Eukaryote

Deleted.

Oh, I cannot do this anymore. Going around in circles like this. There is no rational argument to show homosexuality is a choice. None. Quite frankly some of these arguments are becoming increasingly disjointed. I've heard of cases where Christians have to, point blank, ignore the obvious but this is just absurd. If you weren't interested in discussing this then you could have just stated that at the outset and saved me all this time wasted.

Maybe they enjoy the thrill. Maybe they're unfaithful by nature. Maybe they feel entitled to have multiple lovers. Because a lot of people cannot control their innate greed. Or maybe they don't make as much as they'd like to (which, sort of, ties in with the aforementioned point). Or maybe they're just kleptomaniacs. Which presupposes that there are no rational answers to these questions when, in fact, there are. It's much simpler than you make it out to be. So, can we return, yet again, to the question of homosexuality as a choice?

If a man/woman is straight why would they choose to be homosexual when they could simply find those things in women/men?

Stealing and murdering usually have some perceived gain attached to them. Be it emotional or material. Aldultery is usually for emotional reasons (backstabbing, not being satisfied at home, etc.). Child pornography? That's a curious one. To the best of my knowledge not much research has been carried out to discern its cause. However homosexuality has no real or perceived benefits so logically it makes no sense to choose it.

Common sense would suggest otherwise. Why would anyone choose to be homosexual, considering the persecution that has come with it throughout history.

How are you replying to this thread then? Considering science gave you your computer and the internet.

One can choose to molest children or not to, which we have established. One cannot choose to be homosexual. The two are not related.

And what about straight men who molest young girls? Are they not as equally deserving of condemnation? The line between homosexuality and paedophilia is no more blurred than the line between heterosexuality and paedophilia. They are completely different things. And I'm sure there have been many cases where male heterosexuals have chosen to refrain from molesting young children (both male and female). Is there a point to all this?

Forgive me if I've picked you up wrong but do you take a similar stance to the Catholic Church? Where homosexuality in and of itself is not condemned but the act is.

But why would God punish someone for something they have no control over? Doesn't that seem cruel?

As I've said above, there have been no reliable studies to show homosexuality is a choice. The individuals in question may repress their feelings (which brings with it a host of psychological problems) but we'll never really know how they cope with it as we cannot see into their minds.

They don't. The two are not the same or in any way similar. Don't try to conflate them because it's a laughable tactic. Some heterosexual males find pre-teen females attractive. Does that mean heterosexuality harms people too? Some homosexuals =/= homosexuality. What you've described above is pederasty. But homosexuality is not a choice. One cannot simply choose to stop being homosexual no more than one can choose to stop being human.

Maybe it was the way you phrased your argument but it came across as the thrust being illegal immigration.

Considering I'm not a geneticist or a student of biology, no. Though there is also the theory that a lack of hormones (most noteably testorterone) developed in the womb cause it. As far as I know it's not fully understood what causes it. However there has been no reputable study performed to show it is a choice. Do homosexuals harm anyone? No? Well then I don't see what the problem is.