Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)

[Natoma]

1 - 100% heterosexual arousal. Physical attraction to members of the same sex.

Yep, there's the part where I disagree. You jump straight to being physically attracted to members of the same sex from a position which you have described as not even being able to recognize attractive individuals. Established wisdom or not, this is just incorrect. The majority of the population can recognize attractive people of the same sex, but are not attracted to them.

To you, it's one and the same. To me, they are very distinct and separate things. In fact, physical attraction and sexual arousal appear to be much more closely related than recognizing attractiveness and actually being attracted to that individual. To be perfectly honest, I would bet that if I did some digging in psychology texts I would find that it is you who are misusing the terminology. I would completely expect to find that only 1% of the population couldn't even recognize attractiveness in another individual of the same sex, but I highly doubt the texts state that only 1% of the population are not physically attracted to members of the same sex.

And if I'm wrong and that's in fact what the texts write, well... I guess I'm back to not agreeing with the establishment.

I stated this Bigus Dickus:

1 - 100% heterosexual arousal. Physical attraction (not arousal, big difference) to members of the same sex.

I clearly made the distinction between attraction and arousal. #2 is where arousal by members of the same sex begins to occur. I was very clear with this.

 

[Natoma]

Bigus are you willing to wager that a paedophile's attraction to children is caused by a genetic trait?

It isn't. Psychological studies of pedophiles have shown conclusively that pedophiles are more interested in the power and control they exert in such relationships, moreso than true physical/emotional/mental attraction.

It is the same with heterosexuals that engage in homosexual activity in jails. It is not because they are attracted to men, but moreso because it is an expression of power and control they exert in such relationships.

 

[Legion]

It isn't. Psychological studies of pedophiles have shown conclusively that pedophiles are more interested in the power and control they exert in such relationships, moreso than true physical/emotional/mental attraction.

Are you telling me that there isn't any genetic foundation for paedophilia and yet i should believe there is for other sexual orientations?

futhermore that ALL such relationship are the same? If so natoma i rebuke such nonsense. Our definition age definition of child differs historically from other societies. Clearly other societies have had such relationship which weren't for the sake of power. I also would say this statement of yours doesn't even address sexual attraction.

You statement does not at all address the possibility of a genetic traits influence natoma. All you have stated is that they are interested in power. How has this disproven anything? I am sure we could say the same about any one else of any varying sexual orientation. Does this automatically label their condition as non genetic?

It is the same with heterosexuals that engage in homosexual activity in jails. It is not because they are attracted to men, but moreso because it is an expression of power and control they exert in such relationships.

As if there were some kind of magical difference natoma . If you achknowledge the possibility of a large motivating enviromental stimulus in one area you have opened up possibilities elsewhere.

How are any other homosexuals different? What is the criteria for judging the differences in these homosexuals? How do these difference reflect genetic dispositions? they don't in the slightest natoma.

 

[Natoma]

I have the same build as my father, i.e. I am 6ft tall, roughly 195lbs - 200lbs, and have long arms. If I never worked out a day in my life, I'd still have the same capacity for musculature that my father does, and roughly the same dimensions.

that does depend on your usage of the muscles although this may be essentially correct.

That's what I said. I have the same muscular capacity as my father. Whether or not that capacity is completely expressed to its full potential is dependent on whether or not I engage in physical activity that forces my body to use its capacity, i.e. "use it or lose it."

Not to mention the fact that anyone who has ever seen me stand next to my father swears we are identical twins, save for the age difference, from our physicality to the way we walk, talk, our inflections, the way we carry ourselves, etc. And just so you know, I never grew up with my biological father. I met him twice in my life. So if I have the same traits as he does in almost every respect, but I never grew up with him to learn these things from him, they must have been passed genetically.

Natoma you aren't establishing homosexuality as a genetic trait.

Again it is true musculature has a genetic counterpart. Are you denying your enviroment can play a role in your muscular developement? If so i best inform all body builders that working out is a waste of their time.

Similarly the same is true with brain tissue. How you develope various parts of your brian (and perhaps the lack of use of other parts) will affect the tissue. Last i checked the same is true with muscle tissue.

I stated explicitly that the environment plays a role in reaching your full potential wrt muscular development. But the capacity for that muscular development is inborn in us all. I stated this:

It is my environmental attitude wrt working out that has improved my musculature, but the capacity still has to be there genetically. For instance, my boyfriend has a small frame. He's 135lbs. No matter how much he works out, he will never have the muscular capacity that I do. Why? His mother and his father are both slim individuals, as are most of the people in his family.

And then you go on to question if I'm denying the environment plays a part in muscular development? Come on now. This is the stuff I was talking about before wrt answering your questions and your points if you would read. :?

It is my environmental attitude wrt working out that has improved my musculature, but the capacity still has to be there genetically.

I am not sure why you are saying this. No one denied the genetic contribution to musculature.

First you say that I'm denying the environment has an effect on Musculature. Then when you see that I stated it, you ask me why I stated it at all in the first place. Please make up your mind. :?

Sexuality is a genetically passed trait.

You haven't proven this.

Sexuality isn't a genetically passed trait? Then how do you explain sexuality in nature and in human beings? How do you explain the need to procreate that every species exhibits?

Not to mention extensive mating rituals that occur in nature, without the animals learning them. Or species that will travel thousands of miles to places that they have never been exposed to in order to mate? All of this is passed through their genes.

Sexuality is most certainly passed along through our genes. The expression of that sexuality is a completely different factor.

We all are inborn with sexual tendencies.

We are born with the capacity for a sex drive not with sexual behaviors. Please point out to me the region of the brain associated with instintual sexual patterning.

I can point you to many homosexuals who exhibited sexual arousal when they were little children, just as there are many heterosexuals who exhibited sexual arousal when they were children. I'm such a person who was sexually aroused by other boys when I was a child. But I had absolutely no clue what those feelings meant. I had to look up in a dictionary what it is exactly I was feeling. But I can remember having homosexual feelings since I was 7.

All beings are, be they lowly amoeba or human beings. Studies have been shown that even as babies, we have a sexually explorative nature.

Do you not see the difference between sexual explorative and "sexuality".

Where do you think the exploration of sexuality comes from? Our genes. How is that sexuality eventually expressed? Through our exploration of that sexuality. We explore our sexuality until we figure out where we "fit" and that becomes our orientation.

But the exploration of that sexuality is what gives us our orientation once we figure out exactly what our sexuality is. Orientation is merely a societal construct given to define sexuality. But if you take away Orientation and leave sexuality as simply is, it doesn't change anything. There will be people sexually aroused to members of the same sex, there will be people sexually aroused by members of the opposite sex, and there will be people sexually aroused by members of both sexes.

No. Higher reasoning is natural. Capacity changes just because of different species.

SO human level reasoning is natural in nature? Can you point out to me an animal with said capacities?

Legion you aren't reading again. Intellectual capacity only increases substantially in humans because we have evolved to have a higher capacity.

Just as Cheetahs have evolved to have a higher lung capacity than us. Just as Mountain Goats have a higher Red Blood Cell capacity than us. They are different evolutionary adaptations in order to survive better in their environment.

But *every* animal has intellectual capacity. Every animal has lung capacity. Every animal has red blood cell capacity. But the capacities in each animal change according to its evolutionary needs. This is not a difficult concept. If you're having trouble with this, it's not surprising you're having trouble with the concepts of sexuality. :?

Rape occurs in the animal kingdom. But our intelligence has evolved to the point whereby we do not believe it is right to sexually take advantage of other beings. Why? Because we believe that sex is more than a physical thing, but an emotional and mental expression.

No we don't. Actually this is nothing more than a reflection of a genetic trait. We really don't think this at all. OUr genes tell us this .

You've completely missed what I've stated. Again.

That is merely an extension of empathy and sympathy. It is not a separate entity in and of itself.

However the expression of it clearly is. Nothing in nature compares to the level of said expression in humans.

Oh jeez Legion that's *exactly* what I just said. The concern for the welfare of others is an extension of our empathy and sympathy which grows, imo, due to our intelligence. You're right, nothing in nature compares to the level of the expression in human beings because nothing in nature is as intelligent as we are. You stated exactly what I stated and made it seem as if it were some new point, hence your "However" qualification at the beginning of your statement.

Yes, it is rare in each individual species, but many species have indeed exhibited this behavior. It is all over the animal kingdom.

Which is close to saying it is unusual?

Unusual in frequency? Yes. Unusual in the fact that it exists? No.

 

[Natoma]

It isn't. Psychological studies of pedophiles have shown conclusively that pedophiles are more interested in the power and control they exert in such relationships, moreso than true physical/emotional/mental attraction.

Are you telling me that there isn't any genetic foundation for paedophilia and yet i should believe there is for other sexual orientations?

futhermore that ALL such relationship are the same? If so natoma i rebuke such nonsense. Our definition age definition of child differs historically from other societies. Clearly other societies have had such relationship which weren't for the sake of power. I also would say this statement of yours doesn't even address sexual attraction.

You statement does not at all address the possibility of a genetic traits influence natoma. All you have stated is that they are interested in power. How has this disproven anything? I am sure we could say the same about any one else of any varying sexual orientation. Does this automatically label their condition as non genetic?

In other societies, such as roman and greek societies, pedophilia was used as an initiation rite into society as a man. It was clearly about power and influence over another human being.

In some societies, an older man is allowed to take a girl once she has reached puberty. The construct of that ritual is power that the man exerts over women. That is one reason why womens rights groups have lobbied to get rid of that practice in countries around the world today.

And as I've stated earlier in this thread, we have evolved as a species to not support the mental/physical/emotional subjugation of sentient beings. That is why we have laws on the books today that outlaw underage sex and marriage with "of age" adults. The need for domination is a societal construct that exists in all societies, be it animal or human. Pedophilia is an expression of that desire. As is the prevalance of homosexuality in jails.

It's the same situation with Rape. As I stated earlier, Rape is an expression of the need to spread ones genetic material, which in and of itself is an expression of sexuality. It occurs all the time in nature. But our intelligence is what helps us separate consenting sexual activities from Rape, and why we deem rape unacceptable.

 

[Natoma]

I have to wonder, if homosexuality is a genetic condition, then what evolutionary advantage does it serve?

If it is none, like most genetic disorders, then should homosexuality be considered not only a genetic condition but a genetic disorder? Does it follow then that if we did find the gene(s) responsible and could screen for it, that it should be treated the same as other genetic disorders that can be screened for?

Should parents at high risk for producing homosexual children be warned just as parents at a high risk of producing Down-Syndrome children are? If we are later able to correct genetic disorders in individuals at birth through gene therapy, should we cure homosexuals at birth?

I have to wonder, if blue eyes and blond hair are genetic conditions, then what evolutionary advantage do they serve?

If they are none, like most genetic disorders, then should blue eyes and blond hair be considered not only a genetic condition but a genetic disorder? Does it follow then that if we did find the gene(s) responsible and could screen for it, that it should be treated the same as other genetic disorders that can be screened for?

Should parents at high risk for producing blue eyed-blond haired children be warned just as parents at a high risk of producing Down-Syndrome children are? If we are later able to correct genetic disorders in individuals at birth through gene therapy, should we cure blue eyed-blond haired children at birth?

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I stated this Bigus Dickus:

1 - 100% heterosexual arousal. Physical attraction (not arousal, big difference) to members of the same sex.

I clearly made the distinction between attraction and arousal. #2 is where arousal by members of the same sex begins to occur. I was very clear with this.

Yes, I just don't agree with your distinctions. I feel that the larger distinction is between recognizing attractiveness and being attracted, rather than some alleged difference between being attracted and being aroused.

Perhaps it's just a difference in the way that we are defining the terms. I can't imagine being attracted to anyone that couldn't at some point arouse me. It's one and the same. OTOH, I could easily tell you who was attractive, knowing full well I could never be attracted to them.

It seems that your wording (and that of your sources) is tailored to convince people that the vast majority of the population is fundamentally bisexual. That's complete BS.

 

[Natoma]

I stated this Bigus Dickus:

1 - 100% heterosexual arousal. Physical attraction (not arousal, big difference) to members of the same sex.

I clearly made the distinction between attraction and arousal. #2 is where arousal by members of the same sex begins to occur. I was very clear with this.

Yes, I just don't agree with your distinctions. I feel that the larger distinction is between recognizing attractiveness and being attracted, rather than some alleged difference between being attracted and being aroused.

Perhaps it's just a difference in the way that we are defining the terms. I can't imagine being attracted to anyone that couldn't at some point arouse me. It's one and the same. OTOH, I could easily tell you who was attractive, knowing full well I could never be attracted to them.

It seems that your wording (and that of your sources) is tailored to convince people that the vast majority of the population is fundamentally bisexual. That's complete BS.

Bisexual wrt attraction, yes. Bisexual wrt arousal, no. I also made that distinction earlier in this thread.

And one thing, I stated that the bisexual tag was in response to the attraction portion of the sexual response, but not a means of sexual arousal. Bisexuality wrt attraction, and Bisexuality wrt to arousal, are two different monikers. I specifically separated them to avoid this confusion as well.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Very clever Natoma; such a simple substitution shows the error in my logic.

Not.

Next time you make a substitution, try making one that has some basis for comparison or equivalence.


Blue eyes are not detrimental to the biological fitness of the individual. Homosexuality may be. Blue eyes do not decrease the chances for survival of the member who carries the trait (in fact, some might argue that it increases such chances), homosexuality may.

Perhaps you would like to argue that being homosexual does confer evolutionary benefits (such as being more attractive to the opposite sex for whatever reasons). That would be an acceptable basis on which to address my questions (since I explicitly left the option open that there may in fact be such evolutionary advantages).

Comparing homosexuality to blue eyes though... nope, not gonna cut it. You can do better (I hope).

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Bisexual wrt attraction, yes. Bisexual wrt arousal, no. I also made that distinction earlier in this thread.

Yes, you made that distinction after people called you on the BS of the original post, which wasn't quite so clearly stated. Still, you continue to use a definition of bisexual which allows you to classify 99% of the population as such, but which 90% of the population would emphatically disagree with.

See any problems with such a definition?

 

[Natoma]

Very clever Natoma; such a simple substitution shows the error in my logic.

Not.

Next time you make a substitution, try making one that has some basis for comparison or equivalence.


Blue eyes are not detrimental to the biological fitness of the individual. Homosexuality is. Blue eyes do not decrease the chances for survival of the member who carries the trait (in fact, some might argue that it increases such chances), homosexuality does.

Perhaps you would like to argue that being homosexual does confer evolutionary benefits (such as being more attractive to the opposite sex for whatever reasons). That would be an acceptable basis on which to address my questions (since I explicitly left the option open that there may in fact be such evolutionary advantages).

Comparing homosexuality to blue eyes though... nope, not gonna cut it. You can do better (I hope).

So I'm somehow less fit because I'm homosexual? Oh please. I'm in far better shape than most people on this planet. And let me remind you that I am fully physically capable of reproduction. There is no deleterious effect on my "fitness" as an individual.

Homosexuality decreases my chances for survival? Please. My partner and I seem to be doing quite well for ourselves thank you very much. We're more well off than most people on this planet.

Your logic is still badly in error, and my simple substitution has clearly shown this to be true. Try again.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

So I suppose the question to be debated is: If homosexuality is genetic in origin, then is it most similar to (1) being born with blue eyes and blond hair, (2) being born with one arm, or (3) being born with sickle cell anemia?

 

[Natoma]

Bisexual wrt attraction, yes. Bisexual wrt arousal, no. I also made that distinction earlier in this thread.

Yes, you made that distinction after people called you on the BS of the original post, which wasn't quite so clearly stated. Still, you continue to use a definition of bisexual which allows you to classify 99% of the population as such, but which 90% of the population would emphatically disagree with.

See any problems with such a definition?

Actually I made that in the very first post in which I brought this up.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=137011#137011

Sabastian quoted me and that is where I explicitly stated what I was referring to. That was the first time I mentioned this.

 

[Natoma]

So I suppose the question to be debated is: If homosexuality is genetic in origin, then is it most similar to (1) being born with blue eyes and blond hair, (2) being born with one arm, or (3) being born with sickle cell anemia?

#1, obviously

Blue eyes and blond hair do not affect one's ability to survive in this world.

Being born with one arm does affect one's ability to survive in this world. That's why it's called a disability. Just as being born with no legs. There are ways to get around these disabilities and still live productive lives, but they are still given a short stick at birth

Sickle Cell Anemia is actually a genetic adaptation to invalidate the dangers of Malaria. It came about in tropical regions of the world because those born with Sickle Cell are immune to Malaria. While it does cause its own problems to the individual, it is not always fatal, though it is discomforting to the individual. However, nature does not care about comfort. Only survival.

Now, if you want to argue that homosexuality has a deleterious effect on the survival of one's genes, i.e. spreading them to the next generation, then you can, as homosexuals cannot reproduce in homosexual relationships. However, that is shot down quite easily by the fact that homosexuals are physically capable of reproduction, and if necessary could reproduce.

For instance, if I was the last member of my family alive, I would have children in order to pass along my family's genes. Would I stay in a relationship with a woman? No. But I would have kids and raise them. However, I have a brother and many cousins, aunts and uncles. From a biological standpoint, there is no pressing need to pass along my genes directly as they will be passed by the heterosexual members of my family.

Would I like to raise kids at some point in the future? Yes. Thank goodness for surrogate mothers and/or adoption. I can adopt as an individual, not in concert with my partner however.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Note that I changed the post you quoted to reflect that "fitness" is an open question.

So I'm somehow less fit because I'm homosexual? Oh please.

Perhaps, considered from a perspective of the species as a whole. If homosexuality was a condition (this is a hypothetical definition for the point of explaining how it could be detrimental to the fitness of the group) that caused homosexual members to only pair with other homosexual members and not produce offspring, then by all means... homosexuality is a serious detriment to the fitness of the group. Without a constant source of mutation to replinish the homosexual group with members, the trait would eliminate itself from nature. That homosexuality still exists is a sign that (1) it's not genetic in origin, or (2) environmental factors cause homosexual indivuals to produce offspring often enough to allow survival of the group.

I'm in far better shape than most people on this planet. And let me remind you that I am fully physically capable of reproduction. There is no deleterious effect on my "fitness" as an individual.

The fitness of the individual is more complex than your physical fitness and what you could do. If you sexual orientation prevents you from producing offspring, then from a greater perspective you might well be considered less fit.

Homosexuality decreases my chances for survival? Please.

It may decrease your chances for reproduction. Survival of the fittest only works if they are able to pass on their genes to offspring. Do we need a refresher course in the mechanisms of evolution?

My partner and I seem to be doing quite well for ourselves thank you very much. We're more well off than most people on this planet.

And your children? Remember, artificial means of reproduction are very new in evolutionary terms. If you're going to form an argument that being homosexual confers enough benefits to offset the detriments, then it will have to be on other grounds than what technology can assist with (I gave one possible argument previously... adoption could be another route to explore).

Your logic is still badly in error, and my simple substitution has clearly shown this to be true. Try again.

Please.

 

[Natoma]

Sexuality is genetic. Homosexuality is an expression of that gene, as is Heterosexuality. Hormones in the womb and after birth have been shown to affect sexual orientation. For instance, it has been shown that Lesbians are more likely to have been exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the womb than heterosexual women. And gay men have been shown to be more likely exposed to less levels of testosterone in the womb than heterosexual men.

There have been studies shown that homosexual men are more likely to have older brothers, or a succession of them, due to the fact that women have a limited supply of testosterone. As more children are born, there is less testosterone supplied to each successive infant.

There have also been studies shown that there is a marked difference between the sizes of certain brain structures dealing with sexuality in homosexual men than heterosexual men. Homosexual men have brain structures that are more in line heterosexual women and Homosexual women have brain structures that are more in line with heterosexual men.

Science is coming out every day to prove a genetic/hormonal link to the expression of sexuality, even before we are born.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Actually I made that in the very first post in which I brought this up.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=137011#137011

Sabastian quoted me and that is where I explicitly stated what I was referring to. That was the first time I mentioned this.

Erm... WHAT? Three pages previously you clearly stated that 99% of the population was in some way, shape, or form bisexual. And you're the one that keeps telling me that I'm too lazy to read? Whatever.

 

[Natoma]

Actually I made that in the very first post in which I brought this up.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=137011#137011

Sabastian quoted me and that is where I explicitly stated what I was referring to. That was the first time I mentioned this.

Erm... WHAT? Three pages previously you clearly stated that 99% of the population was in some way, shape, or form bisexual. And you're the one that keeps telling me that I'm too lazy to read? Whatever.

Apparently you are too lazy to read.

If you look at the numbers from a sexual response viewpoint, which means simply attraction to someone else, then the numbers become far more bisexual in nature. Roughly 1% of the population from a sexual response viewpoint is exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, meaning that they cannot look at a woman if they are a man, and see anything attractive about them. Or they cannot look at a man if they are a man, and see anything attractive about them. Etc etc etc.

Bisexuality wrt attraction, NOT arousal. Again, you are not reading, or you are missing point, intentionally or not.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

#1, obviously

Blue eyes and blond hair do not affect one's ability to survive in this world.

They also don't affect the ability to produce offspring. The aspects of "fit" are a bit more broad than your physical health.

Sickle Cell Anemia is actually a genetic adaptation to invalidate the dangers of Malaria.

Which is obviously why I chose that as an example as something different than a physical or mental abnormality (which is what option 2 is about), as obviously it has both benefits and detriments.

Now, if you want to argue that homosexuality has a deleterious effect on the survival of one's genes, i.e. spreading them to the next generation, then you can, as homosexuals cannot reproduce in homosexual relationships.

I have made that argument, or at least raised that possibility.

However, that is shot down quite easily by the fact that homosexuals are physically capable of reproduction, and if necessary could reproduce.

Shot down? The argument isn't what you could do, but what you do. If they don't reproduce, even if by choice, then the genes aren't passed on. Genetic conditions may leave members physically capable of reproducing, but if that condition lowers their chances for reproducing then it has evolutionary disadvantages. That much is clear, despite your assertion that it is "shot down."

What I'd like to know is your opinion on the possibly evolutionary benefits.

Sounds closer to option (3) than option (1) to me. I'm curious as to why it's so "obviously" option (1).

 

[Legion]

I stated explicitly that the environment plays a role in reaching your full potential wrt to muscular development. But the capacity for that muscular development is inborn in us all. I stated this:

Then you have no reason to disagree with what i stated.

Sexuality isn't a genetically passed trait? Then how do you explain sexuality in nature and in human beings? How do you explain the need to procreate that every species exhibits?

Need to procreate? All humans have a need to procreate? Can you prove such a blanket and assinine statment?

Please demonstrate to me how any form of sexual orientation is passed on genetically while at the same time discussing the genes involved and or brain structures in sexual patterning as instinct.

Not to mention extensive mating rituals that occur in nature, without the animals learning them. Or species that will travel thousands of miles to places that they have never been exposed to in order to mate? All of this is passed through their genes.

Please demonstrate to me how sexual patterned/posturing behavior is passed on in humans and which regions of the brain/genes are associated with these traits.

Please provide me with a list of genetic sexual behaviors while demonstrating them to be instinctual traits based on genetically in humans.

Sexuality is most certainly passed along through our genes. The expression of that sexuality is a completely different factor.

It is so clearly demonstrated that you have continuously made nebulous comparisons? YOu have not proven any genetic link between sexual orientations in humans. Not a single time Natoma. Demonstrate to me how sexual orientation is passed on as trait while linking such behavior to various genes. Can you do this? Can you show me any evidence suggesting that sexual orientation is genetic?

All you have done thus far is mention sex drives have a basis in genetics. This has nothing to do with the determination of sexual orientation other than the mere fact without a sex drive it would be rather difficult to have a sexual orientation.

I can point you to many homosexuals who exhibited sexual arousal when they were little children,

And your point? What on earth does this prove? How does this prove there is some kind of genetic link between sexual orientation and genes? Please tell me? How can you say there isn't an eviromental cause for such behavior? Is age now a requirement for knowing genetic sexual determination?

just as there are many heterosexuals who exhibited sexual arousal when they were children. I'm such a person who was sexually aroused by other boys when I was a child. But I had absolutely no clue what those feelings meant. I had to look up in a dictionary what it is exactly I was feeling. But I can remember having homosexual feelings since I was 7.

WHich in no way proves either are genetically determined. Some one could have an attraction to anything and justify it by using such logic. You being unaware that such feelings are sexual is really more an indication that sexuality is a learned trait then anything else.

This is a typical argument used by homosexuals to defend their beliefs of genetic determination. This form of reasoning is highly refuted as the believers may not be aware of or remember enviromental stimuli that affected his/her choices or feelings.

Where do you think the exploration of sexuality comes from? Our genes.

Natoma please cut out your use of circuitous logic. You have never proven a link between genes and sexual orientation. Yet you continue to make assertions based off your unproven presupposition.

How do these behaviors come from your genes? The children explore their bodies as a process of learning and gathering information. They discover they feel sexual pleasure from stimulating various organs of their bodies. How is this genetic? Please explain in detail.

that sexuality eventually expressed? Through our exploration of that sexuality. We explore our sexuality until we figure out where we "fit" and that becomes our orientation.

If we figure out where we fit we are making a choice as to which sexual orientation to be. this is eviromental not genetic by your own admition.

More circuitous logic.

How do we know i have genetically determined homosexuality?
-because you have a genetic counterpart to sex drive
how do i know that this sex drive causes my homosexuality?
-because you are an active homosexual

How do i know i am genetically deteremined to be sexually attracted to cars?
-because you have a genetic counterpart to sex drive
How do i know this sex drive causes me to be sexually attracted to cars?
-because you are sexually attracted to cars

You clearly aren't answering basic questions Natoma. They aren't inconvient to answer.

how do i know God is real
-becuase the bible says so
why should i believe the bible
-because its God's word

I have proven the existance of God!

But the exploration of that sexuality is what gives us our orientation once we figure out exactly what our sexuality is.

Natoma do you often inevent your own terminology and psychology when debating?

You can not prove this statement in any sense nor does psychology agree with you that some how after finding that we are sexual entities our sexual orientation becomes clear. This in no way is scientifically supported as it is clear people can change their orientations nor has any psychologist proven a genetic link to sexuality.

You are grasping at straws.

This kind of argumentation is blatantly falacious.

You haven't proven that sexual exploration is genetic let alone genetic determination of sexual orientation. You can't. Are you denying the heavy involvment of enviroment on sexual exploration/identity?

How can you possibly establish in your mind that sexual exploration as a child determines your sexual orientation? What research is this reasoning based on?

I can't even grasp such a correlation.

1. we "discover" pleasure "centers" on our bodies as infants - which is in no way linked to the determination of sexuality as an infant has no awareness of this.
2. as we grow older we are taught to associate these centers with "sexuality" and sexual encounters.
3. Most don't grasp these concepts until they are some what older and their sex drive begins to manifest.

Denial of a massive level of enviromental stimuli within these growing years (acknowledging the openness of the child like mind to stimulus) is damned ridiculous and flies in the face of years of psychological research.

Orientation is merely a societal construct given to define sexuality.

Which is a clear indicator that it isn't genetically determined as it is an enviromental construct.

But if you take away Orientation and leave sexuality as simply is, it doesn't change anything.

How so? If you have taken away orientation you have changed the invidividual and his/her sexual outlet? How has nothing changed?

There will be people sexually aroused to members of the same sex,

If you strip them of their sexual orientation this is impossible. Unless of course you can point out to me the genes related to sexual orientation.

there will be people sexually aroused by members of the opposite sex, and there will be people sexually aroused by members of both sexes.

Again this is impossible without orientation. As the basis for sexual orientation is personal preference. If you take that away you have taken you have taken away the source for reaction to stimuli.