you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

"Sexuality" is a desire.

Only if you change meaning of word "desire" to mean something else. In modern day of post-modernism everyone is just changing old words to mean something they want them to mean.

Also, does this mean that homosexuality just don't exist and it is just a preference, a kink?

They do not have the mental capacity to desire something, let alone have a goal. They do anything that's in their way.

They do have mental capacity to undestand a lot of things, they even have morality. Humans are not that special, don't be religious.

Other species do not have "sexualities".

And yet we see homosexual primates, birds, cats and other animals, who are refusing to mate with opposite sex even if they "are on heat" and only want to mate with same sex. Female bonobo even have tribadism among their lesbians, who only want to have sex with other females. If sexuality did not exist, we would not be observing such behaviour in animals and animals would not care with whom they have sex, and yet they do.

The entire point of "born this way" was so homophobes pity openly gay people.

No. It never was. It is just stating the fact. I was born gay, so deal with it.

Does saying "I was born black" is to get open pity from white people? You are making no sense.

That's not the same as sex and height that can not change and one can not choose.

It is same, as we can't chose it. Your own bisexual experience is just your own and it is different to experience of homosexual people. Yet you are calling that "you have chosen to be homosexual" and then "bi"explaining homosexuality to homosexual people and saying that our whole life of experience is just wrong and we actually never had it, but you know better. Just same way as transwomen mansplaining to women what it is to be a woman and how they have chosen to be one.

And you want "sexuality" to be innate so people who have a different view on "sexuality" be labelled as "bigots", as though they are on the same level of "racists".

If my opponents hate something or want something, it does not mean that I love that something and want opposite to what they want.

I am just saying how it is. Why can't I say who I am? I was born gay and it is okay. Does woman caon only be saying that she was born woman only to oppose wokes who are saying that you are chosing to be woman and not being born as one? Obviously no. Same with saying about homosexuality.

Other question is why you so desperately want to be included in group you are not part of and group experience of whom you do not understand? And why do you want to "explain" them how their experience is wrong? If all of them have different experience to yours, maybe you shouldn't apply it to everybody, like your own experience is universal? Don't be so narcissistic.

Also, how exactly society is pushing to be gay? Especially somewhere like in Iran or Taliban, where you will be tortured and then killed for it, for example? Are homosexual people there just liking extreme pain and don't value their own lives?

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The entire point of "born this way" was so homophobes pity openly gay people.

No. It never was. It is just stating the fact. I was born gay, so deal with it.

Way late to this thread but just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to rebut these points, because they are illogical. The idea that sexual orientation has a genetic basis came from science, not from "homophobes pitying openly gay people." That is a ridiculous, science-denying claim. It is simply reality that people are born gay and can't change it; it's not homophobic to acknowledge reality. Like someone else said, strikes me as remarkably similar to the science-denying "political lesbians" concept, which is homophobic.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

There's no science in "sexuality is genetic" sweaties. Every claim on "sexuality" is baseless and there to validate your own opinions. Pack it up

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's no science in "sexuality is genetic" sweaties.

Oh, yes there is. :) Here are my sources, can you show me yours that offer counter-evidence?

J. M. Bailey et al., A family history study of male sexual orientation using three in- dependent samples. Behav. Genet. 29, 79–86 (1999). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1021652204405.pdf

Camperio-Ciani, F. Corna, C. Capiluppi, Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, 2217–2221 (2004). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2004.2872?casa_token=gRKrhyhqZ5gAAAAA:ovt-eM8MUVakT6wqtv7pHyINEOb2IxW0uNb9A5TtdEsG7jke2VeVc7AqzTki8VjpQAuuBMlOGBKY8g

D. H. Hamer, S. Hu, V. L. Magnuson, N. Hu, A. M. Pattatucci, A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261, 321–327 (1993). http://teachline.ls.huji.ac.il/72350/Homosexuality_paper.pdf

Q. Rahman et al., Maternal inheritance and familial fecundity factors in male ho- mosexuality. Arch. Sex. Behav. 37, 962–969 (2008). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-007-9191-2.pdf

S. W. Semenyna, D. P. VanderLaan, L. J. Petterson, P. L. Vasey, Familial patterning and prevalence of male androphilia in Samoa. J. Sex Res. 54, 1077–1084 (2017). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2016.1218416?casa_token=_tKupCTUzmoAAAAA%3AP3UeiA7mB6d3IIGN52bIib5NiMZBJpLcOblQvwq7KaIh9M62ndOkw2aKaPDVjtT4c7vYLuP9ZcNN

G. Schwartz, R. M. Kim, A. B. Kolundzija, G. Rieger, A. R. Sanders, Biodemographic and physical correlates of sexual orientation in men. Arch. Sex. Behav. 39, 93–109 (2010). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-009-9499-1.pdf

D. P. Vanderlaan, D. L. Forrester, L. J. Petterson, P. L. Vasey, The prevalence of fa’afafine relatives among Samoan gynephilic men and fa’afafine. Arch. Sex. Behav. 42, 353–359 (2013). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-012-0015-7.pdf

D. P. Vanderlaan, J. R. Vokey, P. L. Vasey, Is transgendered male androphilia familial in non-Western populations? The case of a Samoan village. Arch. Sex. Behav. 42, 361– 370 (2013). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-012-0037-1.pdf

K. Alanko et al., Common genetic effects of gender atypical behavior in childhood and sexual orientation in adulthood: A study of Finnish twins. Arch. Sex. Behav. 39, 81–92 (2010). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-008-9457-3.pdf

J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne, N. G. Martin, Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 524–536 (2000). https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2000-07236-009.html

K. S. Kendler, L. M. Thornton, S. E. Gilman, R. C. Kessler, Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. Am. J. Psychiatry 157, 1843–1846 (2000). https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1843

K. M. Kirk, J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne, N. G. Martin, Measurement models for sexual orientation in a community twin sample. Behav. Genet. 30, 345–356 (2000). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1026557719181.pdf

N. Långström, Q. Rahman, E. Carlström, P. Lichtenstein, Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Arch. Sex. Behav. 39, 75–80 (2010). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1.pdf

P. Santtila et al., Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biol. Psychol. 77, 102–105 (2008). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051107001433?casa_token=vLVmrfdQdgcAAAAA:cmY1U7xrKUOBfEWtUggbEcAc2MBaijOnxkqBvQp_sUeCgOZ71iHyokB8m2PP04u2AZsqmsU1zw

B. S. Mustanski et al., A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Hum. Genet. 116, 272–278 (2005). https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00439-004-1241-4.pdf

A. R. Sanders et al., Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation. Psychol. Med. 45, 1379–1388 (2015). https://www.shrink-friendly.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sanders_etal_2015.pdf

B. Wang et al., Association analysis between the tag SNP for sonic hedgehog rs9333613 polymorphism and male sexual orientation. J. Androl. 33, 951–954 (2012). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2164/jandrol.110.012849

(much thanks to a former user on this sub who helped me find these!)

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Ah yes, a bunch of pseudo-scientists claiming it's "genetic". Flat earthers have links and "sources" too.

There is a confusion between correlation and "causation" in all the links I bet, as always.

Save that breath. Noone needs "counter-evidence" when you got none. And noone definitely needs evidence for disbelief in your "hypothesis".

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You asked for evidence; I gave you over a dozen peer-reviewed scientific articles; you refuse to read them. You clearly don't give a shit about evidence, lol.

Flat earthers have links and "sources" too.

LOL. You patently reject all links because flat earthers use links, too?? It must be really hard for you to click around on the internet, with so many links, hahaha.

This is the best thing I've seen all day. Happy holidays, troll.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't consider any of those links "scientific". Nor did I ask for "evidence", because I know there is none.

Happy holidays (: