Ugh, how do people stand having a discussion that ends up being such an ad hominem fest of mudslinging.

I would offer my input but ... well ... what's the point?

Glory Days wrote:

pnhasbeen wrote:

SQ_Crazies wrote: Without a doubt it's a choice.

There are a few guys I've known since I was 4 or 5 years old who are gay and from what I've learned it's a choice for sure. They weren't born that way. Saying they were born that way is just what they came up with to try to make it seem more acceptable and judging from the poll a lot of people are gullible. I don't have a problem with a gay people, they are what they are--but shit like this pisses me off. They shouldn't have to come up with reasons to be more socially acceptable (like saying they were born that way) to be able to fit in. Who gives a shit what they're doing on their own time and for all the guys who make fun of gay dudes--you're a douche bag. All that means is there is more pussy out there for you and take full advantage of having your gay friend hook you up with some every once in awhile.

So tell me...at what age did you decide that your attraction to dick wasn't as great as your attraction to vagina?

were you born with the ability to know which girls are attractive and which girls arent? its funny how what people think is attractive today, wasnt attractive 50 or 100 years ago. which gene accounts for that? can you tell me at what age you determined what type of girl you like? just because people cant remember when they DEVELOPED an attraction to guys or girls, doesnt mean they were born with it.

if people are born gay, why arent all identical twins both gay? why is it that only about half the time both are gay?

Ok I see your argument. It makes sense, but how is comparing which parts of a woman are attractive to which sex you are attracted to viable?

I'm not saying gay/straight is 100% born with, but I never made a choice as to if I like woman or men. It was woman from the beginning. If I never had an internal battle over the choice how are we to assume gay people do?

Again, I think, like most things, it is a mixture of it all.

pnhasbeen wrote: Ok I see your argument. It makes sense, but how is comparing which parts of a woman are attractive to which sex you are attracted to viable?

I'm not saying gay/straight is 100% born with, but I never made a choice as to if I like woman or men. It was woman from the beginning. If I never had an internal battle over the choice how are we to assume gay people do?

Again, I think, like most things, it is a mixture of it all.

Finally, a rational argument with which I can interact.

And quite honestly, I think you're right.

I think the official statistic, last I saw, was that 47% of the time when one identical twin is gay, the other is as well. Don't quote me, though. It's been years since I've looked at those stats, and they may be out of date. Still you can draw a couple things from that.

That percentage is too low for the case to be that gay people are simply born that way, so that it cannot be that it is as natural as people born left-handed.

However, that number is also too high, I think, to suggest that it is "choice" in the way we use the term. People don't volunteer to be gay. It doesn't appear to be a conscious, volitional choice.

I have a feeling it lies somewhere in the middle, as you suggest. I would compare it, maybe, to someone having an addictive nature. Such a person is not forced to become addicted to something, but they are more predisposed to it than the average person.

Another case would be the nurture argument, which poses that some children are more predisposed to becoming gay as a result of their upbringing. However, that also does not suggest that it is genetic.

All in all, I do not think that it is genetic. Too many problems with that philosophy. However, I don't think it is a choice either, as "choice" implies volition and intention, and I don't think those who are gay have become so on purpose.

hang_loose wrote: GeneralsIcer89, Are his bar room brawls from attacks because he is gay or just because he is a biker?
If you have been to biker bars, fights are actually pretty rare. Is he in a club(gang)?

Its funny sometimes when people say he's a biker or a guy (girl) come in wearing all leather makes him tough! Some can write a check and cash it and some can't.


There are a lot of people who ride bikes (Harleys) that don't consider themselves "bikers". You wouldn't believe the amount of above middle class people who ride "bikes".

Anyway if he is gay, more power to him.

I actually don't know if he's in a club or not. I know he's beaten a few guys up, been in knife fights, etc., however. His scars say that much. He's likely in a club, but I don't know it for sure.

O-Trap wrote:

pnhasbeen wrote: Ok I see your argument. It makes sense, but how is comparing which parts of a woman are attractive to which sex you are attracted to viable?

I'm not saying gay/straight is 100% born with, but I never made a choice as to if I like woman or men. It was woman from the beginning. If I never had an internal battle over the choice how are we to assume gay people do?

Again, I think, like most things, it is a mixture of it all.

Finally, a rational argument with which I can interact.

And quite honestly, I think you're right.

I think the official statistic, last I saw, was that 47% of the time when one identical twin is gay, the other is as well. Don't quote me, though. It's been years since I've looked at those stats, and they may be out of date. Still you can draw a couple things from that.

That percentage is too low for the case to be that gay people are simply born that way, so that it cannot be that it is as natural as people born left-handed.

However, that number is also too high, I think, to suggest that it is "choice" in the way we use the term. People don't volunteer to be gay. It doesn't appear to be a conscious, volitional choice.

I have a feeling it lies somewhere in the middle, as you suggest. I would compare it, maybe, to someone having an addictive nature. Such a person is not forced to become addicted to something, but they are more predisposed to it than the average person.

Another case would be the nurture argument, which poses that some children are more predisposed to becoming gay as a result of their upbringing. However, that also does not suggest that it is genetic.

All in all, I do not think that it is genetic. Too many problems with that philosophy. However, I don't think it is a choice either, as "choice" implies volition and intention, and I don't think those who are gay have become so on purpose.

I have never looked at the stats, frankly because I don't give a damn, but would those stats be skewed based on identical or fraternal twins? I would like to see stats on identical twins being gay or not. That could give us a good indication.

And I agree about it's not a choice in the way we think of a choice.

O-Trap wrote: Finally, a rational argument with which I can interact.

And quite honestly, I think you're right.

I think the official statistic, last I saw, was that 47% of the time when one identical twin is gay, the other is as well. Don't quote me, though. It's been years since I've looked at those stats, and they may be out of date. Still you can draw a couple things from that.

That percentage is too low for the case to be that gay people are simply born that way, so that it cannot be that it is as natural as people born left-handed.

However, that number is also too high, I think, to suggest that it is "choice" in the way we use the term. People don't volunteer to be gay. It doesn't appear to be a conscious, volitional choice.

I have a feeling it lies somewhere in the middle, as you suggest. I would compare it, maybe, to someone having an addictive nature. Such a person is not forced to become addicted to something, but they are more predisposed to it than the average person.

Another case would be the nurture argument, which poses that some children are more predisposed to becoming gay as a result of their upbringing. However, that also does not suggest that it is genetic.

All in all, I do not think that it is genetic. Too many problems with that philosophy. However, I don't think it is a choice either, as "choice" implies volition and intention, and I don't think those who are gay have become so on purpose.

thats basically what i have been saying. its not born with, but something that is developed/nutured/conditioned, however you want to call it, at a very young age when our brains are still developing etc and choice ,as we know as adults now, doesnt exist yet.

pnhasbeen wrote: I have never looked at the stats, frankly because I don't give a damn, but would those stats be skewed based on identical or fraternal twins? I would like to see stats on identical twins being gay or not. That could give us a good indication.

And I agree about it's not a choice in the way we think of a choice.

I did look at the stats when i first brought up identical twins a few posts ago. i believe identical twins with one gay twin happens about just over 50%, like maybe 52 or 53. Fraternal twins on the other hand are around 22% one being gay.

I agree the numbers for identical twins don't support either argument. I would, however, point out that a lot is not understood about biology and genetics. Identical twins do not always share the same preferences and personality, which is what is implied when people say both should be gay or not gay closer to 100% of the time. It's entirely possible chemical reactions in our brain, the "forming" of that personaility if you will, has a degree of randomness. For example, take two people predisposed to alcoholism and it is not a certainty that both will develop it, all else equal. Being born with a predisposition that is formed at a very very early age would not be a choice and entirely consistent with the twin data.

Also, whether you believe environment is sometimes or always a factor, being conditioned does not qualify as choice, either.

More recent studies have shown identical twins are both born gay in excess of 70%, but even at the figures of 50+% that makes it occur 5 times more often than in singular births.

pnhasbeen wrote:
I have never looked at the stats, frankly because I don't give a damn, but would those stats be skewed based on identical or fraternal twins? I would like to see stats on identical twins being gay or not. That could give us a good indication.

And I agree about it's not a choice in the way we think of a choice.

That is a good point to make. Identical twins share 100% of their genetics but fraternal only share 50% which means they may not get the gay gene.

I do believe it can be conditioning in some cases though also.

zhon44622 wrote: More recent studies have shown identical twins are both born gay in excess of 70%, but even at the figures of 50+% that makes it occur 5 times more often than in singular births.

That is interesting. I agree it lends more to the biological argument than the choice argument. And it's entirely possible that not being closer to 100% is due to other factors that can have an impact. That other 30% could be living in denial, or they could trend bisexual but due to societal pressures do not act on the tendency or even consider themselves anything other than straight.

I might also question the stats about 10% of people being gay. Just saying the question elicits such strong reaction in some people that I would bet money some people with homosexual or bi tendencies would still be reluctant to admit that even on an anonymous survey.

gut wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: More recent studies have shown identical twins are both born gay in excess of 70%, but even at the figures of 50+% that makes it occur 5 times more often than in singular births.

That is interesting. I agree it lends more to the biological argument than the choice argument. And it's entirely possible that not being closer to 100% is due to other factors that can have an impact. That other 30% could be living in denial, or they could trend bisexual but due to societal pressures do not act on the tendency or even consider themselves anything other than straight.

I might also question the stats about 10% of people being gay. Just saying the question elicits such strong reaction in some people that I would bet money some people with homosexual or bi tendencies would still be reluctant to admit that even on an anonymous survey.

not sure about the study zhon44622 stated, but the ones i read also talked about a flaw in the study because of how they got their participants. they felt that maybe the twins that were more open about their homosexuality would be more willing to take part in the study than others.

gut wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: More recent studies have shown identical twins are both born gay in excess of 70%, but even at the figures of 50+% that makes it occur 5 times more often than in singular births.

That is interesting. I agree it lends more to the biological argument than the choice argument. And it's entirely possible that not being closer to 100% is due to other factors that can have an impact. That other 30% could be living in denial, or they could trend bisexual but due to societal pressures do not act on the tendency or even consider themselves anything other than straight.

I might also question the stats about 10% of people being gay. Just saying the question elicits such strong reaction in some people that I would bet money some people with homosexual or bi tendencies would still be reluctant to admit that even on an anonymous survey.

Agree totally, I know of numerous people who have CHOSE to live a "straight" life, however, I am yet to know a single person who chose to live a "gay" life.

Glory Days wrote:

gut wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: More recent studies have shown identical twins are both born gay in excess of 70%, but even at the figures of 50+% that makes it occur 5 times more often than in singular births.

That is interesting. I agree it lends more to the biological argument than the choice argument. And it's entirely possible that not being closer to 100% is due to other factors that can have an impact. That other 30% could be living in denial, or they could trend bisexual but due to societal pressures do not act on the tendency or even consider themselves anything other than straight.

I might also question the stats about 10% of people being gay. Just saying the question elicits such strong reaction in some people that I would bet money some people with homosexual or bi tendencies would still be reluctant to admit that even on an anonymous survey.

not sure about the study zhon44622 stated, but the ones i read also talked about a flaw in the study because of how they got their participants. they felt that maybe the twins that were more open about their homosexuality would be more willing to take part in the study than others.

These are not "studies" they are a single question (hetero/homo/bi) derived from a more extensive study of twins and behavior, not sexuality.

A question I would have is if this is a choice, then why would a teenager who is yet to become sexually active decide to commit suicide for being gay, as opposed to just chose to be straight?

zhon44622 wrote: A question I would have is if this is a choice, then why would a teenager who is yet to become sexually active decide to commit suicide for being gay, as opposed to just chose to be straight?

why would any teenager commit suicide for any reason before experiencing anything in life?

Glory Days wrote:

zhon44622 wrote: A question I would have is if this is a choice, then why would a teenager who is yet to become sexually active decide to commit suicide for being gay, as opposed to just chose to be straight?

why would any teenager commit suicide for any reason before experiencing anything in life?

Thats responding to question with a question, not answering it.

Homosexual youth who have yet to even act on such instincts are 3-4 times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth due to ridicule, harassment, and fear of abandonment of their families. If its a choice then would not be too simple to just chose to change?