Pawlenty plays it safe — but smart — on homosexuality

posted at 6:35 pm on July 10, 2011 by Tina Korbe

GOP presidential hopeful and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said today he’s not sure whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. Political Ticker reports:

“As I understand the science, there’s no current conclusion that it’s genetic,” Pawlenty said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Saying he preferred to “defer to the scientists” about the issue, the former Minnesota governor said it was unclear if being gay or lesbian was a lifestyle choice.

“There’s no scientific conclusion that it’s genetic. We don’t know that. So, we don’t know to what extent it’s behavioral,” Pawlenty said. “That’s something that has been debated by scientists for a long time.”

T-Paw didn’t pass on the chance to reiterate his support for traditional marriage, however. He phrased his views positively, emphasizing that he is a proponent of marriage between one man and one woman and saying simply, “I have not supported the issues of allowing gay couples to have the same benefits in public employment as traditional couples.”

Political Ticker and other news outlets framed Pawlenty’s remarks as a “punt,” but, from where I sit, he answered the question the only way he could have. So far, science has not conclusively established homosexuality as a genetic predisposition. Given that Pawlenty presumably disapproves of gay behavior, what did he have to gain by either absolving gay couples of responsibility for that behavior or blatantly accusing them of poor choices?

Conversely, he did have something to gain by making a statement in support of traditional marriage — an institution his base likewise values and wants to see protected. (Keep in mind just 28 percent of Republicans think same-sex marriage should be legal and just 25 percent of conservatives hold that view.) Perhaps Pawlenty played it safe, but, primarily, he played it smart.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I have to find this Summer’s gullible, trusting and eager-to-learn child to convert. I better get on that, or this time they might revoke my choice to be a homosexual.

JetBoy on July 10, 2011 at 8:00 PM

You can yuck it up all you want, Jet, but just telling kids that any same-sex feelings means that they were born homosexual is part of the problem. Of course, the other part of the problem is the rest of society pushing them into it by more or less declaring the same thing.
Though that is separate from the child abusers, it still contributes.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Laughing about such a devastating issue is indicative of the lack of moral bearings already revealed in your homosexuality, Jetboy.
For multitudes of tragically afflicted homosexuals, it all started with a molestation.
For others, lack of a father figure, coupled with feminine traits derived from that lack, lead many to believe they are homosexual. Teasing from some & encouragement in that direction from others can be very convincing: “I must be homosexual.”
It’s not a laughing matter.

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM

There’s no homo gene, but some people are born with variations in their sexual orientation.

Dandapani on July 10, 2011 at 8:22 PM

That’s the thing tho…I didn’t “learn” homosexuality as a kid. Those “feelings” were there already, especially through puberty.

But alas, when did you have “the talk” with a hetero…thus deciding to be straight? Gotta figure, by your logic, we aren’t born into our sexual preference…

JetBoy on July 10, 2011 at 8:18 PM

It’s something you learned — largely through a reenforcing feedback loop. You didn’t have to have someone to teach them too you, though it’s likely that the various social structures set up by the gay paradigm contributed to you choosing to give up on having a family and devoting yourself to gay sex.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2011 at 8:23 PM

As this post at TownHall explains in simple & profound fashion, it doesn’t really matter if you were “Born This Way”:
http://townhall.com/columnists/andrewtallman/2008/07/31/five_logical_errors_of_the_born_gay_ideology

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Haven’t found a new home I like yet…staying with a friend in the meantime. Ugh, I never wanna go through this again, my poor doggie and kitties.
JetBoy on July 10, 2011 at 8:18 PM

I hear you..Moving is a pain for sure..Esp hard on pets..I wish you luck..I think you will like it once you get a crib..:)

Dire Straits on July 10, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Teasing from some & encouragement in that direction from others can be very convincing: “I must be homosexual.”
itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Indeed. I’m sure the hazing is a big factor, including the equivalent behavior of fathers who want to “toughen up” sons that don’t seem as “manly” as they remember themselves being.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2011 at 8:34 PM

But alas, when did you have “the talk” with a hetero…thus deciding to be straight? Gotta figure, by your logic, we aren’t born into our sexual preference…

JetBoy on July 10, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Well, that’s a senseless question there.

We are a heterosexual species. Homosexuality is behavioral, not sexual. One does not reproduce with the intestinal tract, to be specific.

You seem to have bought the Leftwing socio-political deceit that there are “two distinct sexualities” as if heterosexuality was but one option with homosexuality (that is, that, so your statement suggests, you perceive homosexual behaviors as normal, equivalent by default with heterosexuality, which is not the case but it IS what you’ve been led to believe, unfortunately, by someone at some time. Cultural affects can be powerful influences, granted, but that also is how behaviors, even damaging and abnormal ones, can be construed to be acceptable, using various cultural/socio-political propaganda.

Lourdes on July 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Lourdes on July 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Go back to your lair and stop commenting on things you know nothing about.

katy the mean old lady on July 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Have you sobered up?

OmahaConservative on July 10, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Go back to your lair and stop commenting on things you know nothing about.

katy the mean old lady on July 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Guys, I have neither the time nor the inclination to babysit threads. Reduce the personal nastiness, please, and stick to substantive comments.

Allahpundit on July 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM

That reminds me…I have to find this Summer’s gullible, trusting and eager-to-learn child to convert. I better get on that, or this time they might revoke my choice to be a homosexual.

JetBoy on July 10, 2011 at 8:00 PM

If you fall behind in your quota, do you get suspended, or something? How does that work?

BTW: Glad you’re settling in – hope you find a place soon!

massrighty on July 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Go back to your lair and stop commenting on things you know nothing about.

katy the mean old lady on July 10, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Guys, I have neither the time nor the inclination to babysit threads. Reduce the personal nastiness, please, and stick to substantive comments.

Allahpundit on July 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM

AP, you knew she was a mean old lady when she signed up!

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

massrighty on July 10, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Sour-mash influenced formatting…

massrighty on July 10, 2011 at 8:56 PM

To be fair, you guys deride science and scientists all the time. What gives about you demanding “scientific proof” when all over scientific work gets dismissed?

ernesto on July 10, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Without unassailable proof of his birth, and not some photoshopped fake of a birth certificate, how will we ever know?

But, of one thing I am certain, Obama’s lies and deceits are far more destructive to our country than what a bunch of girly boys or bully girls do or want to do with their own lives.

TXUS on July 10, 2011 at 7:57 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59624694/Presentation-The-American-Typewriter-Obama-Long-Form-Birth-Certificate-Forged-By-Paul-Irey-Type-Face-Expert

Lon Chaney on July 10, 2011 at 9:27 PM

It’s something you learned — largely through a reenforcing feedback loop. You didn’t have to have someone to teach them too you, though it’s likely that the various social structures set up by the gay paradigm contributed to you choosing to give up on having a family and devoting yourself to gay sex.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2011 at 8:23 PM

I see.

If you don’t want to create a family or marry somebody, you must be “devoting yourself to gay sex” and were influenced by the “gay paradigm.”

That explains straight couples not wanting to start families or not marrying.

Makes perfect sense.

For those unaware, animals engage in homosexual behavior, no matter what the “nurture not nature” crowd claims.

Must be the “gay agenda” at work setting up cultural paradigms and propaganda feedback loops.

Good Lt on July 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM

I see.

If you don’t want to create a family or marry somebody, you must be “devoting yourself to gay sex” and were influenced by the “gay paradigm.”

That explains straight couples not wanting to start families or not marrying.

Makes perfect sense.

Good Lt on July 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Sure does! Us singles ALL are secretly gay!

/s

That was some of the stupidest, shallowest, pseudo-scientific homophobic blither I’ve ever read on HA.

Uncle Sams Nephew on July 10, 2011 at 10:15 PM

The real question Republican candidates should ask is why must something that has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years need to be re-defined?

Why don’t the progressives and gay supporters want to come up with a word that defines a union between two people of the same sex? If L. Ron Hubbard can create a religion, the LGBT should do the same.

RedRobin145 on July 10, 2011 at 10:25 PM

For those unaware, animals engage in homosexual behavior, no matter what the “nurture not nature” crowd claims.

Good Lt on July 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Dolphins rape each other.
Chimp gangs beat other gangs’ members to death for no reason.
Some birds murder their siblings while they’re still chicks in the nest.
Just because it’s in nature doesn’t make it right.

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Well, as a gay reader and big fan of Hot Air, here is what I will say. Pawlenty correctly points out that whether or not a genetic component is a determinant in forming one’s sexual orientation has not been conclusively proven either way. For my part, all I can say is “I don’t know”, as I am not a scientist, biologist, or anything close to it. From experience, I can say I never “had” or “made” a choice in the matter of my sexual orientation. It is not a matter of choice in my experience, but always just a part of my life or my make up as a human being. Genes can determine our eye color, handedness, aptitude for certain skills and myriad other parts of us. It’s anything but far-fetched to believe that a “showtune gene” could play a role here. I would feel as helpless in trying to “change” my sexuality as I would in trying to “change” my eye color. I could wear contacts, and I could abstain from sex (perish the thought), but the reality is my eyes would still be the same color under those lenses and I’d still be gay whether or not I had sex with someone of the same or opposite sex. There was never any component of choice in my sexual oritentation, much as most straight people never “made” a choice but simply feel their orientation is a natural part of themselves, and is just always who they have been. However, whether or not human sexuality has a genetic component, I feel would at the end of the day be irrelevant to conservatives in determining the morality or acceptability of homosexuality. Whether their feelings are motivated by religious beliefs or distaste, eliminating the element of choice from the debate might not even change that many minds. My question is, to what end or purpose does T. Paw serve by discussing things like genetic components of sexuality? Well, the statistics say it all– only 25% of conservatives would be in favor of legal rights for same-sex couples, and most are in favor what is known as traditional marriage. I appreciate his right to speak his mind. In the mean time, I am happy to live in New York state which now affords me the same protections and benefits under the law as a married straight couple could have, should I be lucky enough to meet someone to share my life with. Mutual understanding and bridge building always happens on the ground between folks anyway — politicians are always going to show up late either way.

mattyj86 on July 10, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Dolphins rape each other.
Chimp gangs beat other gangs’ members to death for no reason.
Some birds murder their siblings while they’re still chicks in the nest.
Just because it’s in nature doesn’t make it right.

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Most animal homosexual behavior isn’t violent. Female chimps have group orgies. Sometimes birds which mate for life end up with a partner of the same gender. Stuff like that.

Yes we are different from other animals in significant ways, and their huge variety of behaviors are not blueprints for ours. But you can’t say homosexuality isn’t “natural.”

You also can’t say “marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years.” Many societies have had versions of polygamy or group marriage. Some still do. You might believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but you can’t make your argument by claiming it always has always been. It just hasn’t.

YehuditTX on July 10, 2011 at 10:38 PM

Guys, I have neither the time nor the inclination to babysit threads. Reduce the personal nastiness, please, and stick to substantive comments.

Allahpundit on July 10, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Then don’t do so selectively…

Gohawgs on July 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Why don’t the progressives and gay supporters want to come up with a word that defines a union between two people of the same sex?

***

RedRobin145 on July 10, 2011 at 10:25 PM

How about uniage? Pronounce it YOON-yuj.

BuckeyeSam on July 10, 2011 at 10:41 PM

To be fair, you guys deride science and scientists all the time. What gives about you demanding “scientific proof” when all over scientific work gets dismissed?

ernesto on July 10, 2011 at 9:27 PM

To be fair, that’s complete bullhockey.

We deride faux scientists that put political ideology over science and talk about “consensus” rather than facts. I personally respect scientists quite a bit. Particularly those who are not out to make a quick buck pushing snake oil disguised as science.

But then, you already knew that before you decided to troll this thread, didn’t you?

wearyman on July 10, 2011 at 11:00 PM

wearyman on July 10, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Baloney. This site has more than a few evolution deniers, enough to make the general statement that science is not taken seriously here. Studies are routinely dismissed without having been examined, solely because the stated conclusion contradicts the conservative conventional wisdom. Hopefully you just weren’t aware of this population here at Hot Air, and if that’s the case, well now you know. If, as I suspect, you already knew a bunch of “I AM NOT A MONKEY” reside here, why are you covering for them?

ernesto on July 10, 2011 at 11:22 PM

It is not a matter of choice in my experience, but always just a part of my life or my make up as a human being.

Thanks, Matty. I have relatives, co-workers, neighbors and long time friends who are gay. All of them claim that they never “chose” to be that way; they just “were” gay – just as all those who are so disturbed by the notion of homosexuality or gay marriage, etc., never “chose” to be straight. (Or am I incorrect? Did some of you mull it over, test out members of the same sex for a while, and just decided to vote with the majority when it came to sexual preference?)

You may think that this is a small and irrelevant issue – because none of you ever have to worry about not being able to be with your partner when he or she is ill and dying in the hospital, or having to hire attorneys to craft contracts to achieve what a straight person could do simply by saying “I do.”

But what few of you seem to appreciate is that it is quite important in this regard: votes. I know a great many gay folks and friends and relatives of the same who share our views on small government and fiscal responsibility. But, they refuse to vote for a politician who ignores their civil rights or believes that when they love another adult of the same sex that they are somehow doing something perverted and wrong.

Want to elect a Republican next election? Want to get rid of more liberals who will vote to raise your taxes, strengthen unions and force you to buy those crappy, expensive light bulbs? Then keep on mocking and laughing about gay people. I guarantee it’ll be a lot tougher to get any of their votes.

pbundy on July 10, 2011 at 11:32 PM

pbundy on July 10, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Hmm and strange because Christians friends are telling me the same thing. Lose Christian voters. Lose them and then try to win an election.

hawkdriver on July 10, 2011 at 11:50 PM

That’s because it’s not genetic. Both gender AND sexual identity are set during GESTATION and it is easily the biggest wildcard of the whole process. We ALL start out female, then the chemistry converts what were destine to be ovaries, instead into testicles, and they start cranking out testosterone which changes EVERYTHING. The timing of all this is most critical. The female brain is constructed very differently from the male brain, so if you build a female brain for too long then switch over and lay a male brain and body on that over feminized foundation you end up with a “girl brain on testosterone”. And we all know how F’ed up that can be.

But seriously, I’m not trying to be jerk here. Bottom line is, it’s not genetic. And the percentage of sexual identity that is the result of nurture has to be in the single digits. Probably under 5%, if at all. It’s just a glitch during construction, so – you is what you is, and that’s that.

Pole-Cat on July 11, 2011 at 12:42 AM

If it is genetic, then it is undeniably a defect that could have a cure and it should be sought as an option. Also, I imagine most parents choosing IVF treatments would screen out homosexual embryos and discard them, similar to other ailments. I know this thought will drive gays crazy to hear, but its a natural consequence of the loose abortion culture and lax controls on IVF, like creating too many embryos per session for example.

If it is not genetic, then it is certainly a choice. I have seen enough switches from one to another that I know it is a choice for many anyways.

scotash on July 11, 2011 at 1:10 AM

For those unaware, animals engage in homosexual behavior, no matter what the “nurture not nature” crowd claims.

Good Lt on July 10, 2011 at 9:40 PM

And sometimes my dog tries to hump the coffee table. It doesn’t mean he has a genetic attachment to mahogany.

Ronnie on July 11, 2011 at 1:33 AM

Let’s see…one of the latest memes I’ve read from the Left suggests a return to “blame the heterosexual mother” that posits that “uterine fluids” somehow pollute a heterosexual human being in the womb and they – presto – are “born homosexual”.

Homosexuality is a learned behavior. Someone at sometime instructs a gullible, trusting and eager-to-learn human child into a set of behaviors and they grow later while sexually maturing into someone practicing those homosexual behaviors.

To each his own, I suppose, is the going way today socially but the idea that homosexual behaviors somehow produces a new race or third gender of people (calling themselves, “homosexuals” and therefore privy to a full range of specialties amidst societies) is what I earlier referred to (above comments) as one of the Left’s Golden Fiction Calves. It’s sheer nonsense but here we are today, being “required” by many a person engaged in homosexuality into crafting society to adopt that irrational pretense.

Lourdes on July 10, 2011 at 7:57 PM

bazil9 on July 11, 2011 at 2:05 AM

Lordes, you not only disgust me but your embarrassing.

Umm..I grew up in a hell, fire and brimstone house, with NO homosexual influences. Your an idiot. But entertaining, in a bizarre way.

bazil9 on July 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Your an idiot.

bazil9 on July 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Nope. Nothing ironic about that.

Ronnie on July 11, 2011 at 2:37 AM

Both gender AND sexual identity are set during GESTATION…

Pole-Cat on July 11, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Though gender is determined, and heterosexuality is by sheer biology and species, “sexual identity” IS NOT “set during gestation” AS IF IT WAS FLEXIBLE. No such “proof” of “during gestation” for any flexibility or “alternative” of sexuality beyond our sexual reproductive aspects as a species is determined “at gestation”…

My only point all along, earlier and now. All the rumors and wishful ideology (not necessarily from/by you, just saying here, in general) about some sort of “inherent” aspect to homosexual behaviors is fantasy. So far. If and when science ever finds a “gay gene” or some sort of gestational mix that somehow predetermines a heterosexual human being to spring into homosexual behaviors at the age of puberty, well, then, we the public will have the basis of real discussion then but not before. Before and unless that occurs, the homosexual actions by some remain entirely behavioral. That means, individuals make choices to engage in both a sub-culture and a sub-set of behaviors that they are not inherently bound to engage in otherwise. Homosexuality exists in the realm of psychology and/or psychiatry, not biology.

What ^^ science so far tells us.

Lourdes on July 11, 2011 at 2:56 AM

bazil9 on July 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Your an idiot.

bazil9 on July 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Nope. Nothing ironic about that.

Ronnie on July 11, 2011 at 2:37 AM

It’s hardly a surprise that some here are troubled with reality, information that isn’t from the socio-political realm that you find assures your wants more. Whatever influences affected you both as others here, I have no idea, but somewhere, you missed out on learning distinctions among very important aspects of human worth and psychological boundaries and a good portion of socialization.

Lourdes on July 11, 2011 at 3:01 AM

bazil9 on July 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Nope. Nothing ironic about that.

Ronnie on July 11, 2011 at 2:37 AM

It’s hardly a surprise that some here are troubled with reality, information that isn’t from the socio-political realm that you find assures your wants more. Whatever influences affected you both as others here, I have no idea, but somewhere, you missed out on learning distinctions among very important aspects of human worth and psychological boundaries and a good portion of socialization.

Lourdes on July 11, 2011 at 3:01 AM

SORRY, “Ronnie,” did not intend to include you in that.

Lourdes on July 11, 2011 at 3:02 AM

Laughing about such a devastating issue is indicative of the lack of moral bearings already revealed in your homosexuality, Jetboy.
For multitudes of tragically afflicted homosexuals, it all started with a molestation.
For others, lack of a father figure, coupled with feminine traits derived from that lack, lead many to believe they are homosexual. Teasing from some & encouragement in that direction from others can be very convincing: “I must be homosexual.”
It’s not a laughing matter.

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2011 at 8:20 PM

That has to be one of the funniest comments I’ve read here at HA. “tragically afflicted homosexuals”…omg that’s a keeper! “Feminine traits” as a result of a lack of a father figure? You really need to go into comedy.

JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 4:21 AM

You can yuck it up all you want, Jet, but just telling kids that any same-sex feelings means that they were born homosexual is part of the problem. Of course, the other part of the problem is the rest of society pushing them into it by more or less declaring the same thing.
Though that is separate from the child abusers, it still contributes.

Count to 10 on July 10, 2011 at 8:07 PM

What’s a part of the problem is telling gay kids that they aren’t normal, going to hell, or that they can be “fixed”. And telling kids that gay is a “choice”.

It’s nonsense like that which causes so many gay kids to take their lives. What about them? They couldn’t deal with the choice to be gay so badly that suicide was the answer?

JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 4:27 AM

You seem to have bought the Leftwing socio-political deceit that there are “two distinct sexualities” as if heterosexuality was but one option with homosexuality (that is, that, so your statement suggests, you perceive homosexual behaviors as normal, equivalent by default with heterosexuality, which is not the case but it IS what you’ve been led to believe, unfortunately, by someone at some time. Cultural affects can be powerful influences, granted, but that also is how behaviors, even damaging and abnormal ones, can be construed to be acceptable, using various cultural/socio-political propaganda.

Lourdes on July 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

You know, in general I agree with you but your explanations try to hit every point churning in your brain and they end up hard to follow and too darn long. You’d make a better argument if you pared about 60%.

For example…

Whatever influences affected you both as others here, I have no idea, but somewhere, you missed out on learning distinctions among very important aspects of human worth and psychological boundaries and a good portion of socialization.

That’s just plain arrogant. Lose the insults and the psychobabble. You’ve got something to say. I humbly suggest you hone your style to make an impact.

In Kings and Chronicles there’s a saying that’s translated as “gird up your loins”, “have good courage and go forth” or some such flowery language. The Hebrew is much simpler and bold, “Be hard, be sharp, do it!” Makes a better point doesn’t it?

rcl on July 11, 2011 at 4:45 AM

By “playing it safe”, you mean ensuring he doesn’t offend the sensibilities of the christian right. i.e. people who think gays are weird and morally bankrupt.

To which I point out, why should we be applauding that cowardice and/or intolerance?

I mean unless you’re one of those “gays are weird” people.

Just because something is politically smart, doesn’t mean it’s the RIGHT THING TO DO.

triple on July 11, 2011 at 7:22 AM

And sometimes my dog tries to hump the coffee table. It doesn’t mean he has a genetic attachment to mahogany.

Ronnie on July 11, 2011 at 1:33 AM

Ah, yes. The 1500+ species that have been observed over the last century to exhibit homosexual behavior are all “humping the coffee table.”

Have all of these animals been observed, say, humping rocks or trees?

Get back to us.

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 7:42 AM

Dolphins rape each other.
Chimp gangs beat other gangs’ members to death for no reason.
Some birds murder their siblings while they’re still chicks in the nest.
Just because it’s in nature doesn’t make it right.

itsnotaboutme on July 10, 2011 at 10:31 PM

There is no “right” in the wild. There is just nature.

Nurture has nothing to do with any of this, which is the point.

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 7:43 AM

So far, science has not conclusively established identified any credible evidence indicating homosexuality is a genetic predisposition.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:15 AM

The 1500+ species that have been observed over the last century to exhibit homosexual behavior are all “humping the coffee table.”

Besides humans, what species have been observed having sex for pleasure?

Animals act out sexually to procreate or show dominance.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:18 AM

For multitudes of tragically afflicted homosexuals, it all started with a molestation.

In her first book Tammy Bruce states that the dirty little secret in the homosexual community is that the overwhelming majority were molested as children or adolescents. That’s physically. With less than 3 percent of the population identifying themselves as homosexual coupled with the high rate of alcoholism and other mental health issues in the general population, it’s not a reach to believe the percentage that were not physically molested were emotionally abused by afflicted parents and from dysfunctional families.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Besides humans, what species have been observed having sex for pleasure?

Animals act out sexually to procreate or show dominance.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:18 AM

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.asp

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Well, that’s a senseless question there.

We are a heterosexual species. Homosexuality is behavioral, not sexual. One does not reproduce with the intestinal tract, to be specific.

You seem to have bought the Leftwing socio-political deceit that there are “two distinct sexualities” as if heterosexuality was but one option with homosexuality (that is, that, so your statement suggests, you perceive homosexual behaviors as normal, equivalent by default with heterosexuality, which is not the case but it IS what you’ve been led to believe, unfortunately, by someone at some time. Cultural affects can be powerful influences, granted, but that also is how behaviors, even damaging and abnormal ones, can be construed to be acceptable, using various cultural/socio-political propaganda.

Lourdes on July 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

Your categorizations are strict to the point of being ridiculous. Sexual behavior isn’t only done for reproductive purposes – pleasure is (usually) a component of sexual behavior as well, and a completely natural, normal one at that. Why do some people believe the idea that God likes it less when humans are being sexual w/o attempting to procreate than when they are?

Where do hermaphrodites who possess both male and female sex characteristics fit into your black & white sexual world vision? Does God expect that they should refrain from sexual activity if they are uncertain about who they should “choose” to be attracted to? Does God expect them to undergo surgery so that they will look more like one of the two sexes?

On one hand your kind of thinking on this topic is silly, as it doesn’t allow for (what you’d consider defective) genetic variation, or for environmental factors which could affect a person’s sexual orientation; on the other, it’s dangerous because it unnecessarily shames homosexuals who don’t deserve the pontificatious condemnations so many religious know-it-alls direct their way.

Homosexuals in general choose to be gay to the same degree I chose to like coconut ice cream more than plain vanilla – I didn’t make an intentional choice about my taste in cream, and homosexuals, at least for the most part, don’t intentionally make the choice to prefer the same sex over the other either.

If a gay gal or guy finds that s/he finds someone of the same sex attractive, why care a lot about it? They don’t affect you any more than heterosexual couples do (don’t go down any slippery slopes here, please.) With all of the problems in this world, like people being rude to each other for a rather mild example, I can’t see how God would put homosexual concerns anywhere but last on His list of what people should be worrying about.

Bizarro No. 1 on July 11, 2011 at 8:32 AM

My question is, to what end or purpose does T. Paw serve by discussing things like genetic components of sexuality?

Because he was asked the question by a propaganda operative in the msm who wanted to do him damage.

Well, the statistics say it all– only 25% of conservatives would be in favor of legal rights for same-sex couples, and most are in favor what is known as traditional marriage.

That is not only extremely week but totally dishonest. I know of absolutely no one who wants to deny homosexuals rights. The question is, do we engineer society to make a small percentage of the population feel better about themselves? Gay people are not segregated into ghettos, made to wear identifying badges, chased by mobs, lynched, etc. On the contrary a high percentage are usually included in the upper demographic statistics for income and education. The truth is that they often segregate themselves and identify themselves through clothing, bumper stickers, gatherings, etc. I do not drive a car with a bumper sticker stating my sexual preference. If someone feels that need, fine, it is a free country. Just do not ask for suprarights based on what you like to do with your genitals.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM

If it’s “just a choice” – then I’m waiting to hear all the stories about how Hot Air readers made the difficult choice to be straight.

Am I the only heterosexual who never had any sexual feelings toward women? Am I the only one who just “knew” I was attracted to men and did not have to investigate or “choose”?

pbundy on July 11, 2011 at 8:36 AM

If a gay gal or guy finds that s/he finds someone of the same sex attractive, why care a lot about it?

Because they hate America and want to bring down society or something.

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:36 AM

If it’s “just a choice” – then I’m waiting to hear all the stories about how Hot Air readers made the difficult choice to be straight.

Well, you see, that’s just nature. But homosexuality is not nature.

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.asp
Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM

That’s your source? It doesn’t even support your position. It supports the opposite. Everyone has had a dog hump their leg, it doesn’t mean that the dog finds you sexually attractive, it means the dog has his wiring crossed.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Where do hermaphrodites who possess both male and female sex characteristics fit into your black & white sexual world vision?

Now who is being strict to the point of being rediculous? Now you are holding billions of Christians to your skewed belief of what they believe. Also, you are argueing that hermaphrodites are not genetic mutations?

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:50 AM

What’s a part of the problem is telling gay kids that they aren’t normal, going to hell, or that they can be “fixed”. And telling kids that gay is a “choice”.
It’s nonsense like that which causes so many gay kids to take their lives. What about them? They couldn’t deal with the choice to be gay so badly that suicide was the answer?
JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 4:27 AM

You have it exactly backwards, which I guess isn’t really surprising. It is telling these kids that they have no control that causes their problems.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 8:52 AM

If it’s “just a choice” – then I’m waiting to hear all the stories about how Hot Air readers made the difficult choice to be straight.

Everyone move on to the next story. When that incredibly stupid statement is made there is no where else to go.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:54 AM

That’s your source? It doesn’t even support your position. It supports the opposite. Everyone has had a dog hump their leg, it doesn’t mean that the dog finds you sexually attractive, it means the dog has his wiring crossed.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Did you read it?

The argument is nature vs. nurture. The assertion is that homosexuality is a “choice.”

It isn’t, unless heterosexuality is a “choice.” The sexual drive in animals is naturally occurring. Sometimes, two individuals of the same gender are attracted (actually, far more frequently than you care to admit to yourself).

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Everyone move on to the next story. When that incredibly stupid statement is made there is no where else to go.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:54 AM

Stupid why?

Because it exposes quite lucidly the logical inconsistency of “it’s a choice” camp?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM

If it’s “just a choice” – then I’m waiting to hear all the stories about how Hot Air readers made the difficult choice to be straight.
Am I the only heterosexual who never had any sexual feelings toward women? Am I the only one who just “knew” I was attracted to men and did not have to investigate or “choose”?
pbundy on July 11, 2011 at 8:36 AM

There was a time when I thought my attraction to the opposite sex was inborn. Then I found myself being aroused by things that don’t have anything to do with sex at all, let alone gender. It’s all about what we learn, and quite often children build up so much aversion to learning one thing that they imagine that it is simply impossible for them to like it. Are there any foods you hate? The simple fact is that you have refused to learn to like them.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 8:59 AM

It is telling these kids that they have no control that causes their problems.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 8:52 AM

Wait…heterosexual kids have a choice? That would have been news to all of my hetero friends – most of us guys were just chasing girls around becuase that’s what we did. Nobody was “choosing” it. It just happened.

Anybody else think it works some other way? Like you consult a parent or religious book to determine who you’re physically attracted to?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:59 AM

And telling kids that gay is a “choice”.
It’s nonsense like that which causes so many gay kids to take their lives. What about them? They couldn’t deal with the choice to be gay so badly that suicide was the answer?

I really get tired of being blamed for the high rate of suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence, etc. in the gay community. Not to mention that men that engage in homosexual activity die on average much earlier than normal men. Openly gay people are in high positions in every aspect of our society (government, education, entertainment) yet I have to hear constantly how they are persecuted and how I am to blame. When do gay people get held responsible for their own behavior and stop being perpetual victims?

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Then I found myself being aroused by things that don’t have anything to do with sex at all, let alone gender.

Sounds like a personal issue specific to you. I never had this happen.

Personal anecdotes =/= data.

It’s all about what we learn

When did you “learn” you were physically attracted to women? Who told you that you were?

Are there any foods you hate? The simple fact is that you have refused to learn to like them.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 8:59 AM

What if you’re allergic to certain foods? Did you have to learn that, too?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:02 AM

I really get tired of being blamed for the high rate of suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence, etc. in the gay community.

Gays get tired of being blamed for violence, drug addiction, disease, domestic violence, the end of America, etc. from the conservative heterosexual community, I’d venture to guess.

Don’t read too much about gays attacking straights and killing them becuase they’re straight. Do you?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:04 AM

It isn’t, unless heterosexuality is a “choice.” The sexual drive in animals is naturally occurring. Sometimes, two individuals of the same gender are attracted (actually, far more frequently than you care to admit to yourself).
Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Yes, heterosexual behavior is also a choice.
And, under normal circumstances, when two people of the same sex are attached to each other, they become good friends, not give up on their life in order to help each other masturbate.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:56 AM

You read into that what you wanted to hear. It didn’t say that at all and it’s not from a scientific source anyway. I am sorry you feel bad about yourself, but although certain subcultures may be part of the problem, my country is not responsible for how you are. Stop trying to bring it down to your level.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM

If it’s “just a choice” – then I’m waiting to hear all the stories about how Hot Air readers made the difficult choice to be straight.

Everyone move on to the next story. When that incredibly stupid statement is made there is no where else to go.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 8:54 AM

You can’t answer that question tho, can you…

JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Yes, heterosexual behavior is also a choice.

Really? I had a choice?

Because it really didn’t seem like it – I was attracted and still am to women. Never crossed my mind that I could “choose” to be attracted to males and then it would happen.

That’s not how it works.

And, under normal circumstances, when two people of the same sex are attached to each other, they become good friends, not give up on their life in order to help each other masturbate.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:04 AM

LOL Do you actually know any gay people? Have you run your odd theories by them or talked with them about this?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Wait…heterosexual kids have a choice? That would have been news to all of my hetero friends – most of us guys were just chasing girls around becuase that’s what we did. Nobody was “choosing” it. It just happened.
Anybody else think it works some other way? Like you consult a parent or religious book to determine who you’re physically attracted to?
Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 8:59 AM

Of course they were choosing it (even if they didn’t realize it). And there were all kinds of social pressure involved in pushing them toward that choice.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:09 AM

my country is not responsible for how you are. Stop trying to bring it down to your level.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Nobody said it was.

What we’re saying is that NATURE is responsible for who you are in this regard, not “my country.”

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Of course they were choosing it (even if they didn’t realize it). And there were all kinds of social pressure involved in pushing them toward that choice.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Such as?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Dude, you are all over the place. I think we can use you as a case study. You will say (or obviously, do) anything to make yourself feel better about yourself.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:12 AM

LOL Do you actually know any gay people? Have you run your odd theories by them or talked with them about this?
Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Yes, I do. I was razed by one, in fact. They universally believe the idea that they had no choice and were always as they were, even as they contradict that assertion with stories of how the events of their childhood shaped their preferences. The cognitive dissonance cane be painful to watch.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM

You can’t answer that question tho, can you…
JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Although it doesn’t have to be answered, it’s nonsensical.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:14 AM

I hate auto correct. That should be raised, not razed. WTH.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Dude, you are all over the place.

Wrong.

I’ve maintained that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon and occurs naturally without “culture” playing a role. I’ve cited examples at my links of animals that have been documented engaging in homosexual behavior. I’ve also cited examples, as in the bonobos and dolphins, of animals that have sex for what we humans call ‘pleasure.’

In short, I’ve demonstrated that the sexual impulses you attribute to culture/message reinforcement/choice are actually naturally-occurring.

In no way am I “all over the place.”

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Although it doesn’t have to be answered, it’s nonsensical.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Why is it nonsensical to ask if a heterosexual engaging in sexual activity with a member of the opposite sex chooses to do so simply becuase they choose it?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Yes, I do. I was razed by one, in fact. They universally believe the idea that they had no choice and were always as they were, even as they contradict that assertion with stories of how the events of their childhood shaped their preferences. The cognitive dissonance cane be painful to watch.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Wait.

You were raised by a homosexual, and yet, you aren’t one yourself?

Doesn’t that undercut the “it’s just the cultural message” argument?

The cognitive dissonance cane be painful to watch.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Painful for who?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Such as?
Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Your kidding, right? You really don’t see the peer pressure involved? The idea of jumping into things the adults think you aren’t ready for? I knew in kindergarten that I was supposed to lime girls, just from my parents, and picked the prettiest girl in my class it pine over. You really think your behavior sprang out of nowhere?

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:21 AM

What we’re saying is that NATURE is responsible for who you are in this regard

If you are claiming that “nature is responsible” then explain the natural purpose of chronic homosexual behavior and the use of the alimentary canal as a source of pleasure. If you choose to use links, don’t use links to sources that quote pop sociologists.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Although it doesn’t have to be answered, it’s nonsensical.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Like I said…you can’t answer it.

JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Why is it nonsensical to ask if a heterosexual engaging in sexual activity with a member of the opposite sex chooses to do so simply becuase they choose it?
Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Because it is natural! Are you getting it now?

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:22 AM

JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 9:21 AM

You identify yourself as someone who gains pleasure from exploring the alimentary canal of others. The natural purpose of which is to dispel waste from the human body. Please explain how that can be anything but dysfunctional and abnormal.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM

You really don’t see the peer pressure involved?

Um, not really.

Anybody else ever feel “peer-pressured” into being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex if you weren’t attracted to them sexually? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, gays feel more peer pressure than straights regarding sexual attraction, to be attracted to those they’re not actually attracted to? Considering there are, you know, many more straights than gays?

This is pretty basic stuff here.

I knew in kindergarten that I was supposed to lime girls, just from my parents, and picked the prettiest girl in my class it pine overMy parents never told me I had to like girls. That came naturally.

You really think your behavior sprang out of nowhere?

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:21 AM

Some behaviors are instinctual and natural, and others are not.

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Why is it nonsensical to ask if a heterosexual engaging in sexual activity with a member of the opposite sex chooses to do so simply becuase they choose it?
Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Because it is natural! Are you getting it now?

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:22 AM

It’s natural to homosexuals to be attracted to members of their own gender as well.

You just made my point.

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:27 AM

You identify yourself as someone who gains pleasure from exploring the alimentary canal of others. The natural purpose of which is to dispel waste from the human body. Please explain how that can be anything but dysfunctional and abnormal.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Straights do this as well.

Comments?

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Please explain how that can be anything but dysfunctional and abnormal.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM

About as “abnormal” and “dysfunctional” as someone born with no legs? Those people should change and choose to have feet.

JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Interesting thing on that: when you are exposed that directly to the idea, and can see how much it can screw up a person’s life (and the lives of those close to them), you have extra incentive to chose a more normal lifestyle. Oh, and the rest of your family tends to be more mindful about directing you down the strait and narrow. I’m sure the fact that I was not abused or made to resent the opposite sex (as my parent was) also helped.
On the other point, it has always been painful for me to watch doublethink, but even more so to know that people are suffering from it. Really I’m trying to help people acknowledge the truth here.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:26 AM

So, you didn’t have friends trying to get you to look at their Dad’s porn magazines before you actually got aroused by looking at them? Never went along to peek at the girls, not knowing what the point was other than it was something that was against the rules? I mean, come on, this is movie cliche stuff here.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Ah, Hot Air. The place where people who dislike homosexuality the most spend the most time graphically detailing homosexual sex. Never fails.

MadisonConservative on July 11, 2011 at 9:39 AM

About as “abnormal” and “dysfunctional” as someone born with no legs? Those people should change and choose to have feet.
JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 9:30 AM

There is nothing physical keeping you from having a mogamous sexual relationship with a woman and starting a family, Jet. You just don’t want to give up the gay sex, for whatever reason (which changes from person to person). Something similar is true for all the promiscuous strait bachelors out there.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Ah, Hot Air. The place where people who dislike homosexuality the most spend the most time graphically detailing homosexual sex. Never fails.
MadisonConservative on July 11, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Okay, that was hilarious. Though I’m sure it’s even more common on explicitly religious sites.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:47 AM

You identify yourself as someone who gains pleasure from exploring the alimentary canal of others. The natural purpose of which is to dispel waste from the human body. Please explain how that can be anything but dysfunctional and abnormal.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:25 AM

Is this the faction that thinks it is the purview of government to dictate what our sexual habits should be? What is the “natural purpose” of a mouth? Of a hand? Are you aware, peacenprosperity, that some people use these parts of the body for sexual pleasure and/or stimulation?

As far as I am concerned, consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies when having sex. I may think it’s “icky” – or not. But not my call. No “sex police” in bedrooms for me, thank you.

pbundy on July 11, 2011 at 9:48 AM

JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 9:30 AM

That your behavior is natural would have to accepted for that statement to make any sense. I don’t accept that your “behavior” is natural. I also don’t accept that a 500 pound woman who wants to eat an entire chocolate cake is behaving in a normal or natural way although she will tell you she can’t help herself. I accept that she may not be in control and that her neurosis is over powering.

I can’t go around in circle all day, I’ve got to go. I understand this debate is a life and death struggle for you and that reason and logic flys out the window in those circumstances. But I wish you guys well. I hope that you are abnormal members of the gay community in that you are not addicted to alcohol or drugs, that domestic violence is not a regular part of your life, that you live stable lives with a committed partner and not live dangerous promiscuous lives, that you do not contract any of the nasty diseases now common in the gay community or the nasty one that scientists fear could be showing up any day (that is why blood donated by actively gay people is used only for research, scientist are not afraid of not identifying hiv in blood, they are afraid of what is going to develop next)and that you live long lives on par with the life expectancy of men not similarly afflicted.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:51 AM

As far as I am concerned, consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies when having sex.

Could you find anywhere in this post or any other where a statement counter to that was made. Please, state a position but don’t be dishonest and stupid.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM

As far as I am concerned, consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies when having sex. I may think it’s “icky” – or not. But not my call. No “sex police” in bedrooms for me, thank you.
pbundy on July 11, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Agreed.
But, likewise, no speech police forcing people to accept it.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM

So, you didn’t have friends trying to get you to look at their Dad’s porn magazines before you actually got aroused by looking at them? Never went along to peek at the girls, not knowing what the point was other than it was something that was against the rules? I mean, come on, this is movie cliche stuff here.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:38 AM

That’s just the point – I think your view on human sexual development is a movie cliche and not close to reality.

No, all the “porn” viewing I did was on my own for my own purposes (yes, arousal was a factor for sure – that’s the point of porn – but that’s TMI, I guess) – I wasn’t pressured by anybody into doing anything.

Never went along to peek at the girls, not knowing what the point was other than it was something that was against the rules?

Actually, to the extent that this sort of thing happened at all (it really didn’t in the manner you describe, as in somebody peering through a hole in the locker room wall a al movies), it would have been becuase we thought some girls were hot and we wanted to see them naked. It wasn’t a “peer pressure” thing. It was good old hormones.

Shocking stuff, I know.

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Agreed.
But, likewise, no speech police forcing people to accept it.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Nobody’s forcing you to “accept” it.

They’re demanding you tolerate it the way that we tolerate your views.

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Then you are comically unaware of why you did things as a child. These are movie cliches not because they are wrong, but because they are familiar to everyone.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM

You just don’t want to give up the gay sex, for whatever reason

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 9:44 AM

emphasis mine.

Gee, what could that reason possibly be….think now…

JetBoy on July 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Then you are comically unaware of why you did things as a child.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM

I didn’t do these things “because I was told” to. Not ever behavior is taught or learned.

These are movie cliches not because they are wrong, but because they are familiar to everyone.

Count to 10 on July 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Or, they’re cliches.

Like when a Republican is depicted in Hollywood as a racist, bigoted homophobe, we know that’s just because everyone’s familiar with Republicans.

O_o

Good Lt on July 11, 2011 at 10:12 AM

As far as I am concerned, consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies when having sex.
Could you find anywhere in this post or any other where a statement counter to that was made. Please, state a position but don’t be dishonest and stupid.

peacenprosperity on July 11, 2011 at 9:53 AM

The fact that you mentioned that some gay sex is “dysfunctional” and “abnormal.” If adults have the right to do what they wish with their bodies, what does it matter how “normal” their sex is? And – there are heterosexuals who engage in similar sex acts to homosexuals. People’s private sex acts should not be related to whether or not they allowed to legally marry and/or create civil unions.

pbundy on July 11, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Ok, there are really people on this board arguing that homosexuality is genetic?

Fine… here’s the argument made for your side several years back.

http://borndifferent.org/identical-twins.html

identical twins: born gay

if one twin is born gay, there is a higher chance (52%) that the other will be gay as well.

since identical twins share DNA, this tells us that genetics plays a part in sexual orientation

See, totally genetic, because if one person with a specific set of DNA is gay, the other is gay about 50% of the time.

So DNA and genetics is totally the controlling factor here… as you know if you have something coded in your DNA, you’ve got about a 50/50 chance of actually having it.

that’s why everyone is a girl in their DNA, but about 50% of kids are boys… because DNA only really works 50% of the time.

Oh wait, that’s not how DNA works? So if two people have the exact same DNA they have the same genetic characteristics (height, hair color, eye color, etc.)? Weird…

Because we know homosexuality is genetic…

Maybe something happened to one of the identical twins to turn him gay, or to cure him.

Or maybe it’s not genetic… and for the “it’s genetic” side; can I recommend finding better scientists to argue for your side? When I can use your numbers and your conclusions to prove you wrong; maybe you need smarter people working on your conclusions.

Genetics may very well play a part in this; although identical twins usually have very similar upbringings, and they did have the same gestational environment… why 50/50? It still could be “fetal development” but 50/50 makes that seem questionable as well.

The only answer I’ve got is “damned if I know”. If you’ve got a better answer that would actually explain this, feel free to try. A genetic component? Possible. Entirely genetic? Not possible given the data presented.

I don’t see why it matters, and I don’t care; except when people start using the worst statistics, math, and science to try to prove something (Born Different people, I’m looking at you here).

Seriously, argue if you want, even make up a study and claim it; but quit &*$#-ing up mathematics to do it.

gekkobear on July 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3