At 7/26/2012 4:41:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Interesting. I made it past the fat walrus. I can't say I have spent much time on gay studies, but there is one observation that has always baffled me.
It is often quoted that being gay is unnatural and that it is a learned behavior. First and foremost it is extremely unlikely that sexual attraction does not have a biological basis. Heterosexuals don't choose to be attracted to women. They just are. In addition it is proven that there are key universal traits that indicate attraction is rather universal. IE: heterosexuals don't choose to be more attracted to Jessica Alba than Hillary Clinton. Of course there certainly are some individuals who would break the mold and would find Hilary more attractive than Jessica, so the question remains whether those individuals preference is learned or genetic. The point though, is that there is a baseline genetic component and one thing that is proven beyond a doubt is that a genetic disposition is never 100% the same in every human.
The lessor talked about component to the argument about homosexual being unnatural and learned is that learning is natural. One can not say a learned behavior is unnatural. Whether one believes God created humanity or evolution, or both, the simple fact that humans have the capability to learn a behavior means it is natural. Of course that does not argue for the sake of whether it is moral behavior or not.
Long story short. Anyone anti-homosexual, please discontinue stating that it is not natural. Secondly stop saying that it is exclusively learned behavior. Attraction has a deep genetic component and genetics are never universally 100% the same in every individual and quite honestly you are guessing an end answer to support your argument. You may, however, argue the societal and religious morality as that is pure opinion anyway.
