Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process. If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism). So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications?I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:
Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."What are your thoughts, counter evidence (but not inflammatory or insulting responses)?Edited by lokiare, : Grammar.

Thread copied here from the Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Both. As a believer, I think that homosexual gender attraction is not a choice. It is also not a sin. It just is.Homosexual behavior, however, is a choice.The debate centers on rights vs. responsibilities.I can understand the secular argument that in essence says that no religion nor belief should legislate human morality. So in that context, and on behalf of a secular government, I advocate choice, consensus, and personal responsibility regarding behavior within society.As a believer, I will say that I believe that many inborn traits of humanity....whatever they may be...are something we are born with, but have a responsibility to control.If humans simply behaved according to biological urges, we wouldn't have that good of a society.

As I recall, the Constitution goes to some lengths to protect my right to make my own choices.I'd say that if meat folks began persecuting veggie folks (denying them equal access to marriage, housing, employment, etc.), then vegetarianism would need to be "protected under the law."Could you explain why only those aspecst of human life that are seen as biologically determined should be protected against persecution and bigotry? Under your rubric, religious liberty would suffer considerable harm.

Why are some religious folks so worried about homosexuality anyway?What business is it of theirs/yours?

Putting all academic, scientific and philosophical arguments aside for the moment, let me set you a challenge.For me to win this challenge I'm relying on the probability of you being a heterosexual - and that you are male.Go to any gay porn site. Do it late at night, possibly after you've had a beer or two and see if you can get an erection "by choice".I've tried this and it doesn't work for me, but I'm a sample of one, so maybe it's not representative. (But I'm betting it is).Report back and give us the result. (This is one experiment that you CAN try at home.)

Well, gay people can still make babies. When a gay man puts his penis into a lesbian's vagina... well, I'm sure you know how babies are made. Sexual attraction sure feels biological to me. I mean, when my girlfriend gets naked in front of me, I just start getting an erection. I don't think about it. I don't choose it. It just happens. No, not necessarily. Why? Or like, say, your religion? And if its a result of your environment, then it isn't necessarily a choice. If you get hit by a car and you're disabled, then that wasn't a choice. But will still make sure businesses have an entrance ramp so you can wheel yourself in there, despite the fact that you were a product of your environment. Society is going the route of it legally being a protected class, like race or gender. What evidence for homosexuality being a choice and being an environmental condition does that link have? I'll need to see evidence, as opposed to a bare link, to figure out what kind of counter-evidence you'll need.

It's not a dominant genetic trait, is it? By your naive reasoning, we'd also be rid of sickle-cell anemia. One could say the same of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms ...And your right to be vegetarian is protected under the law. If you're a vegetarian, and someone tries to force a beefsteak down your throat, that's assault. Ah, freerepublic, the source of all knowledge ...

There have actually been several studies on this topic. I provided a few links below, but to summarize:There is a selection component for homosexuality when you factor in social constructs of species. So far as I understand, homosexuality exists in species that have a social component to their organizational makeup; i.e. they live and work in groups.The selective advantage of homosexuality can often be summed up by the 'Gay Uncle' notion. In a situation where a specific family has a gene or specific disposition to produce gay offspring, the likelihood of that offspring surviving increases because of the added benefit of having an additional male member of the group protecting a sibling's offspring. This can be expanded on to include the 'Lesbian Aunt' notion where a gay female member can assist in child rearing.An important notion to remember: homosexuality has been observed in species outside of the human race. Macaque monkeys are a good example. Which means it is both natural and must have some specific evolutionary advantage.Links:Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality | New Scientisthttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...s/PMC1691850/pdf/15539346.pdfhttp://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/.../evo%20homosexual%20review.pdf

well if you take a the human species as an example for the past 1000 or more years just about everywhere on the planet gays where killed, tortured and or imprisoned. So naturaly people hid their sexuality, got married and had kids to show see im not gay im just in touch with my feminine side LOL. So all that fighting against gays probably increased the gay population in humans.As fare as gay animals go, take a look at bees or ants most of their population cannot breed yet they still exist as they serve a purpose in their social structure, gays in a wolfpack for instance increase the odds of their siblings surviving, as they have a strong male member that will not weaken the pack with fights over females. and even though they do not pass their genes on directly their closest relatives do more often and a proportion of them will be gay, as we know its not a gene itself that determines "gayness" it also has to do with the environment the genes just increase the chance. It is a biological process in short during development, a lack of some hormones and possibly other environmental factors influence the development of the part of the brain that determines who you are attracted to. Think you'r brain was wired to find girls/boys attractive its not really a choice if you think it is watch a gay porno and see if you can get a hadron. And i challenge you to watch a gay porno with a couple of your sex, and get aroused by choice. And no cheating by thinking of girls think of men. If you can manage that you are either gay/bisexual or you have a point.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can possibly conclude that sexual attraction is a choice. Unless YOU personally feel attraction for both sexes. Do you? If so, then you are bi-sexual. Whether you acknowledge the fact or not.I do not recall one time in my entire life where I made the deliberate choice not to feel attracted to a person of the same sex. That makes me a heterosexual. I have found many of my sex attractive, but have never felt any desire to take it further than pure appreciation for a beautiful human. Hell, I can't even control the attractions I feel for the opposite sex.

lokiareWhat's your opinion on Intersex people? Do they have a choice about their sexuality? Are Intersex people sinning just by being born Intersex? Are Intersex people being born to be Intersex not a result of genetics?Hope you do realise that the Theory of Evolution can explain Intersex people very well. Genetics.This makes me think that there is a genetically induced rainbow of sexuality stretching from being completely heterosexual through bisexual through homosexual trough to being Intersexed.No choice involved in sexuality.(Before you go off on a tangent, Intersex is not the same as Transexual).Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence "This makes me think that there is a genetically induced rainbow of sexuality stretching from being completely heterosexual through bisexual through homosexual trough to being Intersexed."

Homosexuality sure does fit into the theory of evolution. It's very basic. All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species. That species reproduced both sexually and asexually, depending on the conditions being favourable for asexual reproduction and other conditions being favourable for sexual reproduction.Easy.Now you explain how Intersex people fit into men being poofed into existence and women being taken from a rib of some alledged man and turned into a woman. Please explain the differences in DNA in men and woman that way.

The problem with your theory is that homosexuals don't reproduce, period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Lots of problems with his statement. Apart from the one you noticed; another one is some heterosexual people sometimes do have Intersex children.