Sexuality-Choice or Innate?

[Biceps]

Phenotype= Genotype+Environment.
This is my exact position.

[enwiabe]

I would guess it is a mix of both. But then, it'd only be a guess. We're yet to isolate the sexuality-preference gene, if it even exists. It could be a gene which predisposes us to sexual urges, and then environmental factors determine what we are attracted to.

Regardless, my view is one which I'm happy to see has been espoused many times in this thread. Biomedical reasons aside, who gives a shit?

Two consenting adults should be free to love each other. The only people who tend to have a problem with it are miserable assholes hiding behind their primitive beliefs.

[Biceps]

I would guess it is a mix of both. But then, it'd only be a guess. We're yet to isolate the sexuality-preference gene, if it even exists. It could be a gene which predisposes us to sexual urges, and then environmental factors determine what we are attracted to.

Regardless, my view is one which I'm happy to see has been espoused many times in this thread. Biomedical reasons aside, who gives a shit?

Two consenting adults should be free to love each other. The only people who tend to have a problem with it are miserable assholes hiding behind their primitive beliefs.

Don't attack other peoples' beliefs just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it is stupid to believe it.

[brenden]

I would guess it is a mix of both. But then, it'd only be a guess. We're yet to isolate the sexuality-preference gene, if it even exists. It could be a gene which predisposes us to sexual urges, and then environmental factors determine what we are attracted to.

Regardless, my view is one which I'm happy to see has been espoused many times in this thread. Biomedical reasons aside, who gives a shit?

Two consenting adults should be free to love each other. The only people who tend to have a problem with it are miserable assholes hiding behind their primitive beliefs.

Don't attack other peoples' beliefs just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it is stupid to believe it.

Any oppressive beliefs are stupid and should be attacked.

[paulsterio]

Don't attack other peoples' beliefs just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it is stupid to believe it.

I agree with you, but certain beliefs are right and certain beliefs are wrong - for example, if you believed it was right to kill people, I'm sure that most people would certainly not agree and call you stupid - purely because it's a stupid belief.

Anyways, regarding sexuality, it's probably a combination of both. Like, it's neither really how we're born nor the environment we grew up in, but probably some mix between the two. Obviously evidence for the genetic argument would be that homosexual people have certain traits at young ages - boys being feminine for example. Whilst the argument for the environment side is that there are some people who "become" gay over the course of their lives.

[Starlight]

Tough one really, but i'd say 90% genetic.

I don't really think they become gay over the course of time, but rather take the time as young-ish teenagers to look at both genders and might be at the confused stage, it may take a couple of dates with females to realise they are not into them and that they actually like guys.

[ninwa]

Don't attack other peoples' beliefs just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it is stupid to believe it.

Nope, if you think homosexuality is "wrong" or that homosexuals are not entitled to the full set of rights that heterosexuals enjoy, you ARE wrong and your beliefs ARE stupid. Simple.

[Tomw2]

Don't attack other peoples' beliefs just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it is stupid to believe it.

I'm quite happy to viciously attack logically flawed, hateful, divisive views that cause harm and encourage others to do as much as possible. As per brenden, ninatron et al, such oppressive beliefs are stupid and should be attacked.

Obviously evidence for the genetic argument would be that homosexual people have certain traits at young ages - boys being feminine for example.

That is far from obvious genetic evidence and the term 'homosexual traits' is stepping into pseudoscientific territory. What is a homosexual trait in a person without any sex drive or sexual attraction?

A significant number of homosexual males consistently demonstrate unremarkable mannerisms devoid of obvious feminine characteristics from childhood onwards.  Many are completely typical.

In any case, this is the territory of gender role identification and cultural experience, not sexual orientation - which is a demonstrably separate phenomena, though often correlated with the latter. Mannerisms and gendered behaviours often change over time and setting. You put a young male around hypermasculine adult males that he relates to and identifies with and his mannerisms will become similarly hypermasculine. Sexual orientation appears somewhat independent of this, though a factor that sometimes influences other gender-related (e.g. having a particular sexual orientation may make it difficult to identify with adult role models of the same sex, but easier to identify with those of the opposite sex - thus, more like to adopt mannerisms of the latter).

I completely agree however about the combination. There is a almost certainly a complex interaction between genotype, phenotype, gender ID, socialisation etc.

[MJRomeo81]

I have no problem with homosexuals marrying, however NOT in a Catholic Church.

[brenden]

I have no problem with homosexuals marrying, however NOT in a Catholic Church.

Why not?

[MJRomeo81]

I have no problem with homosexuals marrying, however NOT in a Catholic Church.

Why not?

Are you serious? So when a Catholic like myself can accept homosexuals loving each other and wanting to get married, people like you expect Catholics to let homosexuals marry inside our own Churches?

That sort of ignorance is just as vile as the homophobes.

[brenden]

I have no problem with homosexuals marrying, however NOT in a Catholic Church.

Why not?

Are you serious? So when a Catholic like myself can accept homosexuals loving each other and wanting to get married, people like you expect Catholics to let homosexuals marry inside our own Churches?

That sort of ignorance is just as vile as the homophobes.

People like me? Interesting choice of words. It's also interesting that you disqualify homosexuals from being Catholic.
To answer your question, yes I was seriously asking for the reasons YOU had no problem with gays marrying so long as it wasn't in church. Unless you thought every Catholic had reached some unspoken, uniform conclusion as to why not.
I'd really only vilify ignorance when people are determined to stay that way... I was taught to ask questions, if that offends you then perhaps you should take a look at yourself instead of me.
I also never said I expected Catholics to let gays marry in your buildings.

[thushan]

Let's cool it down here guys. MJRomeo, brenden was asking a legit question - answer him constructively. No need to be so derisive.

[MJRomeo81]

It's also interesting that you disqualify homosexuals from being Catholic.

I never said homosexuals cannot be catholic. You can still be a catholic and not receive all seven holy sacraments.

[brenden]

Then my apologies. That's the impression I got when you used 'our' churches in contrast to homosexuals.
So why not?