Being gay is a fetish.

[Cato]

Alcoholics cannot stop being alcoholics but they can stop drinking. They have a choice. Some people may find themselves attracted to the same sex but that doesn't mean they must engage in same sex sex.

Some people may find themselves attracted to Christianity, but that doesn't mean they must engage in Christianity.

Some people may find themselves attracted to ancient bigotry, but that doesn't mean they must engage in ancient bigotry.

Some people may find themselves having been indoctrinated, but that doesn't mean they must engage indoctrination.

Some people may find themselves attracted to intolerance, but that doesn't mean they must engage intolerance.

Some people may find themselves attracted to ancient superstitions, but that doesn't mean they must engage superstition.

You have a choice.

[Esquilax]

Alcoholics cannot stop being alcoholics but they can stop drinking. They have a choice. Some people may find themselves attracted to the same sex but that doesn't mean they must engage in same sex sex.

And the moment you can furnish a good reason for homosexuals not to engage in their preferred type of sex, one that doesn't rely on the say-so of an unverified ancient desert god, then we can start having that conversation. Until then, you're just demanding that everyone conform to your baseless opinions because you just don't like gay sex, which isn't actually an argument.

[John V]

So you basically just don't want to address what the point of the argument actually is,

The points of my arguments are my own. You don't get to tell me what the point of the argument actually is.

which is that immorality cannot be applied to things people have no choice in,

You're arguing that people have no choice over attraction. I haven't argued that any particular attractions are immoral. Straw man much?

So you're asserting that we should trust those with no idea of what the experience of gay people is like,

No, I'm not arguing we should trust particular people. That's another straw man.

I'm arguing that, considering twins studies and differences in sexuality across times and cultures, the logical conclusion is that the born gay paradigm is false.

over people that have some idea? That seems cogent to you?

Yes, it's quite cogent to be suspicious of personal testimony from people that have an agenda. Atheists do it all the time with Christians. It's a fairly standard procedure.

Laugh all you want, the APA's own resources, linked from their website, specifically state that there is no scientific consensus on this issue.

That's my point. No consensus means ambiguity.

This'll do ya. 

No, it won't. First, the link doesn't work. Second, it's wikipedia. Link to scientific studies, please.

Notice how absolutely none of the studies done make the blithe "it's a choice" derpery that you did in your initial argument from ignorance.

In what post did I say "it's a choice"?

If you're paraphrasing, please use italics or something other than quotation marks.

There isn't a consensus on the issue, but nobody even sees your conclusion as a legitimate area of study.

As I've talked about identical twins studies which have been done, yes, some people see it as a legitimate area of study.

So we should believe you, with zero information as to their experiences, over them, because... you say so?

No, you should consider the twins studies, cultural differences, and evidence that bis have been pressured into adopting the born gay paradigm.

How is this an argument from ignorance?

Modern western gays claim that they were born gay - it's true unless you can disprove it is an argument from ignorance, and it seems to be all you have.

I give an example, you dismiss it out of hand... how is my noting that you've given no reason for your dismissal other than an assertion that you cannot possibly know about not sufficient rebuttal?

And again, I've offered twins studies, cultural differences, and gay discrimination against bis as evidence. you can say I've "given no reason" as often as you like, but anyone reading the thread knows it's not true. You may not find the evidence conclusive - doesn't bother me. But you're outright lying when you claim I've given no reasons.

Yep. The difference is that I'm actually living the life of an LGBTQ person, and so have sufficient evidence to refute your argument from ignorance right off the bat. Oh, and I'm not sitting here asserting that what I'm saying is the default and you have to prove me wrong, either. I'm just saying that when there isn't a consensus, there isn't a consensus, but I trust the contents of my own mind over whether this is a choice more than your fiat assertion and a study that, at best, merely rules out an exclusively genetic origin.

You can trust the contents of your own mind all you want - but there's no reason for me to trust them.

When a Christian claims truth based on their own experience, atheists rightly make the same protest.

Your only response to that is to tell me I'm lying, but you don't know me, you can't read my mind, and so that response is simply one of ignorance made to retain the conclusion you'd already come to before I'd even started speaking.

My response isn't that you're lying - those are your words, and another straw man. An error from confirmatin bias doesn't indicate that the person was lying, it means that they were unconsciously selecting and interpreting data to fit their desired conclusion.

I don't sit here and just invalidate everything you say through fiat dismissal, because I can see that that doesn't get us anywhere. Is it too much to ask that you do the same?

If all you have to go on is your personal experience, then yes, it is too much to ask. A Christian could make the same plea, but it wouldn't get him anywhere on this board.

Was the conclusion of either of those sets of studies that homosexuality is a choice?

The reasonable conclusion from those studies is that people are not born gay as people are born black.

[One Above All]

The reasonable conclusion from those studies is that people are not born gay as people are born black.

Wrong. The actual conclusion is that, if there's a genetic factor, it's minor. Being born with it doesn't make it 100% (or even 1%) genetic. Not being a choice also doesn't make it genetic. I've already told you this, as have many others.

[John V]

Wrong. The actual conclusion is that, if there's a genetic factor, it's minor.

Agreed.

Being born with it doesn't make it 100% (or even 1%) genetic.

The fact that identical twins have a higher rate of concordance than fraternal twins indicates that there is a genetic factor, but as you note, it's minor.

I agree that fetal development is more than just genetics, if that's your point. But, identical twins not only share the same genes, they share the same womb at the same time. So, what factors are you proposing that work on one twin, but not on the other?

[One Above All]

Wrong. The actual conclusion is that, if there's a genetic factor, it's minor.

Agreed.

Being born with it doesn't make it 100% (or even 1%) genetic.

The fact that identical twins have a higher rate of concordance than fraternal twins indicates that there is a genetic factor, but as you note, it's minor.

I agree that fetal development is more than just genetics, if that's your point. But, identical twins not only share the same genes, they share the same womb at the same time. So, what factors are you proposing that work on one twin, but not on the other?

How about you quote (and read) my entire post? Then you might find out why, even if I were to grant you sexuality is not inherent (in other words, if I were to concede to a lie), you'd still have nothing to base your bigotry on.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This thread has been most enlightening, Heywood & Alpha Male. You both have presented well-reasoned and nuanced views on homosexuality.  In contrast to this, the hysteria and extremist rhetoric of non-believers continues because of their basic intellectual errors, as follows:

EQUATING SINCERELY HELD BELIEFS with BIGOTRY

Reason applied to experience suffices to show that homosexual activity is wrong. The highest good all people desire is to be happy. People are happiest when personal circumstances and societal order allow them to freely act in accordance with reason and they do so, i.e. in harmony with the essence of human nature. Examination of the physical body reveals the natural functions and proper uses of its parts. Homosexual actions, like all other types of sexual sin, go against the natural functions of sexuality (procreation and conjugal love) and the organs with which it is expressed.  

Heywood, Alpha Male, and I hold this opinion, which obviously differs from that of our opponents. But that is all it is: a difference of opinion. In order for our position to express bigotry, it must reflect an irrational prejudice against immutable features. This leads to their next error.

CONFUSING GENDER IDENTITY with SEX or RACE

People are born either male or female. Likewise people are born having noticeably different ancestries, i.e. various types of skin & eye color, facial structure, hair type, etc. These physical features are permanent and outwardly observable biological facts. In a just society people are not held responsible for biological facts about themselves over which they have no control.
Unlike race or sex, we recognize that gender identity is a social construct similar to masculinity and femininity. People self-identify themselves according to gender categories that express their proclivities and cultural affinities. Prejudice based on gender identity represents a reluctance to associate with people with certain attitudes and inclinations. In a free society, people must be free to decide with whom they associate.

CONFLATING ORIENTATIONS with ACTIONS

Our pro-gay opponents claim that homosexuality is not a choice. In so doing they fail to distinguish between a psychological disposition (orientation) with physical behavior (acts). If for the sake of argument, we take as given that people cannot change their sexual orientation that does not mean people must engage in the behavior. For example, married heterosexual men may still desire other women but they do not need to practice adultery. Whether they do or not is their choice. 

[Esquilax]

This thread has been most enlightening, Heywood & Alpha Male. You both have presented well-reasoned and nuanced views on homosexuality.

You really think that? You might literally be insane.

EQUATING SINCERELY HELD BELIEFS with BIGOTRY

Reason applied to experience suffices to show that homosexual activity is wrong. The highest good all people desire is to be happy. People are happiest when personal circumstances and societal order allow them to freely act in accordance with reason and they do so, i.e. in harmony with the essence of human nature. Examination of the physical body reveals the natural functions and proper uses of its parts. Homosexual actions, like all other types of sexual sin, go against the natural functions of sexuality (procreation and conjugal love) and the organs with which it is expressed. 

As I've pointed out before, you have no basis for saying this: one could equally say that the natural function of human genitalia is to provide pleasure, considering they're filled with nerves dedicated to that purpose. More importantly, the simple assertion that genitals have a function and that function determines the moral dimension of their use is... well, to begin with it's an is/ought fallacy, since what something is in no way determines what one ought to do with it. Also, I don't think that you get to determine the boundaries of "conjugal love," either; that label equally applies to gay sex, and you haven't given any reason for its exclusion there aside from your own presuppositions.

Also? Homosexuality is more than sex, and certainly more than anal sex, which is the only element you might remotely have a case with, even if you're severely overstressing it. Either that, or you lot have, no doubt, severely bored wives who have long grown disappointed with the strict penis-in-vagina sex with no foreplay or anything else.

Heywood, Alpha Male, and I hold this opinion, which obviously differs from that of our opponents. But that is all it is: a difference of opinion. In order for our position to express bigotry, it must reflect an irrational prejudice against immutable features. This leads to their next error.

"I'm not a bigot, I'm just a judgmental tool! There's a difference!"

CONFUSING GENDER IDENTITY with SEX or RACE

People are born either male or female. Likewise people are born having noticeably different ancestries, i.e. various types of skin & eye color, facial structure, hair type, etc. These physical features are permanent and outwardly observable biological facts. In a just society people are not held responsible for biological facts about themselves over which they have no control.
Unlike race or sex, we recognize that gender identity is a social construct similar to masculinity and femininity. People self-identify themselves according to gender categories that express their proclivities and cultural affinities. Prejudice based on gender identity represents a reluctance to associate with people with certain attitudes and inclinations. In a free society, people must be free to decide with whom they associate.

Again, the mere assertion that gender identity (which is not sexual orientation, by the way!) is a social construct and nothing else is just that: merely an assertion. Moreover, it says a lot about you, too, that you find gender to be so optional.

CONFLATING ORIENTATIONS with ACTIONS

Our pro-gay opponents claim that homosexuality is not a choice. In so doing they fail to distinguish between a psychological disposition (orientation) with physical behavior (acts). If for the sake of argument, we take as given that people cannot change their sexual orientation that does not mean people must engage in the behavior. For example, married heterosexual men may still desire other women but they do not need to practice adultery. Whether they do or not is their choice. 

Yawn, the same old sophistry, wherein you demand that everyone else act the way you want them to because you say so. Chad, you've yet to provide a single argument for why people should abstain from gay sex that wasn't either a naturalistic fallacy, an is/ought fallacy, or reliant on your unverified religious dogma. Try again.

Or better yet, just don't.

[Pizza]

It's interesting how Chadwooter and the other bigots only look at negative and positive duties, but ignore the concept of permissibility and different individuals may have duties unique to them. The idea that not everyone has to produce children and that it is permissible to have sex that doesn't produce children is lost on them. I'm surprised they haven't argued celibacy to be a great evil because to goes against procreation. Sounds more like natural law is just post ad hoc rationalization of their bigot views.

[coldwx]

I agree that fetal development is more than just genetics, if that's your point. But, identical twins not only share the same genes, they share the same womb at the same time. So, what factors are you proposing that work on one twin, but not on the other?

Identical twins manifest difference in height, weight, fingerprints, etc that can be formulated in the womb due to factors such as placental connection.  These are not choices, but are not genetic.  While I agree with the argument that the science is far from settled regarding a "gay gene", this does not correlate to SSA being a choice.  I get the feeling that you are not necessarily arguing that it is a choice, just that it is not buried in genetics.