Do you think you are born gay or it is a lifestyle?

In terms of the thread title, Homosexuality cannot be genetic since a "gay gene" is self-destructive, if we were to evolve to have that gene our species would die out. So either:

a) Miracle
b) Common genetic mutation during pregnancy
c) After birth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

From my Collins thesaurus:

Phobia
aversion, detestation, dislike, distaste, dread, fear, hatred, horror, loathing, obsession, repulsion, revulsion, terror

---

A Thesaurus is not a dictionary (For definitions), it means you get similar words. Phobia specifically references irrational fear whilst these all reference an aversion/dislike/distaste towards something.

@Undertaker

Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
You have not provided a rational basis for disliking/fearing homosexuals
You are homophobic

I think this world is too complex and diverse to assume it has to be either or. I think some people are born gay, or innately feel the feelings they do and can track them down to when they were young. However, I feel that sometimes lifestyle can induce homosexuality or open up and trigger homosexuality later in life, or some sort of bisexuality that jumps between heterosexuality and homosexuality at whim. There is no right or wrong answer, genetically there may be no evidence for many cases and lifestyle can only be the answer - some seemingly straight men may like to pleasure or be pleasured by other men.

The very definition of homosexuality is disputed. Is it just sex, an emotional feeling or a mixture of the two? Perhaps even more attributing factors, like the physical look of men but not necessarily being physical with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

@Undertaker

Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
You have not provided a rational basis for disliking/fearing homosexuals
You are homophobic

---

Surely a rational belief that something is wrong can sometimes fall under a phobia, or would you suggest that the meaning of phobia is often attributed to wrong things? Loads of homophobic people can rationally argue why they hate homosexuals, yet they still hate them. I think the word phobia has evolved to literally mean hate or fear of any kind - I seem to be getting that opinion from any study on homophobia at least :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinnie:Safety

There are more traits then just the ones your said..
Like the one i said.

---

No I believe you are thinking of camp traits, the only thing required to be gay is to be attracted to people of the same sex as you. As I said before, camp =/= gay

I live in Brighton. I have enough friends who are gay/lesbian to know that it isn't a choice, like how fellow straight folks didn't choose to be straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misawa

I live in Brighton. I have enough friends who are gay/lesbian to know that it isn't a choice, like how fellow straight folks didn't choose to be straight.

---

But as a straight person I choose not to go for men. I know friends however who are bisexual and late on, but prefer one sex. They simply decided to experiment, but had never considered it before.

I agree maybe some people can know they are from early on, but it doesn't explain how some people change their sexuality, and never considered changing it until that point or late on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

No I believe you are thinking of camp traits, the only thing required to be gay is to be attracted to people of the same sex as you. As I said before, camp =/= gay

---

What are camp traits? and what is camp =/= gay ?
/:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vinnie:Safety

What are camp traits? and what is camp =/= gay ?
/:

---

As mentioned in my post this is a problem the media has brought on.

Most media gays are the stereotypical type of gays. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there are gays that don't act camp just like there are straight people that sometimes may act in a camp manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteyt

But as a straight person I choose not to go for men. I know friends however who are bisexual and late on, but prefer one sex. They simply decided to experiment, but had never considered it before.

I agree maybe some people can know they are from early on, but it doesn't explain how some people change their sexuality, and never considered changing it until that point or late on.

---

Being bisexual and preferring one is not a choice though, just a preference...

And while you choose not to go for men, you could also choose to go for men even if you don't find them attractive, and that wouldn't make you gay. It would just be a strange thing for you to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Surely a rational belief that something is wrong can sometimes fall under a phobia, or would you suggest that the meaning of phobia is often attributed to wrong things? Loads of homophobic people can rationally argue why they hate homosexuals, yet they still hate them. I think the word phobia has evolved to literally mean hate or fear of any kind - I seem to be getting that opinion from any study on homophobia at least :P

---

I would certainly believe that people use "phobia" for a far broader function than it's original definition. And whilst there are several rational arguments against homosexuals like "The human race would die out" most cases would require insurmountable odds to occur (Think: 0.1^7,000,000,000) it's like believing that you could rationally be scared of spiders because you could die, well the only spider with deadly venom in the UK is the daddy long legs which has too short of fangs to penetrate human skin requiring, again, insurmountable odds for a daddy long legs somehow getting venom into an open flesh wound. I'd still call it irrational even though it's possible. Most however stretch the definition from fear (Particularly with Homophobia) to dislike, which is an entirely different idea which is more analogous with racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chippiewill

I would certainly believe that people use "phobia" for a far broader function than it's original definition. And whilst there are several rational arguments against homosexuals like "The human race would die out" most cases would require insurmountable odds to occur (Think: 0.1^7,000,000,000) it's like believing that you could rationally be scared of spiders because you could die, well the only spider with deadly venom in the UK is the daddy long legs which has too short of fangs to penetrate human skin requiring, again, insurmountable odds for a daddy long legs somehow getting venom into an open flesh wound. I'd still call it irrational even though it's possible. Most however stretch the definition from fear (Particularly with Homophobia) to dislike, which is an entirely different idea which is more analogous with racism.

---

An interesting answer :) But what deems something rational or irrational is the problem here. Using your example of "the human race will die out" is a possibility but unbelievable. Perhaps an irrational fear is only irrational if it is unbelieveable? Using homophobia as an example here is difficult because it is a dodgy subject and seems to be based purely on personal beliefs than any sort of fact, but with spiders the phobia could be justifiable for all kinds of reasons - death, infections or something as simple as their overall design e.g. their weak seeming legs, seemingly useless number of eyes etc. This can cause a irrational fear (e.g. the number of eyes) with something seemingly rational (e.g. weak legs). A friend of mine has a fear of spiders because they find their weaknesses like their thin legs disturbing despite how good they are at killing.

So although you find it irrational despite the possibility, it could be considered rational because any tiny amount of possibility could make it likely to happen.

Like I said earlier, these sorts of debate are complex and diverse and there really are no right or wrong answers - it's what you think as they are entirely opinionated :P An interesting debate none-the-less.