"Even, people who have the genetic traits of an athlete may naturally gravitate toward professional sports or be encouraged to play. Although, athletes share some common traits, being a professional athlete itself is not heritable. Wherefore, the culture in which an individual matures or homosexuality, for that matter. It a choices he makes and decide his career path. Therefore, it's all a matter of choice."
I'm all neutral towards gay people, but really, those who are born gay are gay, no doubts about that, or have a hormone background to back their love for same sex, but there is a group of gays that are more sexual deviants than gay, and those people i have a dislike for, for they actually have a certain psychological profile to them and they are form a good chunk of the stereotype. They appear to me as normal people trying to be albinos or black fort that matter, and thus powder their faces white or blacken it with grease, metaphorically.
"In the book of I Corinthians 6:9-10, the sin of homosexuality is listed right next to thieft. Just as there is no genetic excuse for stealing nor there is no genetic excuse for homosexuality. Environment, culture, and choice make one a thief, and the same factors make one a homosexual."
In 1996, The Advocate, a gay and lesbian magazine, asked readers what they believed the potential impact would be to the advancement of gay and lesbian rights if a scientific discovery proves a biological basis for homosexuality. About 61 percent of the magazine's readers asserted that such scientific research would advance the cause of gays and lesbians and lead to more positive attitudes toward homosexuality. For example, if one can be born gay, much as one can be born with brown eyes, then a fair society could not possibly condemn him as being unnatural or immoral. To that end, gay activists and the liberal media have actively encouraged the idea that homosexuality is inherited and unchangeable, and researchers have diligently sought scientific evidence to back up that claim. Unfortunately for the pro-homosexuality movement, the research on this subject has failed to establish any scientific evidence that shows a purely genetic basis for homosexuality.
I've always thought nature vs. nurture is a red herring argument. As if it were okay to deny rights to people just because they choose a non-harmful action. Religion is a choice, too. That doesn't mean we don't invest energy in protecting their right to religious freedom. So should we protect people against discrimination based on sexuality, whether they choose that sexuality or not.
Well, polygamy/monogamy really is a choice, or can be at least, and I still stand behind marriage equality for reasons that apply equally to sexual preference. As long as everyone involved is informed and consents (adulthood implied by ability to consent) no one else should have the ability to prescribe what kind of family you can legally have. There are so many rights tied up in civil marriage related to looking after your non-blood family that it should be recognized as a violation of human rights not to have marriage equality.
Bigots would take it as ammunition for their agenda though. We've all seen how they treat the lack of a particular "gay gene" being found.
IF it was a choice, I think most gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual etc. people would choose to be straight - me included. Not because being gay (or bi-, pan-, asexual) is a bad thing, but because it is way easier to live as a straight person.
Career path of choice? I'm not a professional homosexual.. xD
And I said it IS NOT a choice to be gay. I got beat up and bullied A LOT in highschool when they found out I was gay. If I could have chosen to be straight, I would have back then. But I couldn't. It's no longer an inconvenience and I'm happy in the relationship I'm in. So I wouldn't change it any more if I could now.
At no point in my life have I ever let the opinions of people I don't know, like or respect affect me in any way. If I did I'd be a completely different person, someone I'm not. If someone doesn't approve of my sexuality despite having absolutely no relationship with me at all, why should I care? It's impossible to make everyone happy so... Whether they accept it or not isn't my problem. I'm not going to change for strangers and I never will. I hate explaining it like that since it seems like I'm basically saying "IF U DNT LIEK HOW I AM THEN FUK U OKAY" but... That's just how it is for me.
I wouldn't really choose to be straight. I don't believe in sexual orientation labels either as there is no definitions without a problem. I'm still capable of performing sexual activities with a partner of opposite sex and sexuality does not really prevent physical capabilities.
Sexual orientation labels are just terms that make it easier to describe things - sure they are never 100 percent accurate, but neither are most other words we use to describe people.
I agree that it doesn't - being queer is not "naturally" more difficult, society makes it so. For example, I would have saved a lot of time in my life if I didn't have to think about coming out - therefore I'd rather be straight.
One can be a homosexual man and have sexual fantasies of 3some with women.
Sorry, wanted to fix this. I'm sure you know I mean something else as most naturally assume a homosexual woman would enjoy fantasizing about 3some with women, but that's not to say that fantasies always align with real interest.
In another words it was "inconvenient." We read this truth in the book of Romans 1:27-28. Where, God speaks of homosexual and bisexual of "unnatural use."
And, likewise also the men, leaving the "natural use" of the "Woman", burned in their lust one toward another; "Men with Men" working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a "reprobate mind", to do those things which are not "convenient." --Romans 1:27-28.
I definitely do not agree. I don't see homo- or bisexuality as unnatural, for me there are no logical arguments for that.
As for the bible argument: First, I'm not christian, so I don't follow the bible. Second, I'm not sure wether it really implied that homosexuality is a bad thing - I've never read the bible completely, maybe I should though.
Back in the day when I valued sexuality labels, I still wouldn't come out because of well, who gives a shit about what I do in my bed? Now, if they want to know my interest sexually, I would have to ask them in respect to what. There's fantasies, emotional, sexual activity preference, etc... One can be a homosexual women and have sexual fantasies of 3some with women and fantasies aren't necessarily a indication of real interest as fantasies and reality don't always align. Hell, even emotional interest don't always align with sexual interest. You get me?
I do. But in case you would want to come out (like me), could you not also use labels for that? I've heard people use labels like "homoromantic heterosexual", for example. It would me much more comfortable than telling in detail who you have sex with, with whom you want to have a relationship and what you fantasize about.
I don't know why people argue about the gay population. I mean, as long as nobody is hurting me I don't see any problem. I mean, yeah, I don't like them - but I'm not one of them and they are not bothering me into becoming one of them, right?