It's not a problem for animals to have sex with the same sex

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course situations like this exist...where the women CHOOSE to enter a same-sex relationship because of severe trauma.

That is exactly my point. I'm glad you are able to see it. It's existence shows that there is a non-biological factor, either alone, or as part of a group of factors.

That does not mean that they "became homosexual." They are still heterosexuals who have CHOSEN to enter into a same-sex relationship because that's where they feel safe.

If their attraction is solely for the same sex, they are now homosexual.

It's possible, also, that these women were bisexual to begin with and CHOSE to stay with same-sex relationships. Still genetic and natural.

Yes, there is the chance they were bisexual to begin with. However, they became homosexual.

I don't know why you think it had anything to do with choice. It was never a conscious choice. They could no more go back to having sex with a man than they could grow a sixth finger on their hand.

Yes, this could be a possibility, however, homosexuality caused by hormonal effects while in the womb still means that it is a natural thing over which the person has no control and their desire to be with someone of the same sex is not a "lifestyle choice." Surely you can see how this negates the entire concept of "sin" and "choice"?

Sigh. Ever stated your opinion over and over but the other person still doesn't hear it? That's how I feel right now.

From my very first post, I have stated that there are BOTH biological reasons AND environmental reasons AND choice that contribute to a person being homosexual. I gave examples of all three. My point has always been only that it cannot be attributed to genetics alone, which is what the original post I replied to claimed. IOW it's complicated.

The ONLY case that I cited that was truly a lifestyle choice was the lesbian activist interviewed by Dennis Prager who by her own admission stated that she had been a heterosexual and had chosen to become a lesbian.

You're correct, and if you look back at my posts, you will note that I stated that sexual orientation is not 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual, although some humans do fit those categories.

I never disagreed with that. Never. What you originally said was that homosexuality was genetic. That is what I took issue with. Genetics is only one factor and only in some cases.

No, it hasn't been "disproven" although it hasn't yet been totally proven.

My friend, I really must insist on this. Nothing regarding homosexuality has been more thoroughly researched than the possibility of genetic causality. A direct DNA cause is utterly ruled out, because if that were true, identical twins (who share the same DNA) would have to ALWAYS both be gay, or never both be gay. However, statistically there is a higher normal probability that if one identical twin is gay that the other will be gay as well. This shows that genetics can play a part in some lesser way, or that (very likely) epigenetics come into play.

That's what the scientific evidence shows. To claim anything else is to go against the science at this point. It would be no different than those who sadly say that homosexuality is all a lifestyle choice (which I do not).


There may never be conclusive evidence on this subject mainly because there isn't much research being done. And, to be honest, even if at some point researchers did find that there is definitely a genetic component, people who are wedded to the idea of "God hates homosexuality" wouldn't believe it anyway, would they?[/QUOTE]

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, environment is NOT a determining factor. If it were, then any woman who suffered sexual abuse would become a lesbian, and that is obviously not the case. Many women who have been sexually abused as children enter into a regular heterosexual relationship later in life. Those who CHOOSE to limit their relationships to other women were most likely bisexual or somewhere on the orientation curve that leaned toward homosexuality. Environment has nothing to do with it.

Studies have shown that female victims of molestation tend to go one of three ways: They either become asexual, promiscuous, or lesbian. At least for parts of their lives, especially without counseling. We do not understand why some end up one way rather than one of the other ways.

We can say that most often before the molests that they had the typical leanings of little girls, i.e. growing up to marry and have a family, being a princess who finds prince charming, needing a Ken for Barbie, etc.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

That is exactly my point. I'm glad you are able to see it. It's existence shows that there is a non-biological factor, either alone, or as part of a group of factors.

If their attraction is solely for the same sex, they are now homosexual.

Yes, there is the chance they were bisexual to begin with. However, they became homosexual.

I don't know why you think it had anything to do with choice. It was never a conscious choice. They could no more go back to having sex with a man than they could grow a sixth finger on their hand.

No, choosing to enter into a relationship with someone of the same sex does not mean that a heterosexual has "become homosexual." What it means is that a heterosexual woman has decided to enter into a relationship with another woman due to trauma she has suffered at the hands of men.

A heterosexual woman who has voluntarily entered into a same-sex relationship due to trauma would not be able to switch their attraction to be solely for the same sex, and they could very definitely at some point leave that relationship and begin a relationship with a man to whom they were attracted. Granted, that man would, of necessity, need to be very understanding and supportive, but a heterosexual does NOT "become homosexual" even though they at some point are in a same-sex relationship.

Similarly, a homosexual does not "become heterosexual" if they marry someone of the opposite sex. They are STILL homosexual, but have simply chosen to enter into a heterosexual relationship. As an example, one of my former JW friends (a female) married a man who was definitely homosexual. She was not particularly attractive and heterosexual males weren't interested in her, and he wanted someone who would accept him so that he could appear to be more "normal" and "acceptable" to the congregation. He was, and is, still homosexual.

Sexual orientation is NOT determined or changed by the type of relationship a person enters into. Heterosexuals remain heterosexuals and homosexuals remain homosexuals.

Sigh. Ever stated your opinion over and over but the other person still doesn't hear it? That's how I feel right now.

From my very first post, I have stated that there are BOTH biological reasons AND environmental reasons AND choice that contribute to a person being homosexual. I gave examples of all three. My point has always been only that it cannot be attributed to genetics alone, which is what the original post I replied to claimed. IOW it's complicated.

Sigh. I do hear your opinion...I simply disagree with it. And I will state again (which you don't seem to hear) that environment does NOT determine sexual orientation. A heterosexual can NEVER "become homosexual" and a homosexual can NEVER "become heterosexual" even though they might enter into a relationship that is opposite to what they normally would.

Many homosexuals have tried and failed to "become heterosexuals" by getting married and living as heterosexuals. I have several friends and acquaintances who took that route and it simply DID NOT WORK. They NEVER "became heterosexuals" and the marriages eventually fell apart. Environment does not affect the sexual orientation with which a person is born.

The ONLY case that I cited that was truly a lifestyle choice was the lesbian activist interviewed by Dennis Prager who by her own admission stated that she had been a heterosexual and had chosen to become a lesbian.

So, she was bisexual. People who are bisexual are equally attracted to both sexes. My daughter has told me that she is bisexual. She had several intimate relationships with women, but finally found a man she loved and she has been married for more than a decade.

My nephew, on the other hand, is truly homosexual and has never had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

I never disagreed with that. Never. What you originally said was that homosexuality was genetic. That is what I took issue with. Genetics is only one factor and only in some cases.

Okay, so use the word "biological" but abandon the "environmental" argument since it is simply bogus.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Studies have shown that female victims of molestation tend to go one of three ways: They either become asexual, promiscuous, or lesbian. At least for parts of their lives, especially without counseling. We do not understand why some end up one way rather than one of the other ways.

We can say that most often before the molests that they had the typical leanings of little girls, i.e. growing up to marry and have a family, being a princess who finds prince charming, needing a Ken for Barbie, etc.

Point being...despite how the abuse has affected them, they remain heterosexual. That does not and cannot change and you acknowledged this in your comment (perhaps you didn't realize it?) when you stated "At least for parts of their lives." If they "became homosexuals" they could not simply pull a switch and "become heterosexuals" later on. They were heterosexual to begin with and they remained as heterosexuals and many were able to overcome the trauma and enter into a relationship that coincided with their real sexual orientation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, choosing to enter into a relationship with someone of the same sex does not mean that a heterosexual has "become homosexual." What it means is that a heterosexual woman has decided to enter into a relationship with another woman due to trauma she has suffered at the hands of men.

1. It is not a choice. Why do you continue to misrepresent me?
2. If a person is EXCLUSIVELY attracted to the same sex, they are homosexual. That is the DEFINITION of homosexual.

Similarly, a homosexual does not "become heterosexual" if they marry someone of the opposite sex. They are STILL homosexual, but have simply chosen to enter into a heterosexual relationship. As an example, one of my former JW friends (a female) married a man who was definitely homosexual. She was not particularly attractive and heterosexual males weren't interested in her, and he wanted someone who would accept him so that he could appear to be more "normal" and "acceptable" to the congregation. He was, and is, still homosexual.

I agree there have been homosexuals (especially in the past) who have married the opposite sex in order to raise a family or to fit in with society, and it does not make them heterosexual or bisexual. That is not what I'm talking about, and you know it.

Sexual orientation is NOT determined or changed by the type of relationship a person enters into. Heterosexuals remain heterosexuals and homosexuals remain homosexuals.

Sexual orientation is determined by who a person is ATTRACTED to sexually. If a person is attracted solely or mostly to the opposite sex, they are obviously hetero sexual. If they are attracted solely or mostly to the same sex, they are homosexual. If they are clearly attracted to both, they are bisexual. Surely we agree on this?

In MOST cases, a person's orientation does not change, thus the experiences of your gay friends who tried to switch over. However, in a small minority of cases, change is possible -- it has in fact been known to happen. I have cited such cases. You are in denial. You stick to your philosophy in spite of the evidence. That is not scientific.

Be well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Point being...despite how the abuse has affected them, they remain heterosexual.

They would be irate with you for saying this. They are attracted now solely to the same sex, which is the definition of homosexual.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

1. It is not a choice. Why do you continue to misrepresent me?
2. If a person is EXCLUSIVELY attracted to the same sex, they are homosexual. That is the DEFINITION of homosexual.

Oh, good grief! This is what I've been saying from the beginning (bangs head on wall.) You, however, in one of your posts stated that you knew of some women who, because of being sexually abused by men, "became lesbians." My comment simply stated that those women (unless they were already homosexual to begin with) could not "become homosexual" simply by entering into a same-sex relationship. And the example you gave DID indicate that these women CHOSE to enter into relationships with other women because of the abuse.

Hopefully, you will be able to understand my argument? As you said, someone who is EXCLUSIVELY attracted to the same sex IS a homosexual. Conversely, someone who is heterosexual but who has become too traumatized to enter into an opposite sex relationship and who CHOOSES to enter into a same sex relationship is NOT (as you had claimed) turned into a homosexual. They are STILL heterosexual.

I might be mistaken, but it looks as if you are modifying your original arguments and agreeing with me, although you seem loathe to admit it.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

RedhorseWoman said: ↑
Point being...despite how the abuse has affected them, they remain heterosexual.

IndigoChild said: They would be irate with you for saying this. They are attracted now solely to the same sex, which is the definition of homosexual.

Oh, wait...I think I spoke too soon. By this comment you seem to be going back to what you previously stated...and you are wrong. Just because a heterosexual--due to trauma--has chosen to enter into a same-sex relationship does not mean that they are "solely attracted to the same sex." They might not even BE all that attracted to the same sex, but find comfort in a one-on-one relationship with someone who happens to be of the same sex because their trauma has prevented them from entering into what, for them, would be a normal heterosexual relationship. They are STILL heterosexual even though they are in a homosexual relationship.

There is a big difference, and I highly doubt that anyone could switch their natural, in-born sexual attraction simply because of the relationship they are engaged in.

I agree there have been homosexuals (especially in the past) who have married the opposite sex in order to raise a family or to fit in with society, and it does not make them heterosexual or bisexual. That is not what I'm talking about, and you know it.

In fact, in this statement you are contradicting yourself. You are stating that a homosexual who marries someone of the opposite sex does NOT become either heterosexual or bisexual. Yet, in your comment about an abused traumatized woman who enters into a same-sex relationship, you stated unequivocally that she now has become homosexual.

Which is it that you believe to be true?

 

[Phaedrus]

Humans copying animals generally doesn't lead to the most civilised behaviour.

Even if you support homosexual sex, this argument is bad.

Yet, observing the socialization behaviors of animals tends to show that they are better than us in many ways.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh, good grief! This is what I've been saying from the beginning (bangs head on wall.) You, however, in one of your posts stated that you knew of some women who, because of being sexually abused by men, "became lesbians." My comment simply stated that those women (unless they were already homosexual to begin with) could not "become homosexual" simply by entering into a same-sex relationship. And the example you gave DID indicate that these women CHOSE to enter into relationships with other women because of the abuse.

One last time, and then I'm giving up talking to you, since you really aren't trying to listen.

I said that these women switched orientation, due to environmental trauma. that is NOT the same thing as saying they "chose" it. They did not. Switching does not imply choice.

Enough with this. I'm tired of you misrepresenting what I say. Wallow in your simplistic and errant views. For myself, I'll stick to the science, which is much more complex.

 

[JJ50]

Goodness knows why some people are bigoted against people being homosexual, they can't help the skin they are in anymore than heterosexuals can. They are just as entitled to have a close sexual relationship and marry if they so wish.