Homosexuality is a Choice According to Science

[Baltic_Pagan]

Because for me there is no right woman.. I am not interested in women, I find the vagina sexually repulsive, and nothing can change that and I shouldn't have to change who I am.

most men are not attracted to the vagina they just put their genitals in thinking of other things

[Óttar]

This coming from a chick who says she's pagan, but believes in Christian creationism.

[arcticwolf]

I can see how confused you are. Well if you knew about mind's continuity and the rebirth concept, you would understand how that works. If you keep your mind stiff and attached to other concepts you will never have a clue. It's not genetic and it's not a choice it's a mindset. It's what mind's self image is, but that has roots far beyond this very life. If you assume that you live just once and there is no continuity, then forget understanding it, you won't. Why do you worry about them anyhow, let them be. I don't care what they do in the bedroom as long as they don't force it on me, or anybody else. It's the militant ones I have issue with.

[Svipdag]

Why would any sane person choose a lifestyle which would expose him to
ridicule, disgust, revulsion, scorn, detestation, and hatred ? If it is a choice, why do some homosexuals , upon discovering their nature, become so distressed as to attempt or even commit suicide ?

If they could have "chosen" otherwise, why would men have risked burning at the stake in 16th century England or hanging or beheading in 21st century Iran or Indonesia ? Has any homosexual ever admitted or agreed that he had "chosen" to be homosexual ? Has any homosexual even claimed to remember having chosen to be homosexual ?


"QVOD VOLVMVS FACILE CREDIMVS"

[Sikeliot]

Has any homosexual ever admitted or agreed that he had "chosen" to be homosexual ?

Only in select circumstances, i.e. people who identify as pansexual, women who were raped and are untrustworthy of men and turn to women for companionship, etc.

[Sarmatian]

... it's not...

It is a subconscious choice defined by your development from very beginning of your life. Every little detail is important: the way your mother feed you, cared about you, emotions she expressed on you, the role of your father and other males and females in your upbringing. Some minor accident when you are 1 or 5 years old may completely redefine your sexuality.

But homosexuality is the most complex out of all deviations of sexual development. It can be seen from attitude towards same(SS) and opposite(OS) sex.

SS - neutral, OS - attracted = Heterosexual
SS - neutral, OS - neutral or denial = Asexual
SS - attracted, OS - attracted = Bisexual
SS - attracted, OS - neutral or denial = Homosexual

As you can see it takes only one change to turn Hetero into Asexual or Bisexual and two changes to turn into Homosexual. Thus homosexuality is not one but two different deviations.

From my observations I can say homosexuals hate themselves much more than an average person. I tend to think the main reason for that is the parental role of a male and female in their upbringing. It can be changed and I've met people who actually did it. Its very hard as it involve a huge emotional stress only few can handle but its possible.

[Stefan]

I don't believe there is absolutely no genetic predisposition. At the same time the genetic contribution is certainly not 1:1, which is why if there is a genetic contribution it doesn't die out with the homosexual population. There are probably a multitude of factors, many of which have been explained in this thread. Almost every psychological or developmental status does have a genetic predisposition to it. It's not a matter of 100% vs 0%; it could be a matter of 2% more likely, or 2% less likely. Usually it would be a contribution of many different genes as well, making the trait polygenic, like skin color. I think other factors are just as important as the genetic predisposition, such as pre-natal and child development. In the end, I doubt it is a conscious choice. Possibly a subconscious one (which isn't much of a choice) and I'm not entirely closed to the idea that one might possibly, with a LOT of effort, change their sexuality, and even if they tried they probably won't be able to. I don't think it really changes much. A homosexual didn't decide one day he/she wanted to be homosexual in the same way a heterosexual didn't decide one day that he/she wanted to be a heterosexual.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Subconscious choice?

I thought that there were studies which showed that homosexual men tended to come from larger families (on the female side) which suggests that any genetic component is linked to increased fertility in women.

A new model has been proposed to explain the evolutionary origin and maintenance of male homosexuality in human populations in the context of Darwinian Evolution by invoking the idea of sexually antagonistic selection. This was proposed in an article released on June 17, 2008 in the open access journal PLoS ONE.

Homosexuality in males is widely considered to be influenced by factors that are both psychosocial and genetic. The latter is suggested by a few items. Namely, the high correlation of sexual orientation in identical twins points to a genetic component. Additionally, there is a higher frequency of homosexuality in males who belong to a maternal line of male homosexuals. These same effects have not, however, been shown for female homosexuality -- so these two phenomena very likely have different origins and dynamics.

This report, written by an Italian research team made up of Andrea Camperio Ciani and Giovanni Zanzotto at the University of Padova and Paolo Cermelli at the University of Torino, explores a number of different hypotheses for the potential genetic basis of male homosexuality. These included: the genetic maternal effect on sons; the heterozygote advantage, such as in malarial resistance, in which hybrids for a trait have desirable traits; and sexually antagonistic selection.

Under Darwinian evolutionary models, genes that are passed on to offspring are preserved or amplified in the population while those that do not decrease in frequency. Generally, homosexual males reproduce less than heterosexual males, so a genetic basis for male homosexuality is difficult to explain. However, work published in 2004 by Camperio Ciani and collaborators indicated that females in the maternal line of male homosexuals were more fertile than other women.

This led the team to consider sexually antagonistic selection to provide an explanation. In this type of selection, a reproductive advantage is experienced by one sex while a reproductive disadvantage occurs in the other sex. Previously, this sort of evolution has been documented in insects, birds, and some mammals, but it has never been seen in humans.

A large set of models were examined by the researchers and excluded individually if they implied that alleles would go extinct too easily or overtake the population. The paper concluded that the only model that fit the empirical data was based on sexually antagonistic selection, based in particular on two genes, at least one of which must be on the X chromosome, which determines the maternal genes in male babies. This model implies that there is an interaction between male homosexuality and increased female fertility. This complex dynamic results in the maintenance of male homosexuality at a stable but low frequency, as well as a hereditary effect on male homosexuality through the female line.

This model could potentially change the focus of opinions on male homosexuality. For instance, perhaps homosexuality should not be seen as a trait that is detrimental to a population because of the reduced male reproduction it implies, but rather in context of providing gender specific benefits by promoting female fertility. This could be an explanation for the evolutionary origin of this genetic trait in humans.

Sexually antagonistic characteristics are only just being widely recognized in the human population. It is understood as one of the key mechanisms by which higher levels of genetic variation can be maintained in populations. This could be the first example of many potentially sexually antagonistic traits to be found in humans. This in particular could help create better understanding of the many genetically based sexual conflicts in humans, most of which are as of yet unexplained.

Notably, if the genetic mechanism behind male homosexuality is as described in this model, there are interesting implications on the overall fertility of a population. That is, the proportion of male homosexuals in a population could signal a corresponding proportion of females with higher fecundity -- this alone could account for a positive net increase in the fertility of a whole population when compared to populations without such a system. This increase will become higher as the population baseline fertility decreases, meaning that these genes could provide a buffering effect on factors that would otherwise lower the overall fertility of a population.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111843.php

I do not remember choosing to be homosexual. I just remember developing different feelings at puberty, and indeed before.

most men are not attracted to the vagina they just put their genitals in thinking of other things

What? Is this true?

[Partiasn]

There seems to be alot of people getting banned on this board?

Is there a reason for this?

Is there some sort of Moderator Bord or discussion on this?

I mean Skadi seems to largely ban people they don't like, but even there it takes some sort of real offense to get one banned?

Seems we have some topics that are "Off Limits" for discussion?

If so then those topics should be listed and the term "Free Speech Forum" should not be used.

[Fortis in Arduis]

There seems to be alot of people getting banned on this board?

Is there a reason for this?

Baltic_Pagan was likely anything but.