Allow me to address a number of issues here. Firstly, animals are not, in any way, shape, or form, akin to humans with the exception of the obvious fact that they both constitute living organisms. An animal operates on sheer primal-instinct. A human being is expected to rely on reason in order to execute a decision (although it's unfortunate how very few of us take advantage of this innate ability). An animal's genetic string/ DNA is not NEARLY as complex as that of a human's. Have you ever sighted a bear with an appearance entirely unique from another of the same species? I think not.
Which leads me to another issue, Demiurge's surmisal that genetics and experience are fully responsible for an individual's sexual orientation. I find it quite amusing how one can state such precarious assumptions with such adamant certainty. Since Demiurge seems so intent on consolidating his assertion, I'll provide him a more elaborate rebuttle, to which I'm almost certain he'll retort with something along the lines of "You're wrong because you are."
Yes, the ability to roll one's tongue and possess unequivalent dexterity in their hands are determined by genes. However, these traits are all characteristics that hold themselves PHYSICALLY EVIDENT, the same as every other genetic trait. Granted, physical attributes are not all that is determined by genetics, as it is scientifically accepted that conditions such as diabetes, as well as diseases, can be transmitted from parent to offspring. The same can be said about mental or physical defects. Still, these all possess a single common quality. THEY ARE ALL GENETIC EFFECTS THAT CAN BE PRAGMATICALLY STUDIED AND CONFIRMED.
The same, however, cannot be said about homosexuality. You cannot look at a person and infer that they are homosexual, unless they are taking the liberty to flaunt it. You cannot scrutinize a person's genetic makeup and deduce this either. In fact, it is impossible to accurately construe one's personality as homosexual or heterosexual unless they disclose it themselves. The concept of one's sexuality is so intangible that it baffles me how such a great many people can suggest that one's attraction for a particular gender is concretely genetic.
Think about it. Realistically, sexual desire is nothing but the natural, animalistic lust for someone's flesh and reproductive organs.There are people, however, who prefer another variety of flesh, or even stern stoics who don't appreciate sex or sensuality at all (or perhaps they do yet choose to repress it). Of course, there are people with hormonal deficiencies which affect their ability to experience sexual desire. This could direct individuals into concluding that lust is a natural, biological characteristic, hindered only by a defect in one's sex-drive, or hormones. Indeed, it is scientifically proven that desire is a standard biological singularity. One's preferred object of lust, however, is not.
This can be correlated with the manner in which one PREFERS to be stimulated. We can all affirm that we all enjoy stimulation and pleasure, because pleasure itself is caused by endorphins that are released from the brain which invariably creates a positive reaction. We all have disparate ways in which we like to be stimulated though. This is a given, since some of us enjoy anal sex, whereas some do not, some prefer receiving a blowjob over performing oral sex, while some prefer the latter, etc., etc. Of course, this is all a matter of preference, which I will agree is decided by experience as well as number of other factors, but NOT BY ANY MEANS GENETICS. There is no genetic code for liking blowjobs as far as I know.
Thus, if only by assimilation, I would conjecture that while lust for another individual is usually unavoidable (unless you encompass a firm will and insist on being asexual), your choice of individual, is impalpable and abstract, regardless of gender. I'm staunchly reluctant to believe that one can factually state otherwise. To claim that it is a genetic misfire is preposterous. What about bisexuals? Is there a genetic defect for them as well, and if so, what are the logistics behind it? I myself am heterosexual, but I do not wrap my identity around the fact that I am heterosexual. I do not believe that it is the result of genetic stability. I simply like women sexually, and am aversed to men. No, I did not choose to be heterosexual, but then, I did not choose many other preferences as well, such as the fact that I like chocolate but not vanilla, that I like dogs rather than cats, etc. I'm pretty sure that it's the case with homosexuals as well, that it was not a choice, but a habitual affinity for the same sex. It's inexplicable, but then so are many other concepts, such as love, anger, and other emotional characteristics.
Homosexuality in various animal species is becoming a widely documented and reported area of zoological science.
Yes indeed, but as I mentioned prior, animals do not behave similar to humans. When an animal engages in intercourse with a member of the same sex, I really don't think too much of it. It's instinct. I'm pretty sure they enjoy pleasure as well, and it's dubious that they would mind fucking a member of the same sex ocassionally.
You seem to be immensely confused. Gays are the ones who want homosexuality to be genetic, not conservatives.
Actually, my friend, it seems you may have misread. I merely rejected the notion that conservatives would back down from condemning homosexuals if the homosexuals manage to prove something in their favor, like the theory that it is natural. The line "a) would seem like bullshit republican propaganda" was a fairly obvious typographical error, being that it contradicts the last few lines I had written. Replace "republican" with "democrat," if it helps you grasp my message more clearly.
And before you retort with the typical Demiurge remark, no, we cannot FORCE the individuals to conform. Not everyone shares your impracticable one-sided beliefs.
