gigablue]

Love science and scientific progress. Just not sure giving us the choice to select our offspring's genetic make up is progress. Look at society now. Something becomes popular for a while, people go for whatever it is and then realize it's not so great.

That mentality will lead to a freak show society and probably boring and ill equipped for the future because there won't be enough variations during the next selection period..

We already have the technology to select our offspring's genetic makeup, it's just that there are limitations on its use. While I don't think we should specifically develop those technologies, they exist, and have potential uses.

I think that the only long term solution will come when people realize that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. This is still a very long way away, but in the mean time, I don't think we should delay science just to avoid political and social problems.

[FreeFall]

I'm seeing now some people's reasoning. But it still makes 0 sense or change. If I wear green contacts,my eyes will look green. Underneath my eyes are still brown. Inside, my eyes are brown. If for whatever reason I were to date a girl, people who don't know me would assume I'm lesbian. Those who do may assume I have "turned" bi or lesbian. But really i'd be a miserable heterosexual with a girlfriend. I would not have changed my orientation, i'd still only be into guys. I can pick whom I date, but I cannot force myself to love the same sex or even be attracted to them.

[Alexwellace]

I believe sexuality is a choice to some extent. I believe sexual orientations are guide-lines and nothing more, there is a LOT more to being gay then fancying boys. If say i am aroused by girls, im not to say if i looked i wouldn't find a lad who was nice and funny and pushed all the right buttons. Same to say if i liked lads but found a girl, i know they are there for you if you look. To me sexual orientaitons means the sex you gravitate towards naturally, but its a choice to go with that and not try find the girl/boy that pressed all those same buttons. So to me who you want to start a relationship with is ALWAYS a choice and while who you fancy isn't always a choice who you love is.

P.S sheesh guys, there are no wrong opinions. Especially in a debating thread, if you carn't stand what others think why bother posting in a thread about different opinions. You might as well start an 'AGREE WITH ME' topic.

[CharlieFinley]

I believe sexuality is a choice to some extent. Then you are wrong, to some extent. Expression of sexual orientation and sexual orientation itself are fundamentally different concepts.

P.S sheesh guys, there are no wrong opinions. Especially in a debating thread, if you carn't stand what others think why bother posting in a thread about different opinions. You might as well start an 'AGREE WITH ME' topic. Really? In my opinion, 2 and 2 are 9, I'm actually Queen Elizabeth the zeroth, and opinions can, in fact, be wrong. Now what?

[FreeFall]

To me sexual orientaitons means the sex you gravitate towards naturally, but its a choice to go with that and not try find the girl/boy that pressed all those same buttons. So to me who you want to start a relationship with is ALWAYS a choice and while who you fancy isn't always a choice who you love is.
No. No it's still not a choice. Your opinion assumes we're all pansexual or bisexual. Yes, you cold probably find a way to force yourself into "fancying" the same sex if you try hard enough. But for some, it's not something they ask for. I know girls who are the female equivilance of my boyfriend. If I really tried, perhaps I could love them like him. But the estrogen, breasts, uterus and menstural cycle are not something that draw me in. They aren't what I want and I cannot force myself to become attracted to it.

Homosexuals are still persecuated and discriminated against. If they could flip their "boy liking"/"girl liking" switches to off, don't you imagine they would have? That they could? That maybe they've even tried but through and through the opposite sex does nothing for them but create an outward apperance of heterosexualism? So we gravitate towards the sexes we "fancy", perhaps because that's our draw and we cannot change it more than we're too lazy to.

P.S sheesh guys, there are no wrong opinions.[/QUOTE] Oh my, how ironic of you to say.
Especially in a debating thread, if you carn't stand what others think why bother posting in a thread about different opinions. You might as well start an 'AGREE WITH ME' topic.
It's more or less we're trying to understand the "other side of the fence". And unless you're a mod, you don't get to tell us how/what to post. We're here to see, share and understand differing opinions. What you see as attacks, is what I see as gaining understanding and explanation.

[Backflipboy]

Anybody who says it is a choice is an ignorant person. I can't help being bisexual, I can't change how I feel or who I fall in love with. Sure being straight would be simpler, but why should I be? If I am born this way then why shouldn't I embrace it. Usually ignorant people are insecure, so they decide to offend everybody who they feel is 'lower than them'.

I personally find it very insulting to hear that I "decided" to be the way I am, for goodness sake people think about it rationally!? Why would I choose a path that is hated and discouraged by most of the world?

[Alexwellace]

It's more or less we're trying to understand the "other side of the fence".

Then please try understand what i am saying insted of saying im an ignorant person. (not intended at Freefall who acturally reasoned with me and explained why she though i was wrong)

I think we are seeing love as different things and thats why we are getting different answers. I see love as the act of being dependent on someone and needing them in your life. The people who you let in to do this is totally your choice. I dont see it as who you are aroused by. So to me while you are born as a, say homosexual its a choice to live as one. Albeit dont take this as me saying live as a lie under anyway, i just like to think i have controll and its always my choice i dont like things being set out for me. I always want to beable to say i can be different to who i am now for better ro worse.

[kenoloor]

I see love as the act of being dependent on someone and needing them in your life. The people who you let in to do this is totally your choice. I dont see it as who you are aroused by.

Sexuality is who you're sexually attracted to.

Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses. Human sexuality can also refer to the way someone is sexually attracted to another person - which is determined by their sexual orientation - whether it is to the opposite sex (heterosexuality), to the same sex (homosexuality), having both these tendencies (bisexuality), or not being attracted to anyone in a sexual manner (asexuality).

[Twilly F. Sniper]

That's from WIKIPEDIA derp. LEAST reliable source on the Internet for info.

[TigerBoy]

I think we are seeing love as different things and thats why we are getting different answers. I see love as the act of being dependent on someone and needing them in your life. The people who you let in to do this is totally your choice. I dont see it as who you are aroused by.
Well lets see then ...

love is not sexual attraction, love is more akin to emotional attraction.
there are variations in love. the love of a parent, the love of a friend, the love of a partner, the love of a pet ...
homosexuals don't have to be in love to have sex any more than
heterosexuals.


So to me while you are born as a, say homosexual its a choice to live as one.

Which is as ridiculous as saying "while you are born a blind man, its a choice to live as one". A blind man who tried to live life as though he wasn't would face consequences as would a homosexual denying their nature. It's technically possible, but far from desirable. Or in the words of Blade: "Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill"



Albeit dont take this as me saying live as a lie under anyway, i just like to think i have controll and its always my choice i dont like things being set out for me. I always want to beable to say i can be different to who i am now for better ro worse.
As a general 'wish' that is all well and good, and a all those gays who have been bullied, tortured and killed would probably have wished they could change too, don't you think?

If you would be prepared to deny your nature in order to live the way you wanted, that denial is your choice, but you haven't changed your nature. You are simply a blind man refusing his cane.

[Guillermo]

That's from WIKIPEDIA derp. LEAST reliable source on the Internet for info.

That's just some bullshit that all teachers tell you in grade school and college. Wikipedia is actually a really great website to start you on any kind of research that you're doing. It's not a bad source to get general information on a subject. The reason why teachers say that it's "unreliable" is because anyone can change the information on a wiki page. However, Wikipedia is monitored and any information that is deemed wrong or erroneous will be deleted within a certain period of time. Also notice the little numbers at the end of a sentence called footnote numbers; if you go down to the bottom of the page then you will see links where there is information from other sites (usually trustworthy ones) that wiki used to get information from.

[kenoloor]

That's from WIKIPEDIA derp. LEAST reliable source on the Internet for info.

lol hey look guiz i'm kool because i see wikipedia wuznt reliable herp

[CharlieFinley]

That's from WIKIPEDIA derp. LEAST reliable source on the Internet for info.

Actually, I suppose anyone who listened to you would be worse off.

What I'm trying to say is that you're wrong.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Actually, I suppose anyone who listened to you would be worse off.

What I'm trying to say is that you're wrong.

Apparently educators are getting everything wrong.

[CharlieFinley]

Apparently educators are getting everything wrong.

Really? What's your evidence that wikipedia is a bad place to acquire information on a topic?

[Professional Russian]

Really? In my opinion, 2 and 2 are 9, I'm actually Queen Elizabeth the zeroth, and opinions can, in fact, be wrong. Now what?

an opinion cannot be wrong as long as believe in your answer.

[TigerBoy]

an opinion cannot be wrong as long as believe in your answer.



"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts"
(Attributed variously)

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Really? What's your evidence that wikipedia is a bad place to acquire information on a topic?

I don't exactly have proof but I just trusted my teachers to tell me everything.

[PrimedPenguin]

It's a choice

Realy what's your thinking on this,? I can't be bi one day and straight the next. I can't say "I don't want to be bi I want to like only girls" and expect to be sexuality attracted to only girls. Besides with all the hate and stereotypes going around about gays do you think people would want to be gay or bi if they had a choice? It's like gender, defined and decided before birth.

[CharlieFinley]

I don't exactly have proof but I just trusted my teachers to tell me everything.

... and you don't see a problem with that? My computer apps teacher literally asked me for help with the photoshop unit.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I think there are genetic and biological factors that determine the sexual leanings of a person either to heterosexuality or to homosexuality. I do believe that the natural state of human sexuality is perfect bisexuality with equal sexual desire for both sexes.

[CharlieFinley]

I think there are genetic and biological factors that determine the sexual leanings of a person either to heterosexuality or to homosexuality. I do believe that the natural state of human sexuality is perfect bisexuality with equal sexual desire for both sexes.

Then you are incorrect, because science has not borne that out.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Then you are incorrect, because science has not borne that out.

And neither has it proven this to be wrong. Many species in the animal kingdom show bisexual tendencies.

[TigerBoy]

And neither has it proven this to be wrong. Many species in the animal kingdom show bisexual tendencies.

Actually I believe it has, in as much as your figures are way off. There are two problems with your argument

1) you've moved the goal posts - you originally stated that you believed all humans were naturally bisexual.
2) You are falling into the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Research has indeed shown is that there are 'queer' animals and behaviours out there beyond humanity. This is a moot point, and a separate argument to your original point.

As far as "naturally bisexual" there is no evidence or research for this that I am aware of - if you have some, then by all means share it. What we do have are various studies (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf)of humans that show the figures are far lower than 100%, in fact in that study only 15.6% are bisexual (excluding gays 1.3% and straights 82%).

Now you might hypothesise that everyone starts out as 'bi', however it seems to me you'd need to fully understand the mechanisms behind sexual orientation before you could even begin to make that hypothesis valid and testable. For example, if you conclude that post-natal factors change this 'naturally bisexual' state, you'd need to know what those factors are in order to exclude them from a test subject. If on the other hand you conclude that pre-natal factors influence a default of bisexuality, then this immediately contradicts the assertion that everyone being bisexual is 'natural' (and you still have the same issues with testing this as with post-natal).

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Actually I believe it has, in as much as your figures are way off. There are two problems with your argument

1) you've moved the goal posts - you originally stated that you believed all humans were naturally bisexual.
2) You are falling into the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Research has indeed shown is that there are 'queer' animals and behaviours out there beyond humanity. This is a moot point, and a separate argument to your original point.

As far as "naturally bisexual" there is no evidence or research for this that I am aware of - if you have some, then by all means share it. What we do have are various studies (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf)of humans that show the figures are far lower than 100%, in fact in that study only 15.6% are bisexual (excluding gays 1.3% and straights 82%).
That's all well and good. :] Thanks for sharing!

[Ryhanna]

Sexuality is not a choice. Being open about your sexuality is a choice. Obviously there are many closeted gay people in the world who prefer to live their lives pretending to be straight to avoid persecution.

Does this mean that they are choosing to be straight? No, because they are still gay, they're only claiming (falsely) to be straight.

[Aajj333]

I never had the choice...

[randomnessqueen]

i think everyone is born pansexual
and various stimuli, both internal and external, affect that
in many cases, they specify it to one sex
so its nothing set in stone

[TigerBoy]

i think everyone is born pansexual
and various stimuli, both internal and external, affect that
in many cases, they specify it to one sex
so its nothing set in stone

This exact point is countered just a few posts above yours. Do you have any scientific evidence to back up what you think?

I can see its an attractive thought to imagine that everyone has this potential in them, but without scientific evidence this is merely a naturalistic fallacy. Against this there is strong scientific evidence that sexuality is fixed before birth.

[randomnessqueen]

i dont have much scientific data
but i dont think we should rely on science for every little thing, it cant do everything.
personally, i just think this makes more sense than what the sparse scientific studies have given.
thats also why i was sure to start my post with 'i think'

[TigerBoy]

i dont have much scientific data
So far you have demonstrated NO data whatsoever. No facts. Zip. Zero.


but i dont think we should rely on science for every little thing,

Hmm ... apparently not even teensy things like rational research methodologies, use of evidence, logic, knowledge, or any other intelligent means of arriving at conclusions.

it cant do everything.
And yet right now science is allowing you to have this conversation for starters, using technologies arrived at via rational research methodologies, use of evidence, logic, knowledge, and various other intelligent means of arriving at conclusions.


personally, i just think this makes more sense than what the sparse scientific studies have given.
And yet you can't explain WHY it makes more sense apparently. And in what way are the studies "sparse"? Which studies in particular are you referring to? Why do you think your view is correct when the entire psychological professions of countries like the US and UK, the experts of the World Health Organisation, all disagree with you?

thats also why i was sure to start my post with 'i think'
And that is why I am trying to educate you. Try thinking about that. Opinions based on facts and research will serve you better in life than relying on random fantasies you make up in your own head in isolation of any facts from the real world.

[randomnessqueen]

those are not all contained within science, they deal with many other fields
and unfortunately, science doesnt always even use them properly
theres what science is, and then theres western science, which has become more of an institution than a methodolgy.
i said it cant do everything, not it cant do anything
there really isnt alot of effort put toward it, its just not seen as very significant across alot of the field.
i was just saying what i thought, so i hadnt planned to explain myself, but i thank you for taking it seriously
really, i just havent heard any theories that sound plausible to me
and i think this leads more smoothly to the conclusion of sexual orientations
that we originate with unspecified attraction and a combination of psychological and environmental stimuli are what shape it. especially when you consider the ridiculously huge variety in peoples sexual preferences.

[TigerBoy]

those are not all contained within science, they deal with many other fields and unfortunately, science doesnt always even use them properly
theres what science is, and then theres western science, which has become more of an institution than a methodolgy.
i said it cant do everything, not it cant do anything

More unsupported waffle. You are committing an informal fallacy called "poisoning the well" - attempting to discredit science and rational thought processes to prove your more specific argument which itself is based on a rejection of facts or logic. Science works. I just gave you a pertinent example. I have given you facts: whereas you have not only failed to support your original assertion with any facts, you are now producing yet more unsupported and fallacious claims.


there really isnt alot of effort put toward it, its just not seen as very significant across alot of the field.
Not a lot of effort put into what? Science?! Psychology? Human sexuality? There are entire professions, journals and academic courses dedicated to the latter. That seems like a fair bit of effort to me.


i was just saying what i thought, so i hadnt planned to explain myself, but i thank you for
taking it seriously
I'm taking it seriously because people who persist in perpetuating the disproven and unfounded concept of 'choice' in sexuality contribute to very harmful views of non-heterosexual sexualities as being abnormal and desirous of a cure.


really, i just havent heard any theories that sound plausible to me

Have you honestly really heard any? You didn't answer any of the questions I posed you earlier on this point.


and i think this leads more smoothly to the conclusion of sexual orientations
that we originate with unspecified attraction and a combination of psychological and environmental stimuli are what shape it.

Nothing smooth about that piece of illogic I assure you. You are committing another fallacy in logic: argumentum e silentio. "I haven't heard any theories I believe (and omit to recount which theories, or explain why I don't believe them) and therefore random conclusion x is true". Your conclusion is also yet another informal fallacy, that of shifting the goalposts - your original assertion was that sexuality is a choice. You are now expanding your argument to include unspecified psychological and environmental factors.


especially when you consider the ridiculously huge variety in peoples sexual preferences.
Which are in fact not ridiculous, simply a continuum with infinite quanta. The continuum is well described and understood by those who are interested in facts.

[Human]

It's both... some are born that way and some can 'choose'

i'm sorry i didn't appease my -reppers please put your name next time so i can -rep your not detailed enough posts

[randomnessqueen]

unsupported? science most certainly isnt the only field to use those techniques, its one of many. most fields of research use all of those. and im not discrediting science at all.
youve not given me facts, and im not making any defininte claims. im just giving theories.
western science doesnt put alot of effort into the research of sexual orientation. they put all kinds of research into sex. and there is certainly research put into sexual orientation. but its not considered particularly significant.
im not perpetuating anything. and i dont support that its choice, i said its shaped by internal and external stimuli.
im not saying that it makes my claim true, im just saying thats why i personally believe it.
i never shifted my statement. i said its shaped by both the internal(psychological,spiritual,physiological) and the external(environmental,social,familial) and ive not altered that. and ofcourse i cant specifiy which stimuli, its not like a certain a event flips a switch, its a combonation of various things, everyones different.
i didnt say they were ridiculous, i said there is a ridiculously huge number of them.
you cant really say the continuum is well described in entirety, because that defeats the purpose of an infinitely expanding continuum. theres constantly people who identify as something different.
you are speaking of science very dogmatically, which is the point i was making about the institutionalisation of western science. science isnt the end all be all that forms an every perfect fact. science is to form theories and to gather evidence to see if the theory is support or not. but its still at best a well supported theory, there is no all withstanding law of the universe

[TigerBoy]

unsupported?

Your argument is unsupported, correct. You've not supported it with any substantiated facts.


science most certainly isnt the only field to use those techniques, its one of many. most fields of research use all of those.

Which techniques are you referring to? This smells like a strawman argument to me.


and im not discrediting science at all.

False.
Not only are you ignoring science, you have stated several negative points against science such as "science doesn't always use them properly" and that science " has become more of an institution than a methodolgy[sic]"


youve not given me facts,

False. I have provided several linked sources and facts throughout this thread.


and im not making any defininte claims. im just giving theories.

What you call 'theories' I call fantasies with no basis in reality. If you disagree, provide some basis in reality - i.e. facts, research, data.


western science

There is not such thing as 'western' science. There is just science. Much of what you call 'western science' originated in the East.


doesnt put alot of effort into the research of sexual orientation. they put all kinds of research into sex. and there is certainly research put into sexual orientation. but its not considered particularly significant.

And I say this assertion is bullshit. Prove me wrong with facts, not yet more empty waffle. I've already implied that the existing research is considered 'significant' by all the pertinent major scientific bodies.


im not perpetuating anything.

By repeating an assertion you cannot prove, against contradicting evidence, you are indeed perpetuating it.


and i dont support that its choice, i said its shaped by internal and external stimuli.

Again this is you moving the goalposts. This is not describing your original statement of choice and is not the point I am contending.
It is also incredibly vague: I could state the same explanation for choice of religion.


im not saying that it makes my claim true, im just saying thats why i personally believe it.

And I am trying to show you that you believe it in spite of and in contradiction of any facts of the topic.


i didnt say they were ridiculous, i said there is a ridiculously huge number of them.

You used an emotionally loaded word to colour your statement. I used the same word to colour mine in the same way. There is no formal mathematical concept of 'ridiculous'.

you cant really say the continuum is well described in entirety, because that defeats the purpose of an infinitely expanding continuum. theres constantly people who identify as something different.

Actually you very much can say that. A curve can be described mathematically and thus utterly understood, without having to plot every point on that curve. This does not alter the fact that a curve (or any line) consists conceptually of an infinite number of points. Or 'ridiculous' number, if you prefer.
Also your statement is illogical - a continuum doesn't need a 'purpose' to exist, so it doesn't matter how anyone describes it.


you are speaking of science very dogmatically,

There is no other way to speak of facts and logic. Facts are either right or wrong, or - in your case - completely absent.


which is the point i was making about the institutionalisation of western science. science isnt the end all be all that forms an every perfect fact. science is to form theories and to gather evidence to see if the theory is support or not. but its still at best a well supported theory, there is no all withstanding law of the universe
Again, you are attempting to discredit science, and I think it is because you don't understand what science is. Science is merely the quest, reality is the answer. It is possible to be a scientist and still marvel at what we don't know.

Furthermore, if you have ANY sort of explanation that supports your view, I have yet to hear it. All you have done so far is say "no, 'science' is wrong"

[randomnessqueen]

i clearly wasnt referring to that, and you accuse me of strawman.
the very same techniques that you listed off, what else (rational research methodologies, use of evidence, logic, knowledge, or any other intelligent means of arriving at conclusions.)
im not ignoring science, im using science. and im just pointing out flaws, thats critique. would you rather i view the practice of science as perfect and infallible, thats wrong.
western science is very different from eastern science.
unfortunately there isnt some source that can provide with the number of every single study done on the matter. ive been given reason to believe its not seen as significant from claims by those in that field that ive personally spoken with. whats your reason for thinking its significant?
not perpertuating, i asserted nothing, still just giving my theory, not saying its true.
that is my original statement, and as i said, it cant be pinpointed because its not so black and white. also, speaking of changing goalposts, youre comparing it the choice of religion, which implies you think of it as a choice, so compare it to something more accurate. people dont argue that religion is a choice, even if you are raised with a certain religion and have strong spiritual experiences to prove its basis to you, its still ultimately your choice to follow it.
but youve not given me any evidence to directly contradict any part of my belief. i dont cling to this belief for its own sake, i am looking for whats true, so please give me something to counter it so i can see where its wrong.
i wasnt colouring any substantial piece of the claim, only saying that its an immeasurable number. you however claimed that i called some part of the continuum ridiculous.
a curve can be described in nature. but in accusing my claim of ridiculousness to apply to the substance of the continuum and describing it as simply infinite quanta, you are referring to the continuum in substance not in nature. and as i said, the substance is not defined, but rather constantly expanding as we've pointed to.
except that a finite mind cant know a perfect absolute. again, science can only give significant support for a good theory, because there are infinite properties that can effect any one experiment to cause even a slight misreading. still at best, it can know that every experiment that has been done has turned out one way, but that doesnt account for every time it hasnt been done, you cant make such an assumption that youve accounted for everything. that purely inductive.
dogma is not synonymous with methodology, by speaking of it dogmatically it becomes about a certain set of beliefs that you hold to be true, nolonger about the technique. as long as there are theories that support something different, which there always are, you cant cling so to one theory.
again, no im not discrediting, you are still trying to say that to not do so i would have to claim it to be infallible. theres nothing bad about saying it has flaws, all things are going to have some flaw, and that does not discredit any of them by principle.
i noticed you used quotation marks to say that. if you point out where i said it, i will gladly concede. but i assure you i didnt because i dont think science is wrong, i think science is a wonderful thing and its something i support. though i support methodological science, not dogmatism.

[Backflipboy]

I can only speak from personal experience, and I can say I certainly did not choose to be bisexual. I find it very insulting when people call it a choice, it is one of the most ignorant things to say in my opinion.

Think about it! Why would I choose a sexuality that is rejected and hated by the majority of the world?

[TigerBoy]

the very same techniques that you listed off, what else (rational research methodologies, use of evidence, logic, knowledge, or any other intelligent means of arriving at conclusions.)

Science isn't a 'field' as you described it, and discussing the nature of science most certainly would be a strawman argument. I also don't hold you to using 'science' however you choose to define it, I'd simply like some rational explanation and some facts that support your main point.

im not ignoring science, im using science. and im just pointing out flaws, thats critique. would you rather i view the practice of science as perfect and infallible, thats wrong
You've done no such thing. You've claimed there are flaws, you haven't precisely stated what those are, let alone proven that they exist. To do that, you need to actually have some facts and rationalisations.


western science is very different from eastern science.
This is another strawman argument, and another unsubstantiated one at that.


unfortunately there isnt some source that can provide with the number of every single study done on the matter. ive been given reason to believe its not seen as significant from claims by those in that field that ive personally spoken with.

You've been given reason to believe? What reason? Who by? People in the field? As you present it this is yet another fallacy in logic called an 'false attribution'.

whats your reason for thinking its significant?
The existence of corroborating evidence, the absence of contradictory evidence, and the consensus view of the scientific profession. I've already stated all this.

not perpertuating, i asserted nothing, still just giving my theory, not saying its true.
Perpetuating = repeating, keeping alive. Repeating unproven theories around sexuality is what causes a lot of difficulty for those who are not heterosexual, which is why I'm trying to point you to facts on this.

also, speaking of changing goalposts, youre comparing it the choice of religion,
That is an analogy, not a shift in the basis of my argument. Disregard it, it obviously didn't help.


but youve not given me any evidence to directly contradict any part of my belief. i dont cling to this belief for its own sake, i am looking for whats true, so please give me something to counter it so i can see where its wrong.
You are making a claim, and the burden of proof (onus probandi) is therefore on you to prove it.
As it happens I believe I have already provided rebuttals to your "theory" (which it isn't, it is merely a hypothesis). As I pointed out in my first response to you, there is a discussion of this point in the post a few above your original one, where I give data about sexuality and indicate that bisexuality of any degree is very much a minority expression. There are also links in posts I made at the start of the thread (and the aforementioned consensus of the scientific community) that show that sexuality is fixed before birth, eliminating your supposed mechanisms of 'external factors' namely "environmental,social,familial".


a curve can be described in nature. but in accusing my claim of ridiculousness to apply to the substance of the continuum and describing it as simply infinite quanta, you are referring to the continuum in substance not in nature. and as i said, the substance is not defined, but rather constantly expanding as we've pointed to.

You don't appear to understand what a continuum is. A description of a continuum as a series of infinite quanta applies to any continuum. A continuum is not defined as something that is 'constantly expanding'. It is a range between two states, that is all.

except that a finite mind cant know a perfect absolute. again, science can only give significant support for a good theory, because there are infinite properties that can effect any one experiment to cause even a slight misreading. still at best, it can know that every experiment that has been done has turned out one way, but that doesnt account for every time it hasnt been done, you cant make such an assumption that youve accounted for everything. that purely inductive.
This is a moot point. Neither I nor this 'science' you want to attack claim to be infallible or certain. What science does is give us confidence in what things aren't (proof by falsifiability), and gives us probabilities for what things are (models drawn from repeatable observation). When our observational evidence and hypotheses give us strong probabilities it is sensible to consider those supported theories as 'current'. By contrast you have provided no evidence of any sort that either disprove the current theories held by the scientific community, nor prove any belief of yours.
Again, you are attempting to discredit science and use this as proof of your view. This is a logical fallacy as I have already pointed out, and the further fallacy you commit by doing so is to attempt to shift the burden of proof. You are violating philosophical principles that have been determined to prevent one arriving at a valid conclusion by logic. You will not find your answers this way.

dogma is not synonymous with methodology, by speaking of it dogmatically it becomes about a certain set of beliefs that you hold to be true, nolonger about the technique. as long as there are theories that support something different, which there always are, you cant cling so to one theory.
For that definition of dogma I agree entirely, however I feel you are now equivocating over a precise use of the term 'dogmatic' (being synonymous in the Oxford Thesaurus with 'assertive, emphatic' et al).
No one is "clinging" here as you imply. Peer review of theories and competing theories is a basic tenet of science. Science adapts, resolves conflicting theories by developing new research or new models and testing those models. A consensus is reached via peer review and the current understanding is more refined and consistent with reality, until further evidence causes that understanding to be further revised.

If you have new data about sexuality, present it for discussion, otherwise its just your word against the entire body of research and consensus view of the world's population of scientists.

Again, the merits of science is a strawman argument in this context, and off topic.

again, no im not discrediting,
Yes, by trying to suggest that scientists don't know how to do science, you really are. Your previous discussion of certainty in science cherry picked portions of a more accurate and complete description to incorrectly conclude that all science is unreliable.

[FreeFall]

I'm curious now. More directed to those responding who think we are all born bisexual or pan-sexual, and that our stimuli and experiences and so on, shape which sex/gender we find appealing, what about the asexual? They feel nothing to either sex nor gender, but yet they were born with the capacity to be open to all, according to your own opinions, so how'd they seal themselves off from such? I personally feel they have the weirdest discrimination in the world of sexual orientation, being scrutinized for not having a romantic/sexual interest in anyone of any kind.

I can't compare them to the homosexuals, that's unfair, but because I'm more baffled by the oddity of the prejudiced against them why and how do you feel they "became" asexual? They grew up around guys, girls, some trans, some cross dressers, maybe, depends of course. Surely they should've been "influenced" in picking someone, anyone. In a sense, I suppose people see them as lonely and that freaks them out, since humans tend to be social creatures wishing to always have at least 1 person to cuddle. That causes them to lash at this weird person that wants to grow old and die alone with no interest in doing so with anyone else. You'd think they'd have started leaning or something, maybe force themselves to be with anyone just to shut others up. Yet, in that meager area, there they are.

Edit: Asexuality varies of course. Some have 0 interest in romantic relationships, some have relationships but have no sex at all, not even kissing. I'm more pinpointing to those who have no desire or interest in anyone of any gender or sex.

[CharlieFinley]

i clearly wasnt referring to that, and you accuse me of strawman.
the very same techniques that you listed off, what else (rational research methodologies, use of evidence, logic, knowledge, or any other intelligent means of arriving at conclusions.)
im not ignoring science, im using science. and im just pointing out flaws, thats critique. would you rather i view the practice of science as perfect and infallible, thats wrong.
western science is very different from eastern science.
unfortunately there isnt some source that can provide with the number of every single study done on the matter. ive been given reason to believe its not seen as significant from claims by those in that field that ive personally spoken with. whats your reason for thinking its significant?
not perpertuating, i asserted nothing, still just giving my theory, not saying its true.
that is my original statement, and as i said, it cant be pinpointed because its not so black and white. also, speaking of changing goalposts, youre comparing it the choice of religion, which implies you think of it as a choice, so compare it to something more accurate. people dont argue that religion is a choice, even if you are raised with a certain religion and have strong spiritual experiences to prove its basis to you, its still ultimately your choice to follow it.
but youve not given me any evidence to directly contradict any part of my belief. i dont cling to this belief for its own sake, i am looking for whats true, so please give me something to counter it so i can see where its wrong.
i wasnt colouring any substantial piece of the claim, only saying that its an immeasurable number. you however claimed that i called some part of the continuum ridiculous.
a curve can be described in nature. but in accusing my claim of ridiculousness to apply to the substance of the continuum and describing it as simply infinite quanta, you are referring to the continuum in substance not in nature. and as i said, the substance is not defined, but rather constantly expanding as we've pointed to.
except that a finite mind cant know a perfect absolute. again, science can only give significant support for a good theory, because there are infinite properties that can effect any one experiment to cause even a slight misreading. still at best, it can know that every experiment that has been done has turned out one way, but that doesnt account for every time it hasnt been done, you cant make such an assumption that youve accounted for everything. that purely inductive.
dogma is not synonymous with methodology, by speaking of it dogmatically it becomes about a certain set of beliefs that you hold to be true, nolonger about the technique. as long as there are theories that support something different, which there always are, you cant cling so to one theory.
again, no im not discrediting, you are still trying to say that to not do so i would have to claim it to be infallible. theres nothing bad about saying it has flaws, all things are going to have some flaw, and that does not discredit any of them by principle.
i noticed you used quotation marks to say that. if you point out where i said it, i will gladly concede. but i assure you i didnt because i dont think science is wrong, i think science is a wonderful thing and its something i support. though i support methodological science, not dogmatism.That's lovely. However, I'm not nearly as patient as my esteemed colleague who just ripped you to shreds. For my benefit, would you be willing to translate this into English?

I'm curious now. More directed to those responding who think we are all born bisexual or pan-sexual, and that our stimuli and experiences and so on, shape which sex/gender we find appealing, what about the asexual? They feel nothing to either sex nor gender, but yet they were born with the capacity to be open to all, according to your own opinions, so how'd they seal themselves off from such? I personally feel they have the weirdest discrimination in the world of sexual orientation, being scrutinized for not having a romantic/sexual interest in anyone of any kind.

I can't compare them to the homosexuals, that's unfair, but because I'm more baffled by the oddity of the prejudiced against them why and how do you feel they "became" asexual? They grew up around guys, girls, some trans, some cross dressers, maybe, depends of course. Surely they should've been "influenced" in picking someone, anyone. In a sense, I suppose people see them as lonely and that freaks them out, since humans tend to be social creatures wishing to always have at least 1 person to cuddle. That causes them to lash at this weird person that wants to grow old and die alone with no interest in doing so with anyone else. You'd think they'd have started leaning or something, maybe force themselves to be with anyone just to shut others up. Yet, in that meager area, there they are.

Edit: Asexuality varies of course. Some have 0 interest in romantic relationships, some have relationships but have no sex at all, not even kissing. I'm more pinpointing to those who have no desire or interest in anyone of any gender or sex.

I think the issue here is that those who think everyone is born bisexual are fundamentally and unquestionably wrong. That said, I have no idea as to what causes asexuality.

[teen.jpg]

N//A

[Horizon]

I personally believe, that no, it is not a choice. I didn't choose to live this life. I mean, look at it this way, who would choose to be segregated from society because who they are is out of the norm? I don't think a lot of people would willingly choose a homosexual life, because of all the stress and hardships that come with it. Not that being straight is really any different, but at least being straight is socially acceptable everywhere.