Sorry extreme liberals, but homosexuality IS a choice

I will try to find the study (very interesting) on visual stimulation and fantasy stimulation versus actual "attraction" which they believe is more closely related to scent + visual, rather than visual alone.

Humans fantasize about many things, that's not attraction. They can be stimulated by things they are not "attracted" to, as well.

Sexuality is very complex. Think about the foot fetish. In extreme cases there are people who do not respond to genitalia but toes of all things.

 

You're right, I don't.

.....

That's not what I believe at all.

 

If you define sexual behavior as when, where and with whom, yes.

Yet all you’ve managed to establish is that homosexuality is a choice if you apply the less recognized definition of homosexual activity to non-gays having gay sex. I wasn’t thinking of non-gays having consensual gay sex in my claim that homosexuality is a choice because it’s a point that nobody but you seems to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about.

I still think homosexuality isn’t a choice bro.

Now who’s changing his position?

 

That wouldn't make you a homosexual.

That would make you a heterosexual going to an extreme simply trying to prove a point and failing. Great job.

 

In the spirit of your thread title-"Sorry, Alex Murillo, but homosexual attraction is a choice".

I believe you'll find that written into the DNA are the instructions for continuing the species by continuing the self.

Therefore heterosexuality attraction is NOT a choice. You don't HAVE to choose to be heterosexual.

But to be homosexual, you have to make a choice (rarely conscious, but usually going on in the roil of psychological issues often having to do with the inability to accept the opposite sex due to abnormal factors). And your choice can override the tendency that the DNA insists upon.

The only "true" homosexuals therefore, are those in which the DNA has been unnaturally thrown out of balance and it really ISN'T clear as to whether this person is male or female. I believe that at this extreme point of DNA confusion, the actual sexual organs will show some abnormal characteristics, such as a penis next to an unformed, but unmistakeable beginning of vaginal opening.

Obviously there aren't a whole bunch of these folks.

I think you'll find that with further research.

Of course some scientists will come up with something pretty soon that they'll call a 'homosexual gene', which won't be able to be shown to CAUSE homosexuality, but may most often ACCOMPANY the desire (not 'cause the desire') to have sex with the same sex.

You are of course correct about everything else in your post, John.

 

Then tell me what you believe. Is a virgin is heterosexual or homosexual?

 

consciously choose to engage in homosexual behavior =/= consciously choosing homosexuality over heterosexuality or vice versa.

In other words, if you as a straight person attracted exclusively to women were presented with the option of having sex with a man, you would base your rejection on your personal attraction. You wouldn't consciously choose heterosexuality over homosexuality. You'd consciously choose to reject what you don't find attractive.

 

No (and this is just semantics), I'm saying that the statement is not true because it's too broad. I think you're both (mostly) correct in your intent.

I'm guessing if you used a more specific term, there would be no difference of opinion. (guessing) ​

 

I love my sibling who is my brother. I have slept with him. I have kissed him. I have hugged him and I have felt emotion with him. This is love of the same sex.

I have never boinked him.

Therefore my relationship with him is not homosexual.

If I start boinking him regularly, my relationship with him is homosexual.

Conclusion: the entire identity of homosexuality is the existence of sex and not of love.

Without sex, homosexuality is brotherly love.

 

If you were sexually attracted to him (brother or not) that would make you homosexual.

 

Missing/required premise: one cannot be homosexual if he does not engage in homosexual intercourse.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

So much for your theory.

 

Nah. I'm betting you could cross that line a dozen different ways without actually boinking him. Give it a try...​

 

If you define homosexuality by the "sexual behavior" definition, which you agreed is a choice, then homosexuality most certainly is a choice, regardless of who it's referencing.

For those folks, homosexuality most certainly is a choice.

Depends on how you define "homosexuality".

I didn't change my position.

 

But If I decided to have sex with a man (for example, for a large sum of money), I wouldn't base my acceptance around my personal attraction. I would conciously choose to accept that which I don't find attractive. I would conciously be choosing to engage in sexual behavior with a member of my own sex. That means I am conciously choosing homosexuality.

 

Sure it would.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Not necessarily. I could have been offered a large sum of money to do it.

 

False dichotomy. The virgin could also be bisexual or asexual.

 

Do you agree you would be choosing homosexual (adj.) intercourse, but you'd still be heterosexual (n.)?​

 

So your answer is, A Virgin does not know what they are until they have their first sexual experience. Regardless of attraction.



I'm trying to find where you stand, no matter how much you twist and squirm.

 

double post

 

Yes, but then you are doing the "Act" for money and not because you are sexually attracted to men.

 

Quote Originally Posted by r3000 View Post
So you believe that Homosexuality/Heterosexuality is defined as action only. And not desire?

Yes it is......

 

Dr Righteous, I have to ask you this question.



Are you Homosexual?

 

Yes. But I'd also be homosexual (n) for engaging in homosexual (adj) intercourse.

 

No, I'm exclusively heterosexual.