Being a homosexual (practicing, or no) is not a choice.

You seem to have misunderstood much of what I said. I noted that homosexuality does not entirely make sense, but then mentioned, "besides the much stated examples of homosexuality in nature." I omitted the facts because besides reading them constantly, they're in many other debates and I'd assumed them common sense by now. Homosexuality exists in nature. Some animals are purely homosexual. Some are bisexual. Either way, attempting to mate with the same sex is not only inherent in human beings. It DOES regularly occur in nature. I'm not quite sure how to cite sources in debates, and I'm sure I'll be going against whatever technique there is, but here is a website which reports several different species and their unique reasons for homosexual behavior: http://www.news-medical.net.... There are many others as well. They report, "Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other," and, "We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives." You misinterpreted what I said. I meant that logically, thinking about the reasons for reproduction, gay sex has no place in mating at all. HOWEVER, people and animals are more than just robots designed to follow the constraints of their bodies, as nature and of course gay people today, have shown us. Humans of course have greater cognitive skills. Humans can choose to do many harmful things, even though they are not at all natural. I am not talking about sexual acts. You mention later that I should've clarified, and I should have. I apologize. In the title, I put "practicing, or no" and by that I meant someone who may appear straight in their lifestyle, for example married with children but is gay (there have been many cases of this, married men coming out). Up until "coming out", gay people claim to have always been gay, but have acted in a straight lifestyle. I am not referring to when they begin ACTING gay, but their mindset their entire life (or up until they are sexually mature or whenever sexual orientation actually kicks in). I probably shouldn't have presented the hermaphrodite without explaining it further, or perhaps I cannot fully explain what is in my head, but it is not how you have taken it. My point was: things that are outside of the norm, outside of what nature provides us as a sort of model for what we should all be like, happen. Physical issues are proof that abnormalities as a whole are not a choice. So why, just because something internal is separate from the norm, does that automatically make it choice? This alone does not prove it, but I believe it adds to the long list of things that do. Things happen to people that do not fully make sense in nature, but they happen. The hard thing about sexual orientation is that it is just that. You cannot equate it to a physical thing, or a psychological disorder. It is its own category, and there are only three options, two being much debated about. There is hardly a comparison that can be made in this area. I'm getting as close as I can by saying other abnormalities that are instilled in a child since birth are not choice, and I believe that suggests homosexualty could easily be too. My comments about gays converting and abuse were merely preemptive strikes to common arguments. If those aren't your arguments, then you're right, they are not relevant. Your claim about a being "uncomfortable" seems invalid. I am not talking about homosexual acts. I am talking about the very notion of being attracted singularly, act excluded. I'm not uncomfortable with being attracted, I merely am not. This is a common thing I've heard, straight people saying they could not be gay (anyone can commit a gay act, that is not what I'm referring to). Your examples are choices. Simply listing choices alongside being gay does not make being gay a choice. Clearly, you are correct in that anyone has a choice within their "lifestyle". Every single action is a choice. A gay person may live their whole life without committing a single gay act--they would still be gay. I am talking about the mind, about the inner attraction and desire to have sex with members of the same sex. NOT the act itself (though in many cases, that would of course be included). That sort of knocks off much of what you're saying, since you seem to be mentioning the lifestyle only. You're right: we can't debate truisms such as that. Your description was lengthy and unneeded I believe. I do want to point out that while many homosexuals present themselves in that way, the much more populous straights also has an array of sexually-rambunctious and obnoxious people. This has nothing to do with the sexual orientation. I understand that an individual chooses whether or not to have sex with someone of the same sex. What I am arguing is that, if I were put in the position where I was forced to do so (a strange one, I do not think I will ever find myself in), it would be possible, yes, but it would not be the same thing as having sex with my husband. It would not be even close because I would not be sexually attracted or appealed or gratified in any way because that sex is not the sex I am attracted to or desire. This argument I have also heard from many many other people and I think you would be hard-pressed to find a straight person that claims to desire gay sex without considering themselves gay. I am also severely confused as to why you recognize that we cannot argue about truisms, and yet you continue to talk about the "gay lifestyle" in terms of the stereotypical flamboyant gay, right down to the very end. If you really must push it that hard, then you should know that the majority of gays I know would probably not be portrayed as gay by the common onlooker because they are simply men with a sexual orientation that isn't explicit by there outward appearance. There are flamboyant gays, there are flamboyant straights. Straight people can be just as sexually out-there, but the much higher population waters them down and for some reason gays are pinpointed. Simply because celebrities are in the open eye, I'd like to point out that a number of them appear as normal, maybe even "straight" people and yet are gay. This is certainly all opinion, but seeing as you've turned the whole second half of your argument into arguing against a stereotypical gay lifestyle, I believe it somewhat relevant. A lifestyle for anyone is a choice. A straight person can be sexually promiscuous, rambunctious, etc. So can a gay person. People are capable of this. A straight person can have sex with the same sex. Gay people can have sex with the opposite. Again, I am not talking about actions. I am talking about the desire, the very thing that makes me want to get married and have sex with men, the very thing that makes so many people desire relationships, except with the same sex. So far, nothing has been said to prove that this desire is a choice. It's only been argued that people can choose how to portray themselves and choose their daily actions. I already knew that.