Is being gay a choice?

>>6811963
Being attracted to the same sex is not a choice.
Acting on that attraction is a choice. That does not mean that acting on the attraction is the wrong choice, nor does it mean it's the right choice.

I'm not going to tell you which choice is right if you have same sex attractions, but one of the choices is. Let's see if you can figure it out.

There is no such thing as free will, so really, nothing is a choice

>>6811992
Yes, but Christians have lied on this matter for thousands and thousands of years, and still do, and are doing so at this very moment. I won't deny myself the opportunity to lie and find another excuse to call them pieces of shit.

>>6811963
>It's thought provoking so...
dud... how is that thought provoking?
If you haven't come to those conclusions yet, you're either a religious zealot finally starting to think critically, or you're so young that you've barely been exposed "the gays".

File: 1467412188262.jpg (126KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 480x608px

>>6811983
This.

>>6811992
pic related

>>6811963
You might not be born gay but it doesn't appear to be a choice. Even if it is an environmental/social influence it is not one that people willingly make.
I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed with the "born this way" concept. People are shaped by their environment but much of our life isn't under our control. For example nobody willingly breathes or eats carcinogens and gets cancer yet just being alive guarantees you do that every day.
So even if you're not born gay there doesn't appear to be a way to influence or shape whether or not people end up gay.

>>6811983 nailed it
I'm bi - if I wanted to, I could just not do anything with other guys, but that doesn't mean qt twinks won't still make me diamonds

File: lain4.gif (295KB, 700x704px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 700x704px

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

>The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are
“born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence.

>>6811963
I'm bi, I could just have sex with women if I really wanted to. But I can't help getting a boner when i think about dicks. It's in-born.

The "choice" argument comes from christfags differentiating between who you're attracted to (which they admit isn't a choice) and who you actually have sex with (which is obviously a choice if you're not getting raped) so they can still blame gays for choosing to "sin" and not cast any blame on God for making them that way as they still have free will no matter how they're born according to their theology.

Then fucking retards on the right think what they're saying is you choose who you're turned on by somehow but only if you're gay somehow and people would choose to be gay even in places where you're killed for it for some reason.

Leading research points towards homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality being caused by hormone imbalances the fetus is exposed to in the womb which is why you get phenomena like it being more likely a man is gay the more older brothers he has because his mothers womb gets less efficient at producing the right hormones each time.

So of course this triggers both right wingers who want an excuse for homophobia AND left wingers since it means being gay is literally a birth defect lmao.

>>6814302
That is a bipartisan journal, it's specifically created to publish conservative-leaning articles in the US. Worldwide it isn't acknowledged as a real journal since it has political bias.
But even so, they still neglected to take into account epigenetics.

You can pretty much discount that entire journal in like 5 seconds if you lookup any of their articles on artificial intelligence. "hurr durr ANN's don't work except when literally every technology company ever made through the past 20 years has ANN's that do exactly the things we say they don't work"

>>6814328
can you refute any of the conclusions based on what the actual assertion is, instead of refuting it based on who published it or irrelevant articles they've published in the past?

the word epigenetic shows up in the paper multiple times

>>6814341
>in the past
lolwat they still actively ignore every technological advancement.
They're an anti-technological journal, they've somehow collected the weirdest group of researchers that for some reason follow a specific sect of conservatism that refutes technological advancement. They publish articles on things that have already happened and just simply say "that didn't happen." It's mind boggling retardism.

But even so their only mention of epigenetics was in regards to sexual abuse, which has been disproven since the majority of lgbt people are not sexually abused. They didn't even mention neonatal hormones either.
Not going to bother delving into it too much anyway. That journal is just pushing a political position, and a pretty bizarre one at that. I don't live in the US but usually conservatives are not anti-technological advancement like that journal pushes, it's a very bizarre position to push.

File: image.gif (4MB, 700x298px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 700x298px

>new atlantis
>Impact factor: 0.59

>>6812012
>just Christians

File: d7ef79163cd8d926b66ab5ff7238d475.jpg (41KB, 564x496px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 564x496px

>>6814398
>new atlantis
>founded in 2003

Why doesn't /pol/ cite articles from Nature or any other journals that aren't a joke?

I've always thought being gay was a nurture thing more than nature. We are hardwired to survive and reproduce, so unless there was a defect during birth(unlikely), it makes more sense that it was a social aspect.

Has the rate of homosexuality gone up these past few years? I've always assumed that it was because we're being taught that we're beginning to overpopulate the planet and for some, our instincts kick in and we realize we shouldn't reproduce to help preserve the human race.

Anybody who thinks being gay is a choice should be forced to spend an evening with a bunch of flaming screaming gold star queens.

Afterwards they will be asked, "Do you think any of the individuals you spent time with have any interest in fucking women?"

File: 1469328590993.jpg (21KB, 399x295px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 399x295px

>>6814371
thats because you don't live in the us. Conservatives are as a whole extremely religious and anti technology. theyre not just the people who think gays need to die and burn in hell, they ban books like to kill a mocking bird, burn D&D books for being satanic, regard video games as satan even when they watch tv, and their online footprint is so inconsequential that normally their entire unified presence gets dwarfed by smaller pop youtube figure followers. they hate evolution, they hate vaccines, and are astonishingly anti medicine. This is a very broad generalization and you will be hard pressed to find someone who believes all these things at once (but they do exist), but it is a huge factor in conservative think tanks is reactionary behavior towards progress. Conservatism is traditionalism in american culture. Theyre synonymous, and liberals, crooked or straight, are regarded as evil for their very acceptance of such beneficial changes like education and medicine, to say nothing of freedom of religion.


>>6814491
You don't understand how breeding works. nor undesirable traits that aren't being selected against. Take diseases that degrade vision. Vision degrading diseases are awful, and usually if you had them you died early to something. Nowdays we have glasses. Similarly, Evolution is just randomness. As long as some method exists to proliferate a trait, it will endure at the genetic level. Homosexuality only needs it's relatives to reproduce for it to continue to exist. Theyre like a small ant colony. Not every member of said colony breeds, but that doesn't necissarily mean a negative impact on the colony. It all depends on the circumstances, the external world, if outside forces will cause homosexuality to become selected for or against. If people who have homosexual children among them compete well against people who don't, they will proliferate. If not, then they will only disappear while they are actively being removed.

File: 1438583509244.jpg (60KB, 639x357px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 639x357px

>>6814491
>mfw my brother once tried to make the argument to me that if homosexuality went unchecked, it would endanger the human race by not leaving any straight people left to breed
>this is a man with a degree in nuclear physics
>seriously implying it could ever get to that point
>seriously implying that it could happen in the near future
>mfw

>>6814491
>Has the rate of homosexuality gone up these past few years?
No.
I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone that western civilization is founded on the two gayest civilizations in history. Ancient Greece and Rome.
You know, the places where art revolved around naked young men, mythology and religion included figures like Pan, Priapus, Dionysus, Hyacinth, Ganymede, Eros, etc.
The concept of homosexuality didn't even exist in Ancient Greece because it was accepted fact that all adult men had sexual attraction to male youths. If you tried to say "no, young men aren't hot. I only want to fuck women" they would look at you like you were some deranged sexual deviant.
The only thing that's changed recently was that the entire world stopped actively ignoring and hiding the existence of homosexuality. There aren't any more gay people now than there were 100 years ago. It just seems like that because they're shoving rainbows in your face now so you can't sweep them under the rug and hope that they'll disappear.

It's irrelevant to the debate and I wish people would stop acting like it is.