I say homosexuality is not a genetic driven condition and that humans are born bisexuals. Who disagrees and on what grounds?

It’s not genetic, as far as I’m aware the most evidence goes to the theory that it has to do with prenatal hormone balances in the mother.

Also, you should try to split up your sentences with punctuation.

You nailed it.

But keep in mind that one can lead to the other.

“Created at conception as a/bisexual”, not usually born that way.

One what can lead to the other what?

I think people may choose to be homosexuals for all sorts of reasons other than genetic or hormonal. A woman who’s had bad experiences with men in the past, though not particularly attracted to other women but still craving intimacy, may develop her attraction to women further as a substitute. A woman who’s too ugly to find an attractive male, may have more luck attracting other females for the very same reasons (flat chest, short, stocky etc) males find her unattractive.

True too. Often the bisexual, “gay” is merely the drive to play (hence the name “gay”, playful). That urge to lustfully play tends to come from very deep subtle anxiety being fought and masked by the entertainment value of seeing only the most exciting of distractions (sex, death, chocolate, extreme spices…) and giving in to them. Perception associations lead across genders, even eventually toward bestiality and BDSM.

The only chemically induced affector was what caused the subtle irritant/anxiety, often a virus, toxins, or chemical/hormonal imbalance from other protuberances.

Lucis, what about a man who is too ugly to find an attractive woman? I just can’t help but notice that you only reference females in your post.

The X chromosome yields a more persuadable homosapian, more easily tempted, more likely to change from instinctive paradigms (like it or not). And is the cause of the notion of “the weaker gender” and yearning for romance.

Yes, I meant to say men as well.

could i get a source/evidence on that, James?

I think people place too much emphasis on chemicals and not enough on freedom of will and the inherent beauty of masculinity and femininity. Also, I think psychology often produces physiology.

Not sure what you mean here?

Done, sorry about that I tend to be chaotic in my thinking and tend to write in the same way aswell. :laughing:

Agreed i only said mpeople are born bisexual to start discussing. I actually say (thus, far) that humans at birth have no sexual orientation and that what sex they prefer is completely determined by the conditioning of their environment. Notice I say completely and so dismiss this assertion:

This is like saying a person with genes that predispose him to be smaller than the average male size is genetically determined to be ugly (less attracive). Or that people who are born with dark skin colour are genetically determined to get worse grades than white coloured children. These two are based on probability, not certainty as such they have to be discarded as mere especualtion (presumption) and thus, by default they both are attained by the environment

comparing homosexuality to being ugly or stupid is kinda weird.

anyway, it’s not “like” any of that shit you said…at all. I merely provided what I’m fairly sure is the leading theory on the cause of homosexuality. if the theory is incorrect, i’d be glad to be corrected. it has nothing to do with being ugly or stupid though.

All merriam webster definitions
homosexuality definition:

1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.

2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

Sexual desire= being attracted to.

People are attracted to beautiful things and are repelled by ugly things. Who would you want to have intercourse with a woman you find pretty (beautiful) or a woman you find ugly?

Beauty definition: : the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit : loveliness
2: a beautiful person or thing; especially : a beautiful woman.

Ugly definition: a : offensive to the sight : hideous
b : offensive or unpleasant to any sense

An ugly person would certainly not attract you under this definition. As such sexual desire, attraction is determined by a persons perception of beauty. (Relative to the person.) This is always based on an association between some of the womans/mans feautures that are seen,( body structure) and the expectation of a benefit in this case pleasant sex.

Therefore ugly is completely relevant to the question as they stem from the same thing. (A relative perception of beauty or sexual attraction.)

Someone who is ugly is by default less likely to be attractive and thus, less likely to be object of sexual desire by members of the opposite sex.


none of that has anything to do with what i said.

ok. What do you define homosexuality to be?

The standard definition works for me, a homosexual is someone who primarily or exclusively (take ur pick, i’m not worried about the details) prefers to have sex with members of his or her own sex.

I think you have your logic backwards in that analogy (object and subject).

The ugly person is not the one expressing the desire, but is the recipient. The homosexual person is the source of the desire. The object of the homosexual desire better fits the analogy of being “ugly” or “beautiful”, but obviously such would be relative to the person with the desire - “ugliness is in the eye of the beholder”.

The hormonal connection between prenatal stress and homosexuality has been established by Science (and was actually known thousands of years ago, even though the technical chemistry wasn’t - I don’t think :confused: ).

The hormonal environment of the growing brain causes the physical brain to, in effect, think it is the other gender and thus grow into the more suited form, emphasizing the different set of gender talents. When the homosexual expresses that “she is trapped in a male body”, he is more right than most people know. The brain actually grew into a female brain, but the body didn’t.

But as pointed out, such in not always the case. Some people are psychologically persuaded into such activity. The methods for that are devious and subtle. There are social engineering reasons for intentionally producing a large population of sexually confused people (gypsy moth).

Archeology has discovered enough Neanderthal burials to posit that Neanderthal’s had burial rituals. I think the headline was, did Neanderthals have a belief in an afterlife. Whatever.

One such tomb was of a male buried with all the ritual accoutrements of a female. Sexual preference is part of much of mammalian life.–So? There’s evidence of homosexuality all around you, so be very, very afraid. The evil demon just may come out and grab you.

Evolution is a crap shoot, my friends, and sexual preference is part of evolution. There may have been times when ‘homosexuality’ was necessary for survival. Who knows? (I know of one such time, however–there are probably more.) When it stops being necessary for survival, it’ll die out. That’s the way Nature/evolution works.