Replies

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

I disagree and here's why:

I think most are under the impression homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice. That is, when people with same-sex attraction engage in sexual behavior with people of the same sex, that action is voluntary. What I think confuses people is homosexuality (the behavior) and same-sex attraction. The former is a choice, the latter, for the vast majority, is not a choice.

Perhaps the issue the nation should be talking about is from where same-sex attraction originates. And the more people realize homosexuals are not born with their attraction to the same sex, the less support they'll have because a higher percentage of the populace will have a better education on the subject.

As I see it, same-sex attraction, or better, how same sex attraction develops may be a psychosis, I don't know for sure. What I know is our sexuality is quite complex and determining why 98% develop opposite-sex attraction and 2% develop same-sex attraction is no simple task because politics appears to trump the science of homosexuality.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

I disagree and here's why:

I think most are under the impression homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice. That is, when people with same-sex attraction engage in sexual behavior with people of the same sex, that action is voluntary. What I think confuses people is homosexuality (the behavior) and same-sex attraction. The former is a choice, the latter, for the vast majority, is not a choice.

Perhaps, you missed the part of my previous post note below:

Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation, an expression based exclusively on “feelings,” does not practically define anyone as a homosexual. To contend that only “feelings” can categorically define a person is to maintain that “feelings of “lust” define one as a rapist or “feelings” of “anger” define one as a murderer or “feelings” of “greed” define one as a thief.

Perhaps the issue the nation should be talking about is from where same-sex attraction originates.

Practically speaking, it doesn’t matter a whet where same-sex attraction originates. Does it matter someone’s attraction to the property of others originates? If that individual never steals the property to which he or she is attracted, practically there is no theft, i.e., no problem. Similarly, if one is attracted to a member of the same sex but never acts on his or her attraction, then why should there be any need for the nation to be talking about the attraction?

As I see it, same-sex attraction, or better, how same sex attraction develops may be a psychosis, I don't know for sure.

Again, you may have missed this part of my previous post:

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

What I know is our sexuality is quite complex and determining why 98% develop opposite-sex attraction and 2% develop same-sex attraction is no simple task because politics appears to trump the science of homosexuality.

The science of homosexuality is quite simple: Those who are exclusively homosexual behavior practitioners do not reproduce naturally. Therefore, unless homosexual behavior is driven by genetic anomalies, its incidence would totally disappear in a very few generations. Consequently, science dictates the incidence of occurrence in the population would logically be far less than 2%.

If homosexual practitioners reproduce naturally, they must do so with a member of the opposite sex. Therefore, logically, if they can choose to reproduce, they can choose not to be homosexual behavior practitioners.

If homosexual behavior were driven, i.e., the practitioner has no control over his or her behavior, then the condition is a psychosis.

What are you having trouble understanding about the situation?