That's a poor analogy. Smoking is a choice, but the desire to smoke isn't. Sexuality has nothing to do with acting on desires, it's about the desires themselves. And the nature/nurture argument is irrelevant. In either case, it's not a choice.

Perhaps on a deeper level the analogy isn't perfectly parallel, but my point stands.

Your point that it's a choice? No, I addressed that as well.

For many people they are not born gay but become homosexual later on in their life, many attest to never feeling attraction to the same sex until much later. That being said, there are also those who claim they have been gay their whole life but become straight by choice (Sy Rogers is a very renound speaker, I strongly suggest you listen to one of his lectures). Desires can be changed one way or another, this much is apparent. That being said, the original lust or desire is very dependent on an individual's surroundings. Saying it isn't a choice means that the person in question can not change, and there are undeniably many members of the gay community who have become straight, and the opposite.

That has nothing to do with the point of this thread or even the point I suspect you were first making. Whether people can "will" themselves to become straight or gay is irrelevant (and a highly contentious claim that, for obvious reasons, isn't recognized in western academia). The point is that homosexuals, the people who exist in society today, [b]don't choose their sexual desires[/b]. They simply recognize them and conclude that they are gay. The same applies for every straight person too (sans your anomaly, which sounds highly dubious). And yet you attempt to reduce it to a "choice", like the choice I make between coffee and tea. Ridiculous. Anybody with a majors in neuroscience -- scratch that, anybody in general -- should know it's much more complicated than that.

[quote]That has nothing to do with the point of this thread or even the point I suspect you were first making. Whether people can "will" themselves to become straight or gay is irrelevant (and a highly contentious claim that, for obvious reasons, isn't recognized in western academia). The point is that homosexuals, the people who exist in society today, [b]don't choose their sexual desires[/b]. They simply recognize them and conclude that they are gay. The same applies for every straight person too (sans your anomaly, which sounds highly dubious). And yet you attempt to reduce it to a "choice", like the choice I make between coffee and tea. Ridiculous. Anybody with a masters in neuroscience -- scratch that, anybody in general -- should know it's much more complicated than that.[/quote] My point throughout this thread has remain unchanged, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, be it conscious or not. I understand that the issue of 'natural' sexual desires isn't simple to the point of a single post on an internet thread. My opinion on whether or not someone can willfully change their sexual preference is as documented and accepted as those who say they are born gay. Not being taught through mainstream academics is irrelevant because homosexuality as a whole is hardly taught one way or another except for at the most forefront of college majors (psychology, biology, certain sciences). Once you can accept that sexuality can be changed (whether you choose to accept it or not is your choice. Again, I highly recommend Sy Rogers, he's brilliant) then you'll understand that homosexuality is at large a result of an individual's environment. It's no wonder that since western cultures ethical transformation towards homosexual acceptance within the last two decades the number of recognised homosexuals has skyrocketed. You could argue that more people come out with their sexuality now because it is more accepted but doesn't that seem like a catch-all statement? The gay community has grown [b]exponentially[/b], to many including myself that doesn't seem like a coincidence.

[quote]I believe that homosexuality is a choice, [b]be it conscious or not.[/b][/quote]You have to be trolling. The whole point of this thread, and of this very issue, is whether it's a [b]conscious[/b] choice or not. You're free to stretch the definition however you like, but don't go throwing the word "choice" around in ways that [i]nobody[/i] else uses it. It only confuses people and/or makes you a mildly successful, if unsubtle troll.

Hmm.. fair enough, I respect that.. I believe it is a conscious choice. I apologize for misconstruing my prior statement.

Then everything you've said regarding genetics and environmental influences contradict your belief. You can read through everything again if you like. I'm going to end this now because I can't be sure whether you're trolling or not. If you're not, then I apologize, but you should make sure your posts are consistent to avoid setting off alarm bells. (Good advice for an aspiring troll too, actually).

This makes no -blam!-ing sense. Gay people come from all sorts of backgrounds. If your hypothesis was true, then the only homes that gays would come out from would be those of another gay couple. Basically the kids of gay couples. But they don't. Gay couples raise straight kids. Straight couples sometimes have gay kids. Gay people come from homes where being gay is highly frowned upon. So stop stupid statements.

Homosexuals come from MANY backgrounds, my point was that outside influence plays a huge role in a child's psychological development.

Nurture could have something to do with it, but the problem here is that gays come from a way too varied backgrounds for us to say, yes that's the thing. There are just too many variables.

[quote]It is a choice, and it has much to do with your surroundings and influence. Someone who grew up in a house of smokers isn't guarenteed to be a smoker, but it is more likely. Same goes for homosexuality. Source: I have a major in neursoscience. Will probably go back for a masters soon.[/quote] You sound smart

Thank you :)

You should get a refund then.

If you want to argue about the science of sexuality and the brain I'm willing to? But the fact of the matter is your not. We live in a very progressive society, five years ago gay rights werent a fraction of what they are not, but time changes. There's two ways to look at homosexuality. Morally, and biologically. Biologically there is no debate. Homosexuality does not yield offspring. It is not natural for obvious reasons (reproductive organs). And a gay male is 41 times more likely to contract an STD than a straight male. A gay female 71 times more likely. Don't try to argue the science with me Most people try to look at the moral side. "Why shouldn't two people be together if they love each other?" I have grown up in a Christian household my whole life. I love my God, and I am very educated and reasonable. When someone asks me this question, I have no PERSONAL reason to say no. Because personally, I cannot think of a good reason. BUT. As a Christian I follow what God says. And the bible is very clear about homosexuality, and it is wrong. Its not out of hate, there are many reasons for it. But the bottom line is this. If you are a Christian and you believe in a God, if God says homosexuality is wrong then he probably knows best. I'm not God. Nor am I as smart or understanding as him. So if he said it's wrong then I will trust him and stand by it. If you are not a Christian, then I fully agree that there is no MORAL reason to deny gay rights. To argue my morals is to argue the existence and validity of God through apologetics, and that is an entirely different discussion. I am not shallow minded but some Christians may be. Just understand that this is our reasoning behind our beliefs and try to be more civil.

look at me I'm a college major and I know everything about anything and I wanna fight the man. thats you.

your so called "book" is a [b]LIE[/b] all in of itself written by 400 hands NOT some "god" & censored, then rewritten another million or so times. Give it a guess who censored it lol your so called "church" which is built upon BLOOD, GREED,DECEIT, BIGOTRY, LIES, MURDER, GENOCIDE & EVIL. You have NO room to talk little one. You have been brainwashed into your so called beliefs by a very very CORRUPTED "church".

It seems youre speaking through anger rather then as someone who's well studied. The bible isn't written by 400 hands but 40, over three continents, 3 languages, over 1500 years with shocking historical accuracy. Most historians and professors. CHRISTIAN OR NOT regard the bible as the most historically accurate book ever written, and can attest to it's historical accuracy. To say otherwise is ignorance and denial on your part. Ive spent years of my life studying apologetics, listening to hundreds of podcasts of lectures by different religious figures, listening to hundreds of debates both online and attending in person at universities regarding God, morals, theology, etc between opposing religions and beliefs. Through all that I can tell you the whether or not youre a Christian (which is fine. That's your belief) to disregard the bible as something written through politics (some [i]variations of interpretations [/i]such as the Old King James were politically altered but they're all but gone now) or without validity is just stupid. Ive seen many lectures by doctorates of history who ARE ATHEIST use the bible as evidence. I understand what I'm saying may not reach you, it's important however to not be close minded and be open to hearing every side of every argument.