NationStates Jolt Archive

A lot of people problematise homosexuality. "Where does it come from?" "What causes it?"

Queer theorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory), on the other hand, often problematise heterosexuality, because it is the thing that needs explaining, but that so few question the origins of.

So, where does it come from? What causes it? Choice? Not choice? If not, how do you prove to someone who isn't heterosexual that you didn't choose it? If yes, when did you and why?

(No religion, please. Stick to fact, not fiction.)

r u a queer theorist? sure sounds like it...i can explain everything, or almost evrything, or almost everything important, or almost everything i find important(lol) about homo- and hetero-sexuallity, but unfortunately, it's quite religious, so i doubt if u wanna hear...before i go, however, i'd like to poitn out that scientists have always gone with the most plausible theory when they can't explain something, and that i have quotes from quite a few respected scientists indicating that the most plausible theory to explain pretty much everything is the theory most commonly called "The Christian Faith"...mail me if ur interested

No offence, but I stopped reading that after the second sentence. Well, at least I think it was a sentence and that it was the second one.

See how this works. Respect me enough to write coherently and properly, and I'll respect you enough to read what you write.

A lot of people problematise homosexuality. "Where does it come from?" "What causes it?"

Queer theorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory), on the other hand, often problematise heterosexuality, because it is the thing that needs explaining, but that so few question the origins of.

So, where does it come from? What causes it? Choice? Not choice? If not, how do you prove to someone who isn't heterosexual that you didn't choose it? If yes, when did you and why?

(No religion, please. Stick to fact, not fiction.)

I apologize if this is meant to be funny (one never can tell on NationStates) but the origin of Heterosexuality is pretty damn obvious - it evolved as an efficient way to achieve sexual reproduction.

Sexuality is not a choice, IMO. It is likely genetic, and besides, who ever heard of anyone who chose to be straight or gay? I didn't choose to prefer girls.

I apologize if this is meant to be funny (one never can tell on NationStates) but the origin of Heterosexuality is pretty damn obvious - it evolved as an efficient way to achieve sexual reproduction.

That's not an explanation. That's an excuse. What makes people straight? When did it make them that? Can they be "cured"?

Sexuality is not a choice, IMO. It is likely genetic, and besides, who ever heard of anyone who chose to be straight or gay? I didn't choose to prefer girls.

Do you have any evidence that it is genetic? Some gene or cluster of genes?

Jeez i cant beleive this is still under debate. Like nearly every human charactersitic its part nature, part nurture. I dont know how much of each but its a bit of both. Same goes for homosexuality.

That's not an explanation. That's an excuse. What makes people straight? When did it make them that? Can they be "cured"?

Either you're just kidding with me, or you don't understand what I wrote. Either way, I can't be arsed to explain it in more detail.

Jeez i cant beleive this is still under debate. Like nearly every human charactersitic its part nature, part nurture. I dont know how much of each but its a bit of both. Same goes for homosexuality.

Proof?

Apparently it's mother nature saying that we're too over populated and we're ruining the planet.

I have evidence that it's genetic.

No matter how much I get pissed off at women, I still chase them.

If heterosexuality weren't genetic I would have been asexual a looooooooong time ago.

Either you're just kidding with me, or you don't understand what I wrote. Either way, I can't be arsed to explain it in more detail.

It's "evolutionary" is not an explanation. It doesn't explain what makes straight people straight, and it doesn't explain if they can be cured.

I have evidence that it's genetic.

No matter how much I get pissed off at women, I still chase them.

If heterosexuality weren't genetic I would have been asexual a looooooooong time ago.

So, I would just have to take your word for it, that you never chose it? Why should I believe you?

Proof?

The NationStates General Forum has never been a source of "proof". If you want scientific evidence you have to go looking for it in research papers and stuff.

:D
Brilliant.
*hugs Fass*

It's "evolutionary" is not an explanation. It doesn't explain what makes straight people straight, and it doesn't explain if they can be cured.

Evolution works via genetics (I thought that was common knowledge). As for "cured", sexuality is not a disease.

Proof?

Of the nature or nuture bit?

So, I would just have to take your word for it, that you never chose it? Why should I believe you?

You don't have to believe me, you just have to look at yourself and see what you naturally desire.

If you don't desire anything then you might be that small percentage that came out flawed...and unlucky not to be able to chase women (if you're a guy)

Evolution works via genetics (I thought that was common knowledge).

Ah, but you have to prove that heterosexuality is genetic first.

As for "cured", sexuality is not a disease.

Why not? A lot of people think it is. You know better? How come?

You don't have to believe me, you just have to look at yourself and see what you naturally desire.

I don't "naturally" desire what you desire, and cannot therfore know why you desire it.

If you don't desire anything then you might be that small percentage that came out flawed...and unlucky not to be able to chase women (if you're a guy)

Asexuality is flawed? Hmm. It's also off-topic.

Ah, but you have to prove that heterosexuality is genetic first.

No, I don't. If you want proof, go look at research papers and stuff. It's pretty obvious anyway - lower animals that only work on instinct have sex, so it can't be an environmental influence.

Why not? A lot of people think it is. You know better? How come?

Because I'm not a moron.

For both homosexuality and heterosexuality:

You can choose which gender(s) you are open to consorting with romantically. I am open to any orientation.
And you can choose which gender(s) you actually do date. I have dated (or asked out) both girls and boys, but the boys were much more numerous, in accordance with my crushes.
You can even suppress and ignore attraction if you find it incongruous with your sensibilities or the circumstances. I naturally do that when I know it's not reciprocal, or when it is extraneous to an existing relationship I have.
However... the attraction you actually feel or don't feel isn't your choice at all. Regardless of my sometimes thinking being a lesbian would be simpler, I'm not. And while I haven't had enough experience to really know, it seems I'm probably not even bi, based on the comparatively minuscule attraction I feel toward girls.

No, I don't. If you want proof, go look at research papers and stuff. It's pretty obvious anyway - lower animals that only work on instinct have sex, so it can't be an environmental influence.

Animals don't have sexualities in the way humans do, and therefore they cannot be an argument for anything, especially since most other species in the world use sex (most don't even have sex!) in a very different way than humans. Also, they are incapable of having sexual identities. "So, animals do it" is not an argument.

And I am unaware of any studies that prove that heterosexuality is genetic. If you're going to claim it, you're going to have to prove it. I doubt you will be though.

Because I'm not a moron.

Moron or not, do you have anything to back up the things you claim?

Obviously, it's a choice. The degree to which it is practiced is probably most often affected by peer-pressure. Have you never seen the movie Spartacus, it explains the whole thing.

Hmmm it seems that you hit the nail on the head. Heterosexuality might actually be the deviant form of sexuality, but over the years, it has spread so much, that we're now overpopulated and most people have the disease and usually it results in the spitting out of babies from various wombs... I doubt that it can be cured though, since it is already so widely spread and impossible to contain after so many centuries of it being accepted in society. If homosexuality was the norm, we'd not face problems over resources and "lebensraum" and could control the amount of population much better. *sighs*

I was about to some in here and blast people for calling it a disease. After looking at the definition, however, I realised I was wrong -

dis·ease (dĭ-zēz')
n.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

Society is full of morons though.

Fass:

Of course heterosexuality is genetic.

Genes program human behavior to replicate themselves, according to the selfish gene theory. Gene reproduction, in humans, requires heterosexuality. There is no denying that heterosexual humans are in the majority. We are compelled by biological forces to ensure the survival of our genes (primarily) and continuation of our genes through reproduction.

If heterosexuality wasn't genetic, the only other explanation for it being so prevalent throughout the history of our species would be... choice? Everyone just chose heterosexuality... and that choice just happened to lead to reproduction? Hmm, that maybe not far from the truth...

...But then, if it was just choice, why aren't there an equal number of homosexual and heterosexuals in human or similar mammal populations? Surely one could just as easily choose either one, giving a 50% probability distribution. But there are far more heterosexuals. Is the heterosexual choice just more aesthetically pleasing? Or do you suppose culture enforces heterosexuality so that out of the 50% pop who are homosexual, only a few of them are 'out of the closet' and the majority pretends heterosexuality? If so, how would that work in non-human mammal populations where culture plays much, much less of a role?

Everything is genetic. I would even suggest homosexuality as a mutation; the exceptions being where human behavior has outforced biological factors (that happens commonly enough, anyway).

I was about to some in here and blast people for calling it a disease. After looking at the definition, however, I realised I was wrong -

dis·ease (dĭ-zēz')
n.
1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.
2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

Society is full of morons though.
I think you misunderstood that last meaning. A disease is not simply something society sees as harmful, but a condition of society that is harmful.

I think you misunderstood that last meaning. A disease is not simply something society sees as harmful, but a condition of society that is harmful.

You are correct.

Fass, animals may not have human sexualities but they are attracted to each other. It is unlikely thay would have sex otherwise as there would be no compulsion for them to. Your point about most species not having sex is only true if you look at bacteria and even they can have sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is just swapping genetic data with another to produce genetically different offspring afterall. The act may be different but the process of combing genes is largely the same.

Since you seem to be shooting down any point because you realised noone has done any research into heterosexuality being genetic what research have you done to prove that animals can't have sexual identities? You need to refute that properly before you dismiss the argument.

@Bogstonia: But that doesn't make sexuality a disease. at least not as I see it because I neither think that it's generally harmful nor that is abnormal...

But anyway...I don't think that "the other side" from whatever gender you prefer is wrong just because it's different from yours...actually when you come to think about it that's really just the biggest bulls**t I have read here so far...no offense buddy, at least it' turned into a really funny discussion and that makes it even good after all. :p
But regarding the facts this discussion is worthless. I think until somebody finds a reasonable and useful explanation why we love it is pretty pointless to discuss why some people are hetero- and some are homosexual.


PS: None of it is wrong or sick. It's just different from the other. Finish.

@Bogstonia: But that doesn't make sexuality a disease. at least not as I see it because I neither think that it's generally harmful nor that is abnormal...

But anyway...I don't think that "the other side" from whatever gender you prefer is wrong just because it's different from yours...actually when you come to think about it that's really just the biggest bulls**t I have read here so far...no offense buddy, at least it' turned into a really funny discussion and that makes it even good after all. :p
But regarding the facts this discussion is worthless. I think until somebody finds a reasonable and useful explanation why we love it is pretty pointless to discuss why some people are hetero- and some are homosexual.


PS: None of it is wrong or sick. It's just different from the other. Finish.

The disease thing wasn't really serious. I have no idea what the rest of your post means.

The way I see it, the only thing good about gays are they lesson the amount of competition for breeding stock. That if anything, is the bennie for allowing Gays out of the closet.
At least they are not taking up breeding partners anymore. Hell the way I see it, gays will screw themselves out of existence, just so long as they arent allowed to mix with straights.

Fass:

Of course heterosexuality is genetic.

Genes program human behavior to replicate themselves, according to the selfish gene theory. Gene reproduction, in humans, requires heterosexuality. There is no denying that heterosexual humans are in the majority. We are compelled by biological forces to ensure the survival of our genes (primarily) and continuation of our genes through reproduction.

If heterosexuality wasn't genetic, the only other explanation for it being so prevalent throughout the history of our species would be... choice? Everyone just chose heterosexuality... and that choice just happened to lead to reproduction? Hmm, that maybe not far from the truth...

...But then, if it was just choice, why aren't there an equal number of homosexual and heterosexuals in human or similar mammal populations? Surely one could just as easily choose either one, giving a 50% probability distribution. But there are far more heterosexuals. Is the heterosexual choice just more aesthetically pleasing? Or do you suppose culture enforces heterosexuality so that out of the 50% pop who are homosexual, only a few of them are 'out of the closet' and the majority pretends heterosexuality? If so, how would that work in non-human mammal populations where culture plays much, much less of a role?

Everything is genetic. I would even suggest homosexuality as a mutation; the exceptions being where human behavior has outforced biological factors (that happens commonly enough, anyway).

None of that is proof. It is a speculative theory. And you should know that most things aren't genetic, they're most often mixes.

The way I see it, the only thing good about gays are they lesson the amount of competition for breeding stock. That if anything, is the bennie for allowing Gays out of the closet.
At least they are not taking up breeding partners anymore. Hell the way I see it, gays will screw themselves out of existence, just so long as they arent allowed to mix with straights.

Nobody asks or cares about your "permission".

Fass, animals may not have human sexualities but they are attracted to each other. It is unlikely thay would have sex otherwise as there would be no compulsion for them to. Your point about most species not having sex is only true if you look at bacteria and even they can have sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is just swapping genetic data with another to produce genetically different offspring afterall. The act may be different but the process of combing genes is largely the same.

Heterosexuality and exchange of genetic material are not the same thing. You would call bacteria with sex pili heterosexual? Worms? Birds? What? Where does the line go before you start anthropomorphising?

Since you seem to be shooting down any point because you realised noone has done any research into heterosexuality being genetic what research have you done to prove that animals can't have sexual identities? You need to refute that properly before you dismiss the argument.

It is clear that animals don't have identities or emotions the same way humans do. You are the one claiming they do. I'm the one criticising. It's the one who claims that has to prove. Nice try shifting the burden of proof, though.

This doesn't answer your question, but anyways.
The way I see it (I'm not claiming it to be true, so I don't
need to back it up with proof). I can't be only genetic.
reproduction would slowly 'abolish' gays. I don't see anything
like that happening. If it's choice? I just say this who here
remember choosing? It's part who we are. Like are we more
left or right. One can have all the info needed still we couldn't
say does he lean towards left or right. (Hope you get my point)
Left right thing isn't genetic. (people alter their political
opinion)

As I said this isn't excatly what you loked for, but meh.



Edit: btw I like your thread. This is what needed ;)

None of that is proof. It is a speculative theory. And you should know that most things aren't genetic, they're most often mixes.

It's theory, but dismissing it as speculative is plain ignorant. Speculation is "I think a giant bunny created the universe." Scientific theory is quite a bit more than that.

As for it not being 'proof,' well proof is in the eye of the beholder. If you are unwilling to accept something as being true, it will never have been 'proven' to you. As for 'proof' in the first place... can you prove you exist? I don't think you can. Proof is irrelevant, and you can't just dismiss every argument that counters yours because it doesn't "prove" things. That's just barely disguised, self imposed ignorance.

Sorry Fass, if you don't accept that heterosexuality is not genetic without proof then why should I accept your refutal of my point without proof. You claimed a point and demand proof from someone else for it and expect everyone else to have proof for everything they say. That seems hypocritical to me.

Also, Dolphins are thought to be as (possibly more) emotionally intelligent than humans by some scientists (since you never bring any proofs to this I won't bother finding and sources for this so just trust me :eek: ).

If you want proof then you won't get any since evolution is a theory and so you can refute any arguement based on it. Also, proof doesn't exist for anything, even mathematical proof is based on fundamental principles than cannot be proved themselves.

I have evidence that it's genetic.

No matter how much I get pissed off at women, I still chase them.

If heterosexuality weren't genetic I would have been asexual a looooooooong time ago.
this idea explains it best. to add to it- why is it even though i have sworn off guys before, and vowed to be alone forever, FOOORREEVVEEERRRR!!!!! , if some tall longhaired dude saunters by, i am up and at it in 2.3 seconds. i even try and talk myself out of it the whole time- but no, i cannot help myself. its genetic allright.

It's theory, but dismissing it as speculative is plain ignorant. Speculation is "I think a giant bunny created the universe." Scientific theory is quite a bit more than that.

Scientific theory usually is testable and either provable or disprovable. Yours was an ad-hoc pseudo-theory of how things "should" be, just because you think it makes sense. I'm asking you to argue for how it makes sense.

As for it not being 'proof,' well proof is in the eye of the beholder. If you are unwilling to accept something as being true, it will never have been 'proven' to you. As for 'proof' in the first place... can you prove you exist? I don't think you can. Proof is irrelevant, and you can't just dismiss every argument that counters yours because it doesn't "prove" things. That's just barely disguised, self imposed ignorance.

I wasn't aware that I had formulated an opinion in the matter. Do not confuse attacks on your claims to be supportive of the opposite of your claims. This is a thread where heterosexuals get to try to validate and justify their heterosexuality the same way homosexuals are made to do almost every day, and you are just made to try to counter the same arguments gay people have had thrown at them. You are failing. Ask yourself why.

Sorry Fass, if you don't accept that heterosexuality is not genetic without proof then why should I accept your refutal of my point without proof. You claimed a point and demand proof from someone else for it and expect everyone else to have proof for everything they say. That seems hypocritical to me.

Also, Dolphins are thought to be as (possibly more) emotionally intelligent than humans by some scientists (since you never bring any proofs to this I won't bother finding and sources for this so just trust me :eek: ).

If you want proof then you won't get any since evolution is a theory and so you can refute any arguement based on it. Also, proof doesn't exist for anything, even mathematical proof is based on fundamental principles than cannot be proved themselves.

Your two points, simplified, were that sexual exchange = heterosexuality, and that animals = humans. I presented simple counterarguments (sexual exchange != heterosexuality, animals != humans), and asked that you try to better, with proof, defend what you were claiming. You haven't.

The red-herring that is "I have nothing to support my claims, therefore I'll go into how I shouldn't need proof, because, well, I think proof is unreal, because I can't find it", and the shifting of burden of proof to those who question your claims are spurious. You claim, you motivate, you give proof. The people who criticise your claims only have to criticise your claims. That's why you need to be able to counter the criticism. It's not up to me to disprove your claims, it's for you to back them up and argue for them, preferably with proof.

A lot of people problematise homosexuality. "Where does it come from?" "What causes it?"

Queer theorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory), on the other hand, often problematise heterosexuality, because it is the thing that needs explaining, but that so few question the origins of.

So, where does it come from? What causes it? Choice? Not choice? If not, how do you prove to someone who isn't heterosexual that you didn't choose it? If yes, when did you and why?

(No religion, please. Stick to fact, not fiction.)

<_<

We really need to start copyrighting the names of our threads...This is the third thread of mine that has been parodied this month...

Tell me Fass...is there such thing as a heterophobe? Because you sound like one...

The way this thread is going is :

Person: I beleive this...and this is why (noone can be bothered to write you a thesis on it so don't expect long explanations)

Fass: I don't agree because it is clear your point is wrong. I will not give a thorough explaination because I feel superior to everyone else because I have found something that cannot be proven. This is because all answers are based on genetics and nature vs. nuture cannot be proven feither way by large, fully funded research groups and certainly not by random people on the net.

You do not seem to be seeking an answer, you seem to be trolling in an attempt to prove you are superior by noticing fallacious(sp?) arguments. Enjoy the power trip but try to contribute to discussions in future. That means bringing in something new.

Animals don't have sexualities in the way humans do, and therefore they cannot be an argument for anything, especially since most other species in the world use sex (most don't even have sex!) in a very different way than humans. Also, they are incapable of having sexual identities. "So, animals do it" is not an argument.

Actually, many animals *do* have sexualities much like humans. In fact, you can find homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and even transgendered animals in the wild.

If heterosexuality wasn't genetic, the only other explanation for it being so prevalent throughout the history of our species would be... choice? Everyone just chose heterosexuality... and that choice just happened to lead to reproduction? Hmm, that maybe not far from the truth...

The idea that sexuality is either purely genetic or choice displays a lack of understanding of biology.

...But then, if it was just choice, why aren't there an equal number of homosexual and heterosexuals in human or similar mammal populations? Surely one could just as easily choose either one, giving a 50% probability distribution.

Your black and whilte descriptions here don't make sense. What about bisexuals?

Everything is genetic. I would even suggest homosexuality as a mutation; the exceptions being where human behavior has outforced biological factors (that happens commonly enough, anyway).

Everything is genetic? *wonders why she wasn't born knowing how to speak and read*

The idea that sexuality is either purely genetic or choice displays a lack of understanding of biology.


How?

And your point here is that I'm ignorant, and nothing else?

Obviously when I say 'choice' I include the entire gamut of culture and psychology.

Your black and whilte descriptions here don't make sense. What about bisexuals?

What about them?

My descriptions made sense to me.


Everything is genetic? *wonders why she wasn't born knowing how to speak and read*

You were born with the capacity to learn how to speak and read. That capacity is genetic! Similarly, other species do not possess the right combinations of genes which would give them similar capacities, therefore it is genetic that cat's can't talk.

Speech is a learned behavior, but not a learned capacity.

While I disagree with Fass's methods, I agree with his point, that it's absurd to try to justify sexuality, and that no one should be asked to do so.

I say again, people should go watch the movie spartacus, there is a scene that explains the whole thing.

I say again, people should go watch the movie spartacus, there is a scene that explains the whole thing.

Am I correct in guessing it is the "oysters and snails" scene in the bath?

Does it really matter? I honestly don't care is someone is gay or not. Someone loving a man, woman or thing isn't hurting me so I am not concerned about it.

How?

And your point here is that I'm ignorant, and nothing else?

My point is that the black and white distinction of "its either genetic or a choice" is idiotic and displays a very real lack of understanding about biology.

Obviously when I say 'choice' I include the entire gamut of culture and psychology.

So, by "choice", you mean "stuff that you have no control over, but isn't genetic"?

Meanwhile, you leave out environmental factors, such as hormone balances in the womb, etc.

What about them?

My descriptions made sense to me.

You have taken something that exists along a spectrum and tried to make it an either or. It would be like me saying, "there are only two-skin colors - Albino White and Jet Black".

Speech is a learned behavior, but not a learned capacity.

Sex is a learned behavior, but sexuality is not a learned capacity.

My point is that the black and white distinction of "its either genetic or a choice" is idiotic and displays a very real lack of understanding about biology.

Well, I don't have a lack of understanding about biology, so I think you must be displaying a lack of understanding about my point!

In fact, I'll leave out the "I think" there. You have a very real lack of understanding!


So, by "choice", you mean "stuff that you have no control over, but isn't genetic"?

Meanwhile, you leave out environmental factors, such as hormone balances in the womb, etc.

Yes... also, I forgot Poland.

Or maybe my point is not to simply list all the factors of human behavior, when I am trying to focus.

You have taken something that exists along a spectrum and tried to make it an either or. It would be like me saying, "there are only two-skin colors - Albino White and Jet Black".

Not really. You can either have sex with members of your own gender, or not.

What's hard to understand about that? You may rate sexual preference on a spectrum, but behavior is not quite so subjective.

Sex is a learned behavior, but sexuality is not a learned capacity.

Right.

Or maybe my point is not to simply list all the factors of human behavior, when I am trying to focus.

Focusing things into black or white, this corner and that corner, makes it impossible to get anywhere in this discussion.

Choice implies a conscious decision. I have yet to see how any conscious decision is employed in sexuality.

Not really. You can either have sex with members of your own gender, or not.

Having sex with members of your own gender does not make you homosexual - it simply means that you have had sex with members of your own gender. You may be mostly heterosexual, you may be bisexual, you may be homosexual, you may be asexual.

What's hard to understand about that? You may rate sexual preference on a spectrum, but behavior is not quite so subjective.

Sexual orientation is the trait under discussion here. Behavior is not directly related. A celibate person will still have a sexual orientation.

I have yet to see how any conscious decision is employed in sexuality.


:eek:



Having sex with members of your own gender does not make you homosexual - it simply means that you have had sex with members of your own gender. You may be mostly heterosexual, you may be bisexual, you may be homosexual, you may be asexual.

Homosexual is as homosexual does. How do you think one judges whether an animal is homosexual or not? Asking it what it's preferences are? Have you ever seen two men having sex and said, "Aha! There's some heterosexuals right there." Why not? I'd wager you tend to assume they're homosexual, as do most people.

Here's what the dictionary says is 'homosexual.'


Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'seksh-(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1b —ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly /-E/ adverb


(emphasis mine)


Sexual orientation is the trait under discussion here. Behavior is not directly related. A celibate person will still have a sexual orientation.

Behavior is related by definition.

It's a choice. Original leanings are not, but eventually one can change it.

Homosexual is as homosexual does. How do you think one judges whether an animal is homosexual or not?

Whether they tend to prefer one or the other.

Have you ever seen two men having sex and said, "Aha! There's some heterosexuals right there." Why not? I'd wager you tend to assume they're homosexual, as do most people.

Assumptions are dangerous.

Interestingly enough, very few people assume that two women having sex are actually lesbians. Go figure.

Here's what the dictionary says is 'homosexual.'

In one case referring to a homosexual person, in the other being an adjective that could be used to describe an action.

The first refers to sexuality, the second to behavior. What's your point?

Behavior is related by definition.

Sexual behavior and sexual orientation are still not the same. Like I said, a celibate person still has a sexual orientation. They still know who they are attracted to and who they are not.

It's a choice. Original leanings are not, but eventually one can change it.

I can make myself hate eating. Does that mean that I changed the fact that my body wants food?

I haven’t read all posts, so I apologize in advance for writing something that’s already been written, should that be the case.
My guess (it’s only a guess) about the cause of heterosexuality/homosexuality, is that is it’s a little bit genetically, a little bit free will (whatever that is), but mostly sexual identity is something that’s being forced upon you by society.

The argument that if sexual identity was something you choose, there should be an equal numbers of homosexual and heterosexual people, is invalid.
Political opinion is also something you choose, but apparently there were more republicans then democrats in the last American president election (unless the results were rigged, but this is not the right place to discuss that).

Also, if sexual identity was something entirely genetically, homosexuality would regrettably have died out since homosexuals are rather unlikely to have biological children (although of course it happens).

Live long and prosper.

Also, if sexual identity was something entirely genetically, homosexuality would regrettably have died out since homosexuals are rather unlikely to have biological children (although of course it happens).

You are correct that the origin of sexual orientation most likely stems from a combination of factors. However, this statement is untrue.

The only way it would be true is if homosexuality were induced completely by a single dominant gene, which is very unlikely. If it were a recessive gene, or even more likely, a set of genes, then there is no reason to believe that it would have "died out".