Is homosexuality a choice?

[Moooooo]

No (normal).

[A18]

No, but it is trash.

[Max Power]

Homosexuality is absolutely not a choice. It is not a birth defect either. Left-handedness would be another example of a harmless condition that is simply different.

Why would nature create a being that had no natural drive to reproduce? Obviously its a defect of some sort.

Nature creates men with inability to produce anough sperm to reproduce.  There also are women who are not fertile.  It happens.

And by States' philosophy, bisexuality would still be normal.

Bisexuality is nonexistent.

Like your reasoning on this subject. Did you ever think that God created gay people to adopt and raise neglected children? You'll never know God's true motives, nobody will.

[Cashcow]

Oy.  This again.  It is absolutely not a choice.

I've said this before on here (long, long ago)...why would anyone choose to be homosexual?  You'd have to deal with all the disappointed family and angry friends and taunting strangers and a disapproving society in general.  It doesn't sound like anything people would be willing to sign up for, to me.

Absolutely.

[Emsworth]

I cannot claim that I have any sort of scientific expertise on this subject. But as far as I know, and as far as I can tell, it is no choice.

Except when God gave Moses his law, it basically says to not comit sodomy (Lev 18-22).

It also says to keep heathen as slaves (Lev. 25:44).

In any event, the laws of Moses were nailed to the Cross.

[jokerman]

I cannot claim that I have any sort of scientific expertise on this subject. But as far as I know, and as far as I can tell, it is no choice.

Except when God gave Moses his law, it basically says to not comit sodomy (Lev 18-22).

It also says to keep heathen as slaves (Lev. 25:44).

In any event, the laws of Moses were nailed to the Cross.

Ah, but it is also condemmed in Romans Ch.1, and somewhere in 1 Timothy, I think, if you want to get into the New Testament.

[Max Power]

Homosexuality is absolutely not a choice. It is not a birth defect either. Left-handedness would be another example of a harmless condition that is simply different.

Why would nature create a being that had no natural drive to reproduce? Obviously its a defect of some sort.

Nature creates men with inability to produce anough sperm to reproduce.  There also are women who are not fertile.  It happens.

And by States' philosophy, bisexuality would still be normal.

Bisexuality is nonexistent.

Like your reasoning on this subject. Did you ever think that God created gay people to adopt and raise neglected children? You'll never know God's true motives, nobody will.

Except when God gave Moses his law, it basically says to not comit sodomy (Lev 18-22).  I don't think God would create anyone Gay if he comanded that one not act homosexually.

Then why would he create shrimp or figs, which, if you have eaten, you ought to burned at the stake for your terrible sins: Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, Psalm 78:47, Jeremiah 29:17, Deuteronomy 14:9-10, Leviticus 11:9-12.

[jokerman]

Homosexuality is absolutely not a choice. It is not a birth defect either. Left-handedness would be another example of a harmless condition that is simply different.

Why would nature create a being that had no natural drive to reproduce? Obviously its a defect of some sort.

Nature creates men with inability to produce anough sperm to reproduce.  There also are women who are not fertile.  It happens.

And by States' philosophy, bisexuality would still be normal.

Bisexuality is nonexistent.

Like your reasoning on this subject. Did you ever think that God created gay people to adopt and raise neglected children? You'll never know God's true motives, nobody will.

Except when God gave Moses his law, it basically says to not comit sodomy (Lev 18-22).  I don't think God would create anyone Gay if he comanded that one not act homosexually.

Then why would he create shrimp or figs, which, if you have eaten, you ought to burned at the stake for your terrible sins: Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14, Psalm 78:47, Jeremiah 29:17, Deuteronomy 14:9-10, Leviticus 11:9-12.

That's not really my point.

You wouldn't had you not eaten those foods.

Anyway, just look at my new testament references as well.

[Emsworth]

Ah, but it is also condemmed in Romans Ch.1, and somewhere in 1 Timothy, I think, if you want to get into the New Testament.

Of course--but that is because the ceremonial laws were all abrogated, all nailed to the Cross (Colossians 2:14). Why should the law against sodomy be excepted, when the law against eating pork is not?

Except when God gave Moses his law, it basically says to not comit sodomy (Lev 18-22).  I don't think God would create anyone Gay if he comanded that one not act homosexually.

Not necessarily: being homosexual is not a sin (according to Leviticus), only committing a homosexual act is. People might have proclivities toward all manner of "sins"--kleptomania is an example. But surely, kleptomania is not the result of choice?

[angus]

Homosexuality is absolutely not a choice. It is not a birth defect either. Left-handedness would be another example of a harmless condition that is simply different.

Why would nature create a being that had no natural drive to reproduce? Obviously its a defect of some sort.

well, I kinda though along those lines too.  except that I was calling it aberrant, since by definition it's not what most wild things do, or illogical, since if you're busy poking your manhood into the mouth or the anus of your buddies you're missing out on opportunities to plant the seed that might take, and thus reducing your chance of success, biologically speaking.  But I do take your point:  seemingly anti-adaptive traits like sickle-cell anemia and homosexuality seem like biological disadvantages.  But remember, sickle-cell anemia may also confer resistance to malaria.  Similarly, there are several lines of argument to explain the phenomenon of homosexuality.  First, during periods, or geographical populations, in which males vastly outnumber females, or females vastly outnumber males, same-sex coupling can take the pressure off the outnumbered sex to constantly be mating, which is of itself a source of stress.  This may not help the homosexual individual reproduce, but the species may gain advantage.  A simpler argument is that by not producing offspring, homosexuals can help to support relatives’ young.  There are other arguments as well.  Anyway, there are plausible reasons why nature would create such an individual.

on a distantly related note, "Three to Tango" is starting just now on TBS. 

[??????????]

Homosexuality is absolutely not a choice. It is not a birth defect either. Left-handedness would be another example of a harmless condition that is simply different.

Why would nature create a being that had no natural drive to reproduce? Obviously its a defect of some sort.

well, I kinda though along those lines too.  except that I was calling it aberrant, since by definition it's not what most wild things do, or illogical, since if you're busy poking your manhood into the mouth or the anus of your buddies you're missing out on opportunities to plant the seed that might take, and thus reducing your chance of success, biologically speaking.  But I do take your point:  seemingly anti-adaptive traits like sickle-cell anemia and homosexuality seem like biological disadvantages.  But remember, sickle-cell anemia may also confer resistance to malaria.  Similarly, there are several lines of argument to explain the phenomenon of homosexuality.  First, during periods, or geographical populations, in which males vastly outnumber females, or females vastly outnumber males, same-sex coupling can take the pressure off the outnumbered sex to constantly be mating, which is of itself a source of stress.  This may not help the homosexual individual reproduce, but the species may gain advantage.  A simpler argument is that by not producing offspring, homosexuals can help to support relatives’ young.  There are other arguments as well.  Anyway, there are plausible reasons why nature would create such an individual.

on a distantly related note, "Three to Tango" is starting just now on TBS. 

Ok, lets take your thinking here. In a perfect world where the male/female ratio was exactly even in the same region then in theory there'd be no homosexuality present?

[angus]

I can't claim originality for any of these ideas.  But yeah, they're plausible to me.  No, if you have the same number of females and males, homosexuality is still possible, you could imagine that if there were as many lesbians as gay men there's still a 1 to 1 ratio of straight men to straight women.  I'm not saying that's the only reason, just one of many.  And even if it were the main reason, the homosexuality may have come about for another reason to begin with.  As I said, I'm not sure why gay people are gay.  I don't think intrinsic homosexuality is a chosen condition, of course I think straight men in certain environments choose to engage in homosexual acts.  I'll add that gay men in certain conditions choose to engage in heterosexual acts.  This is well-known, ususally due to familial pressure, and I have spoken to several now-divorced and "out" gay men about this.