The "Science" of Homosexuality

[admittedheretic]

The scientist in me is dying to ask a question to the homosexual INTJs. It is a simple question, but people are sometimes hesitant to answer for reasons unknown to me. On your right hand, which fingers is longer, the index or the ring? I side with scientific research on the understands of homosexuality and I think it is a difference and not a disorder a lot like mental illness. The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual so I always like to remind homosexuals that they can't switch back if therapy, but of course only if they really want it to happen. I know there are some people out there who want out of the gay lifestyle, but don't know where to go for help. They are stuck believing they where born that way and can never change when that is false. Please do not mistake this for hate, it's an opinion that is rarely shared or respect.

Not all male homosexuals have higher testosterone which is baffling to me personally because of all the links with sexuality and the hormone. This misunderstand causes all sorts of stereotypes. There are lesbians who couldn't be more female, but there also are the "butch" type who are high in testosterone.

[Nemesis]

The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual so I always like to remind homosexuals that they can't switch back if therapy, but of course only if they really want it to happen.

No, that's completely false. I would love to see the "science" you are referring to. Please feel free to source your claim here, and I'll be happy to cite numerous studies that indicate the complete opposite.

[rickster]

The scientist in me is dying to ask a question to the homosexual INTJs. It is a simple question, but people are sometimes hesitant to answer for reasons unknown to me. On your right hand, which fingers is longer, the index or the ring? I side with scientific research on the understands of homosexuality and I think it is a difference and not a disorder a lot like mental illness. The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual so I always like to remind homosexuals that they can't switch back if therapy, but of course only if they really want it to happen. I know there are some people out there who want out of the gay lifestyle, but don't know where to go for help. They are stuck believing they where born that way and can never change when that is false. Please do not mistake this for hate, it's an opinion that is rarely shared or respect.

Not all male homosexuals have higher testosterone which is baffling to me personally because of all the links with sexuality and the hormone. This misunderstand causes all sorts of stereotypes. There are lesbians who couldn't be more female, but there also are the "butch" type who are high in testosterone.

Along with nemesis I would like to see that "science". I would hope said "science" doesn't come with the old familiar sting in the tail "proving" that that homos can be "cured' by turning to Jesus.

But we don't need science to make a heterosexual out of me: any old time you feel like renting a hooker count me in. Just make sure she's good with oral: I might even pop a Viagra - second boneshaker is always the best. By all means feel free to measure my ring finger and testosterone levels: it's a good plot device, and I've got nothing against collecting profits from "The Hooker and The Homo" DVD sales. It could be the next big thing.

[admittedheretic]

Here is a good article on how FMRI scans can "see" sexual orientation.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And for a good lesson in the plasticity of the human brain, I recommend The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, MD.

The nature vs nurture understanding of autism is controversial because of how narrow the research is (this has to do with how they are funded, but that is another issue.) It seems that the classical form of autism that is more debilitating follows a Three Strikes Model (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I also believe intuitively that the Schizophrenia Spectrum follows the same model. I feel there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Schizophrenia Spectrum is an extreme female brain while the Autism Spectrum is an extreme male brain. It takes nature AND nurture to cause the more extreme states which I might suggest a trans-gender condition is an analog of sorts. When just nature (genetics) is at play than people can be predisposed to certain behaviors and traits. Or when development is atypical such as it is when hormones in the womb influence sexual orientation which is proven and accepted in males, but not females. The environment can in turn mutate the genes to further predisposition and can cause symptoms in otherwise genetically "clean" individuals. I certainly don't feel there is a "clean" or "unclean" type of person. I think diversity is how our planet has flourished and it should be valued about all else. I just think this science might make the world of a difference for someone who is living a lie as a homosexual. Funny how people or ignorant that this could happen, but it is commonly accepted that many homosexuals live as closet straights for many years. My intuition usually detects the hypocrisy in the duality of the common beliefs. I'm atheist by the way and I'm also pro-life because I of my value of diversity. I think people have value and that their valuable DNA should be used to help populate the universe. Each human is 100% unique and if we cloned each other a couple of times, we would be our own species. Over a long course of time we may and probably will evolve on different paths so shouldn't we strive for diversity!? Abortion and homosexuality dupe people into willingly commit genocide to themselves. I don't think anyone should be forced to pass on their DNA if it is against their will and they should be free to live their life as they please and they should be regard as equals, but still different. None of us are the same so we are all different.

[Nemesis]

@Admittedheretic

I'm happy that you mentioned all of the above. I actually did my thesis on the feminization of male brains exposed to prenatal stress so I'm very familiar with the concepts you have outlined. Unfortunately, I think your understanding of brain plasticity is flawed. In humans, the brain is only plastic during certain critical periods of development. Also, certain brain structures become plastic at different times (ie. when orbital frontal structures are plastic, medial frontal areas may not be). Plus, the factors that influence changes during periods of plasticity vary as well (gonadal hormones may influence more than other things at different times). Virtually all of the research I have seen on the neurodevelopment of sexual orientation (in both human and animal studies) indicates that the suspected candidate structures involved show very little plasticity beyond the prenatal environment (certainly not enough to alter orientation). Sexual orientation is a fixed and stable trait across the lifespan. You can't "choose" it away.

Of course, there is a huge role of genetics and epigenetics suspected in sexual orientation. The point here is that, yes, hormonal factors in the prenatal environment interact with a million other factors to produce homosexuality (and heterosexuality), but nothing has ever indicated that these patterns represent anything other than normative variation in phenotypes. That is, homosexuality is as naturally occurring as heterosexuality.

You also have to keep in mind that homosexuality has been observed across many species (including insects) and is not limited to males either. Homosexual female behaviour is being extensively studied in Japanese Macaques (look up a researcher named Paul Vasey). In fact, the actual rates of homosexuality within non-human populations appears to be similar to rates within human populations. In order to claim that orientation is a choice, you would first have to explain how a rat, monkey, or insect can actively choose homosexuality.

Here are some articles to look up if anyone is interested.


Homosexuality in insects:
Yamamoto, D. (2007). The neural and genetic substrates of sexual behavior in Drosophila. Advances in Genetics.

Homosexuality in primates:
Vasey, P.L. (2007). Sex differences in sexual partner acquisition, retention, and harassment during female homosexual consortships in Japanese macaques. American Journal of Primatology.

Plasticity:
Brain Plasticity and Behaviour, Bryan Kolb
Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, Bryan Kolb and Ian Whishaw

I'll provide more sources to anyone interested. There is a lot available on PubMed if you want to peek around on your own.

[paleoeco]

The scientist in me is dying to ask a question to the homosexual INTJs. It is a simple question, but people are sometimes hesitant to answer for reasons unknown to me. On your right hand, which fingers is longer, the index or the ring? I side with scientific research on the understands of homosexuality and I think it is a difference and not a disorder a lot like mental illness. The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual so I always like to remind homosexuals that they can't switch back if therapy, but of course only if they really want it to happen. I know there are some people out there who want out of the gay lifestyle, but don't know where to go for help. They are stuck believing they where born that way and can never change when that is false. Please do not mistake this for hate, it's an opinion that is rarely shared or respect.

Not all male homosexuals have higher testosterone which is baffling to me personally because of all the links with sexuality and the hormone. This misunderstand causes all sorts of stereotypes. There are lesbians who couldn't be more female, but there also are the "butch" type who are high in testosterone.

There's a significant difference between changing your orientation and just changing your behavior and self-identification.

I genuniely believe that sexual orientation is pretty immutable. However, I could just as easily choose to have sex with women, live my life in an exclusively heterosexual manner, and go around calling myself "straight". Have I changed my orientation? No, I haven't. All I'm doing is acting out a role - it's no different than getting up on stage in Drama Club and being Romeo in your High School production. You would be no more "really" Romeo than I would be "really" straight.

[admittedheretic]

@Admittedheretic

Unfortunately, I think your understanding of brain plasticity is flawed. In humans, the brain is only plastic during certain critical periods of development. Also, certain brain structures become plastic at different times (ie. when orbital frontal structures are plastic, medial frontal areas may not be).

That is, homosexuality is as naturally occurring as heterosexuality.



After reading that first sentence I had to stand up, do a couple of circles, and just repeat wrong, wrong, wrong! Brain plasticity can be best explained by how neurons work. Neurons that are close together, fire together, regardless of their function. This is why some tics occur in tourette's syndrome. Because neurons behave in this manner it allows them to have "memory" and gives up the ability to learn. Now it is entirely true that there are phases in which various ares of the brain are more plastic than at a later time. This is because the neurons reinforce themselves and is the reason why it is ultimately difficult to break a habit. The brain does "harden" with time, but it is still malleable! It might take 2 years of therapy for what would take a child 2 months, but is incorrect to say these things are fixed. Switching sexual orientation involves intense therapy over a long period of time, but it is possible. The brain science of sexual fetishes reveals just how plastic the brain is. Some people are sexually aroused by inanimate objects or role play scenarios. A child may develop to associated sexual gratification with pain, but that does not mean he was born that way. Localization or the idea that certain parts of the brain do certain takes needs to be taken with a grain of salt because it is not universal. What about the woman who is missing one entire hemisphere of her brain? Her intact hemisphere does the tasks of her missing one. The brain uses up its precious capacity in one way or another. The right side of the brain just happens to normally control the left side of the body. It doesn't HAVE to be that way. I am going to have to respectfully turn your own statement back on you and claim that you don't have proper understanding of plasticity.

I find it very difficult to believe that homosexuality is natural when combined with monogamy it eliminates itself from the gene pool. That sounds more like a disease to me personally. Animals have sex with the same sex because they are horny and confused creatures. We sometimes forget that we are animals as well.


There's a significant difference between changing your orientation and just changing your behavior and self-identification.

I genuniely believe that sexual orientation is pretty immutable. However, I could just as easily choose to have sex with women, live my life in an exclusively heterosexual manner, and go around calling myself "straight". Have I changed my orientation? No, I haven't. All I'm doing is acting out a role - it's no different than getting up on stage in Drama Club and being Romeo in your High School production. You would be no more "really" Romeo than I would be "really" straight.

I disagree. What you are saying is that it is possible to fake how you extrovert yourself to others and that I totally agree with. It is a shame when anyone can't be themselves. Your opinion as a gay male is bias and it is no surprise that you feel you where born with your orientation. There isn't sufficient scientific research to side with your belief, but like most people, you believe what is comforting. When I say sexual orientation is a choice I don't mean is something you can change in a split second even if you can fool people otherwise. It may have been causes by the choices of others and their interaction with you as a developing child. It may been genetics, environmental factors of your mother, or a mix between them. Or, maybe none of them at all! The point is it is absurd to believe that there couldn't possibly be "born heteros" who fake being gay, when it is accepted that it happens the other way around. Some of these people cry out for help, but they truly have no where to go. The straights aren't fully with them and the homosexual community heavily stigmatizes "changers." They may go to a professional to receive a highly opinionated belief and they believe is scientific fact. The "changers" have the voice that is the most ignored and I have always had a soft spot of the those sorts. The gay demographic is full of mental conditions that sometimes need attention. Maybe the suicide rate would be much lower if the science wasn't so influenced by the social and political implications.

[paleoeco]

I disagree. What you are saying is that it is possible to fake how you extrovert yourself to others and that I totally agree with. It is a shame when anyone can't be themselves. Your opinion as a gay male is bias and it is no surprise that you feel you where born with your orientation. There isn't sufficient scientific research to side with your belief, but like most people, you believe what is comforting. When I say sexual orientation is a choice I don't mean is something you can change in a split second even if you can fool people otherwise. It may have been causes by the choices of others and their interaction with you as a developing child. It may been genetics, environmental factors of your mother, or a mix between them. Or, maybe none of them at all! The point is it is absurd to believe that there couldn't possibly be "born heteros" who fake being gay, when it is accepted that it happens the other way around. Some of these people cry out for help, but they truly have no where to go. The straights aren't fully with them and the homosexual community heavily stigmatizes "changers." They may go to a professional to receive a highly opinionated belief and they believe is scientific fact. The "changers" have the voice that is the most ignored and I have always had a soft spot of the those sorts. The gay demographic is full of mental conditions that sometimes need attention. Maybe the suicide rate would be much lower if the science wasn't so influenced by the social and political implications.

While my opinion as a gay man is dismissed because I'm biased, you claim that your view as a heterosexual in a hetero-normative society is perfectly objective; this strains credibility. I believe your other statements show more than clearly that you believe that homosexuality is more of a mental defect than anything else (e.g, "The gay demographic is full of mental conditions that sometimes need attention", your belief that it can be changed, which is entirely based on a psychology that views it as unhealthy).

Considering that we live in a hetero-normative society in which homosexuality is still stigamtized as being unhealthy, immoral, or "wrong", there's no surprise that there are many people who would do anything to "fit in" within that society. This pressure to conform is precisely why people still remain in the closet, people try do desperately to "change", and, ironically, why there are issues of depression and suicde within the gay community.

To argue that the mental health of gays/lesbians and the suicide rate are evidence of it not being natural or normal, especially given the negative stigma from the larger hetero-norm society is backwards. It is because of the stigma that leads to issues of mental health and suicide; not that these are evidence of the orientation being not-innate.

Also, I have not seen anywhere anyone claim that it is absurd for heterosexuals to "play gay". This is a pure strawman. Given the social stigma for being gay, why in the world would any heterosexual have the NEED to "play gay". This is a strawman argument, and the notion of "fitting in" only goes one way in when you have an stigmatized group within a larger society.

You claim that I seek to grab at whatever is comforting; yet as a heterosexual, I suppose you see nothing "comforting" in twisting science and logic to their extreme as a means to maintain your privilege in a hetero-normative society. Equally from this perspective, I find it very comforting for you to believe that heterosexuality is the only "real" sexuality. It's almost like saying "the poor wouldn't have so many problems if only they had money."

[Nemesis]

. I am going to have to respectfully turn your own statement back on you and claim that you don't have proper understanding of plasticity.


You would be wrong in doing so. The existence of critical periods during neural development is a well established finding, as is the fact that some traits are very firmly established and show virtually no plasticity over time past specific developmental critical periods. Also, things like sexual orientation that involve a staggering amount of neural circuitry across many brain structures is likely to show very limited plasticity (unless part of the developmental trazectory). The more complex the wiring is for a given thing, the less plasticity will effect it over time. This has been demonstrated over and over. Please, do more research. You seem to have a drastically oversimplified notion of brain plasticity.

The gist of what I was mentioning prior, was that plasticity is not uniform and equal across brain structures or development. When describing specific social and sexual behaviours, there is plenty of room for flux over the lifespan. That is true (as are your examples). However, the neural substrates behind sexual orientations have never been shown to exhibit plasticity past the prenatal environment. There is ample research to back that up. I have never come across any good research that indicates that any form of "therapy" can alter orientation. Of the few studies addressing orientation "therapy", none of them have indicated any sort of "success" (look up the disaster John Money caused in attempting to do so). It is very simple, not all plasticity is created equal.

You also mention the alteration of fetishistic behaviours. This is true to an extent. But, arousal studies have indicated that sexual orientation is not mallleable (Look up articles by Martin Lalumiere). In fact, a paraphilia will conform to one's sexual orientation. This indicates that sexual orientation is different than paraphilic behaviours. In this case you are mixing apples and oranges.

You are also going to have to do way better than "animals are horny and confused" to account for homosexuality across species.

[admittedheretic]

While my opinion as a gay man is dismissed because I'm biased, you claim that your view as a heterosexual in a hetero-normative society is perfectly objective; this strains credibility. I believe your other statements show more than clearly that you believe that homosexuality is more of a mental defect than anything else (e.g, "The gay demographic is full of mental conditions that sometimes need attention", your belief that it can be changed, which is entirely based on a psychology that views it as unhealthy).

Considering that we live in a hetero-normative society in which homosexuality is still stigamtized as being unhealthy, immoral, or "wrong", there's no surprise that there are many people who would do anything to "fit in" within that society. This pressure to conform is precisely why people still remain in the closet, people try do desperately to "change", and, ironically, why there are issues of depression and suicde within the gay community.

To argue that the mental health of gays/lesbians and the suicide rate are evidence of it not being natural or normal, especially given the negative stigma from the larger hetero-norm society is backwards. It is because of the stigma that leads to issues of mental health and suicide; not that these are evidence of the orientation being not-innate.

Also, I have not seen anywhere anyone claim that it is absurd for heterosexuals to "play gay". This is a pure strawman. Given the social stigma for being gay, why in the world would any heterosexual have the NEED to "play gay". This is a strawman argument, and the notion of "fitting in" only goes one way in when you have an stigmatized group within a larger society.

You claim that I seek to grab at whatever is comforting; yet as a heterosexual, I suppose you see nothing "comforting" in twisting science and logic to their extreme as a means to maintain your privilege in a hetero-normative society. Equally from this perspective, I find it very comforting for you to believe that heterosexuality is the only "real" sexuality. It's almost like saying "the poor wouldn't have so many problems if only they had money."

I never said your opinion should be dismissed, I just said its biased. You made a simple statement about your beliefs with ZERO evidence to support your claim.
I guess I'm assuming you don't have anything to back it up which is why I felt the need to point out your bias. There are things called personality "disorders" that are merely differences which is why I always put the word in quotes. I believe I made my point that I don't think there is anything wrong with them that needs to be changed by force. I am only stating the facts so please don't let your emotions cloud your judgment. I pointed out the higher amounts of "disorders" because I feel that many people aren't getting the help that they WANT (not help they don't need.) I think you should pretend that I really do believe what I say and not the words you put into my mouth. Then, reread what I wrote and examine the evidence for yourself for my claims.

Could you quote me where I implied that suicide has to do with it being natural? I don't believe I said anything to the effect and your just putting more words in my mouth.

I didn't mean to convey that people "play" gay as fake it. Say hypothetically your belief is correct that people are born with their orientations (I disagree.) Would you be willing to admit that there are people who are "born straight" but someone fool themselves into being gay. The same could be said for the "born gay" who is married with children and then realizes one day he is gay. That is no straw man argument; it isn't even an argument at all.

You claim my beliefs twist and push science to its extremes, but that is just an empty statement. Would you care to elaborate on a specific detail that I am misunderstanding? Maybe you should comprehend my message and then you can respectfully disagree. Homosexuals can not procreate therefore the DNA associated with it is eliminated. I believe I stated my personal opinion about the value of diversity clearly and if you understood this you would not be making all these false assumptions about my message. *sigh* I'm not trying to bring anyone down, but to shed light onto those who are in the dark. Those in the dark being gays who desire to be hetero again, but have NO WHERE or NO ONE to turn to. They cry out on internet forums and article comments, but everyone ignores them. I'm also very bitter any time politics or society interrupts science like it did in 1973. If homosexuality disorder needed to be removed it would have been for scientific reasons, not other wise.





admittedheretic added to this post, 22 minutes and 53 seconds later...

You would be wrong in doing so. The existence of critical periods during neural development is a well established finding, as is the fact that some traits are very firmly established and show virtually no plasticity over time past specific developmental critical periods. Also, things like sexual orientation that involve a staggering amount of neural circuitry across many brain structures is likely to show very limited plasticity (unless part of the developmental trazectory). The more complex the wiring is for a given thing, the less plasticity will effect it over time. This has been demonstrated over and over. Please, do more research. You seem to have a drastically oversimplified notion of brain plasticity.

The gist of what I was mentioning prior, was that plasticity is not uniform and equal across brain structures or development. When describing specific social and sexual behaviours, there is plenty of room for flux over the lifespan. That is true (as are your examples). However, the neural substrates behind sexual orientations have never been shown to exhibit plasticity past the prenatal environment. There is ample research to back that up. I have never come across any good research that indicates that any form of "therapy" can alter orientation. Of the few studies addressing orientation "therapy", none of them have indicated any sort of "success" (look up the disaster John Money caused in attempting to do so). It is very simple, not all plasticity is created equal.

You also mention the alteration of fetishistic behaviours. This is true to an extent. But, arousal studies have indicated that sexual orientation is not mallleable (Look up articles by Martin Lalumiere). In fact, a paraphilia will conform to one's sexual orientation. This indicates that sexual orientation is different than paraphilic behaviours. In this case you are mixing apples and oranges.

You are also going to have to do way better than "animals are horny and confused" to account for homosexuality across species.

Would you be so kind to link to me a research that explains why different areas of the brain are more plastic than others. What is the difference between neurons that are hardened versus flexible? I would say they are all the same and that they only appear harden because they have been reinforced for so long. The very idea that functions happen in absolute location on the brain is old news. Please reread what I wrote about localization. Once again, lets see some research that proves different parts of the brain are more or less plastic. Your idea of more complex things are less malleable is the same thing I am saying about reinforcement. Assuming your idea that sexual orientation is solidified in the prenatal begs the question to ask what causes sexual orientation to begin with. The candidates for this cause of course are sexual hormones, most notably testosterone and estrogen. The interesting thing is our hormone levels and those of a mother are influenced by environmental factors. If a woman eats a diet that increases testosterone than she is making a choice. I never boiled the choice argument down to it being that of an individual. A better way of wording is nature versus nurture and the evidence to me seems to be heavily on the nurture end of the spectrum. Once again you make the insertion that neurons are different with respect to sexual fetishes and sexual orientation. Neurons are neurons and they fire together if they are approximate to each other. You accuse me of over simplifying, but I am only using Occam's razer. If you only take one thing out of my argument, I hope you understand the the flaws in localization theory because this should change opinion on many beliefs.

[rickster]

I never said your opinion should be dismissed, I just said its biased. You made a simple statement about your beliefs with ZERO evidence to support your claim.

It's actually incumbent on you to address your own bias, which Nemesis has already quite clearly pointed out to you by virtue of your many bunko interpretations of "science". You are obviously trying to establish a case of homosexuality being a matter of choice, in order to roll out your necessity-of-cure agenda, based on your unproven belief that homosexuality is abnormal.

Could you quote me where I implied that suicide has to do with it being natural? I don't believe I said anything to the effect and your just putting more words in my mouth.

You have gone out of your way to establish a case of science not serving your bigoted views, and blaming society and politics for it. Your cowardly swipe at mental problems and suicide doesn't need to be addressed by science: it needs to be addressed by all right-thinking people in society who are appalled by individuals who look to science to further denigrate people.


You claim my beliefs twist and push science to its extremes, but that is just an empty statement.

It's a factual statement. You have had it quite clearly pointed out to you how you are manipulating scientific findings to suit your own agenda, and actively agitating for science which supports it.

Would you care to elaborate on a specific detail that I am misunderstanding? Maybe you should comprehend my message and then you can respectfully disagree. Homosexuals can not procreate therefore the DNA associated with it is eliminated. I believe I stated my personal opinion about the value of diversity clearly and if you understood this you would not be making all these false assumptions about my message. *sigh* I'm not trying to bring anyone down, but to shed light onto those who are in the dark. Those in the dark being gays who desire to be hetero again, but have NO WHERE or NO ONE to turn to. They cry out on internet forums and article comments, but everyone ignores them. I'm also very bitter any time politics or society interrupts science like it did in 1973. If homosexuality disorder needed to be removed it would have been for scientific reasons, not other wise.


You are misunderstanding many simple facts. You most certainly are trying to bring down anybody and everybody who rightly believes homosexuality to be normal.

Each and every attempt by toxic do-gooders to "reverse" disgruntled homosexuals has failed.
The only appropriate way of addressing those pathetic self-loathing souls "crying out" for help (to be heterosexuals) is to tell them the truth, and advise them to work on their self-loathing. Tell them it came about from a society of bigots, and they were foolish to ever give a shit about whether it was innate or by choice in the first place. Tell them if they don't like their homosexuality they're sure as hell not going to like a real problem like bone marrow cancer. Tell them that heterosexuals aren't misery-free either, and that their sexuality often causes them untold grief.

And while you're at it, ask yourself why you need to "shed light on those who are in the dark".

[Nemesis]

Would you be so kind to link to me a research that explains why different areas of the brain are more plastic than others.

I have, refer to the book called Brain Plasticity and Behaviour by Bryan Kolb.

Here is an article that outlines differential plasticity in response to gonadal hormones in the orbital frontal and medial prefrontal cortices across development. You can also find info about this in virtually any study that examines lesion effects and recovery in different cortical regions (especially if the study is developmentally themed). Hell, you can find this stuff in introductory brain and behaviour text books. Again here is just one sample from a mountain of research. I would love to sit here and copy and paste citations all day, but I have better things to do.

Kolb, B., Pellis, S., & Robinson, T. E. (2004). Plasticity and functions of the orbital
frontal cortex. Brain and Cognition, 55, 104-115.

And why not;

Hernandez-Gonzalez, M., Prieto-Beracoechea, C. A., Arteaga-Silva, M., & Guevara, M.
A. (2007). Different functionality of the medial and orbital prefrontal cortex
during a sexually motivated task in rats. Physiology & Behaviour, 90, 450-458.


As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry but you obviously haven't been looking up the research I have recommended. I have provided names of very prominent researchers who study these things. Go look at the material then we can talk about it. If you aren't willing to look at this stuff yourself, then stop asking me to provide it.

As for your argument, I have taken nothing from it because you still have not provided any material to back a single thing you have claimed. You initially claimed that homosexuality was something you can treat and that "the science backs this up". Yet, you have not provided any science to back it up. Nor have you offered any examples of this supposed "treatment" or it's supposed efficacy. All you have given us is your bias and your misunderstandings of fundamental brain concepts. Until you can actually support your ideas, I find no more reason to respond to your posts.

[larkin]

I'll start with the disclaimer that I define as bisexual.

Always the answer to this fake nature vs. nurture dichotomy - some of both! Are we going to now argue over percentages? I sincerely wish people would accept that both genetics and environment have a role, that sexuality can be both natural and fluid. Then this argument would be completely unnecessary.

From admittedheretic: "Would you be willing to admit that there are people who are "born straight" but someone fool themselves into being gay. The same could be said for the "born gay" who is married with children and then realizes one day he is gay. "

The idea you keep forwarding - that there's some significant portion of the population trapped in a gay lifestyle, longing to be free - is absurd. The part of sexuality that is fluid are the factors influenced by environment, and the environment in this country makes it often exceptionally difficult for gay people to be honest about their orientation. On what planet would someone "fool" themselves into being gay?

But there are multitudes of reasons why someone might fool themselves into being straight. This is why this "duality" argument imagined - if there is one side, there must be the other - is in many ways laughably unconnected to reality.

It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine someone living a gay lifestyle - a lifestyle that a lot of people have to work very hard to seek out - not simply choosing to define as straight and living a much easier, more widely accepted life. The gay people they know who might be judgmental are much smaller in number than, y'know, the rest of the world.

As a side note, you're quick to assume the gay people on this forum are biased, while you're a beacon of objectivity. What's all the interest in the subject about? Where's all this empathy for people living a gay lifestyle, yearning to be free coming from? Was this your experience, at one point? Or someone you know? Don't you think that could be clouding your judgment?

[Wired]

Is anyone posting on this thread a neurologist, or a neurobiologist?

[Nemesis]

Is anyone posting on this thread a neurologist, or a neurobiologist?

Yes, I am involved in neuroscience research. It's paying the bills right now. I'm no Phd. yet, but I am involved in the field.

[Noirc]

as i recall gender association is determined by a multitude of variables, one most often overlooked, and should be heavily emphasized is during pregnancy, the female body can take to changing hormones to alter the behavior of the child. some believe this is an ingrained gene to keep male and female counts near balanced.

[laserdanger]

Homosexuality is some heavy stuff. There are parts of the world that will kill you for being gay. I very much doubt that these individuals are doing it for the lifestyle. their existence may not prove that one is born gay but it certainly does point in that direction.

the brain is an amazing organ. admittedheretic you have not convinced anybody on here that you have any real understanding of it, or it's plasticity. What are you trying to prove with statements like this, "After reading that first sentence I had to stand up, do a couple of circles, and just repeat wrong, wrong, wrong! ". It's childish and only shows how juvenile and self righteous you are being. I stand neutral on the subject, just show some evidence to back up your claims.

I would like to see this forum remain hospitable to intelligent discussion. Especially when dealing with a subject such as this one.

[rickster]

I'll start with the disclaimer that I define as bisexual.

Always the answer to this fake nature vs. nurture dichotomy - some of both! Are we going to now argue over percentages? I sincerely wish people would accept that both genetics and environment have a role, that sexuality can be both natural and fluid. Then this argument would be completely unnecessary.

Reasonable people accept the fluidity of sexuality: bigots with an axe to grind don't. Some things are very simple, and nothing is more simple than the patently false dichotomy of heterosexuality vs homosexuality.

It IS a nonsense argument, but always a good opportunity to observe intellectual deviousness holding hands with science. :)

[Nemesis]

I'll start with the disclaimer that I define as bisexual.

Always the answer to this fake nature vs. nurture dichotomy - some of both! Are we going to now argue over percentages? I sincerely wish people would accept that both genetics and environment have a role, that sexuality can be both natural and fluid. Then this argument would be completely unnecessary.


I think this is a fantastic point!

Of course I should clarify something about the supposed "nature vs. nurture" debate. I for one do not see any reason to form a dichotomy between nature and nurture (IMHO). If there is one thing I have learned through my research, it's that these are in fact one unitary whole. They are inseparable and a ratio of which has more influence is fallacious. This is a paradigm shift that I see slowly occurring in science.

[rickster]

I think this is a fantastic point!

Of course I should clarify something about the supposed "nature vs. nurture" debate. I for one do not see any reason to form a dichotomy between nature and nurture (IMHO). If there is one thing I have learned through my research, it's that these are in fact one unitary whole. They are inseparable and a ratio of which has more influence is fallacious. This is a paradigm shift that I see slowly occurring in science.

The whole nature vs nurture dichotomy is fueled by haters: it's popularity arose out of their loss of the psychiatric bash when homosexuality was declassified as a mental disease. To keep it as a dichotomy creates a potential win/win outcome (for haters) inasmuch as "nature" justifies further scientific "research" and possible re-classification, while "nurture" justifies heterosexuality "training" programs.

I have nothing against science, but I'd have to say the "science" of homosexuality does not presume normalcy, and within that non-presumption science must be viewed with utmost suspicion when it launches into nature vs nurture. Hated groups were scientifically studied by the Third Reich, and I'm quite certain many who support nature vs nurture research see homosexuality as a repugnant and undesirable social ill needing cure or elimination.

[Vagrant]

Is anyone posting on this thread a neurologist, or a neurobiologist?

Only a biologist.

But homosexuality certainly doesn't just exist in humans. It exists in many other species. In higher species, homosexuality is more visible (bonobos, various top predators, even songbirds, the list goes on). The lower down in species complexity you go, the more muddled it gets too -- hermaphrodites abound, asexual species, and species that actually switch gender in their life cycle (seriously, some species of fish start as male when young, and as they age become female). Switching Kingdoms or Phylums gets even more frustrating as well -- Plants can self-pollinate, and the alternation of generations can cause some very strange things -- species can suddenly add on to their chromosome number and create an entirely new species from self-pollination. Seedless watermelon is an example of autopolyploidy induced and propagated by humans. But I digress. My basic point is the entire thing gets ridiculously confusing.

Homosexuality is by no means evil or wrong. Rather, the question most often brought it up is why it exists when it functionally reduces an animal's fitness to 0 (since fitness is both survivability and passing on of genetics. This can be contested though, because homosexuals can still have viable children.). Most theories have to do with homosexuality as a response to overcrowding (and thus it might benefit society as a whole, although not the individual). It's well noted in overcrowded rats, the rats start to engage in homosexual behavior, and other rats have noticeably increased neurotic tendencies. A lot of very strange behaviors emerge when rats are overcrowded.

In ancient days, homosexuality was frowned upon mainly because there were so few people back then -- a homosexual denies at least 2 people (if not more due to a strictly monogamous society) from the reproducing pool, so it is reasonable that it wouldn't be approved of in small villages and towns.

Basically, there's a lot of conflicting data and evidence regarding homosexuality in humans.

[rickster]

Most theories have to do with homosexuality as a response to overcrowding (and thus it might benefit society as a whole, although not the individual). It's well noted in overcrowded rats, the rats start to engage in homosexual behavior, and other rats have noticeably increased neurotic tendencies. A lot of very strange behaviors emerge when rats are overcrowded.

In ancient days, homosexuality was frowned upon mainly because there were so few people back then -- a homosexual denies at least 2 people (if not more from a strictly monogamous society) from the reproducing pool, so it is reasonable that it wouldn't be approved of in small villages and towns.

Basically, there's a lot of conflicting data and evidence regarding homosexuality in humans.

Amazing you should bring that up. I've long had a gut instinct that a part of my psychosexual nature is a response to human overcrowding. I've often wondered if there was any science attached to that hypothesis. "Go forth and multiply" deeply disturbs my subconsciousness and I can't explain why. At a conscious level I miss not having kids, and all the social respect that comes with it, but there's something else going on. Women don't repulse me, and few men attract me sexually. I actually find it near impossible to fetishize another male according to "gay" flashpoints. But I'm really very comfortable being a homo - it sits well with me ethically.

[deinotes]

Amazing you should bring that up. I've long had a gut instinct that a part of my psychosexual nature is a response to human overcrowding. I've often wondered if there was any science attached to that hypothesis. "Go forth and multiply" deeply disturbs my subconsciousness and I can't explain why. At a conscious level I miss not having kids, and all the social respect that comes with it, but there's something else going on. Women don't repulse me, and few men attract me sexually. I actually find it near impossible to fetishize another male according to "gay" flashpoints. But I'm really very comfortable being a homo - it sits well with me ethically.
LOL that would be funny if this is true.
Then all what those muslim country's have to do is just encourage people to live in the countryside instead of in big city's.
But i think that it's not that simple there where also gays before overcrowding so there will be probably more factors maybe just a part of evolution.

[Beulah]

I don't like the framing of this debate cum argument at all. False dichotomies.

1. Straight or Gay - in my experience such extreme positions tho outwardly adopted and often lived as such are (inwardly) rare if truth was told, most fall somewhere on a spectrum and even their position on it can be dynamic through out life.
2. Normal or abnormal - not even worth debating. Whatever one is on the spectrum is normal so long as it is true to your attraction compass and freely occupied.

I lived in the trans community of the 1980s when they were ostracised outsiders, seen as objects of either hate or entertainment. In my city it was a community of about 60 that was hooked up to similar sized communities in other cities and I admired them for their integrity of being who they wanted to be. As I got older I found it wasn't so simple as that - things can be asserted that are true for some but not so much for others.

I can't claim to know much about male homosexuals, but I got a deep understanding of male to female trans from years of up close observation and going thru special experiences like supporting on visits to their rejecting families after 25 year gaps. The minority of say about a third had a more female empathic type brain (tho stronger on logic) and were girly from early on per both their own and family, and I'd say truly were born as very feminine males.

The majority tho said they had to work at it hard to project as female - and I saw huge effort go into mentoring young teens out of boyish ways and into sex obsessed glamour girl personas. A lot of them took to this rebirth like a duck to water as they had genuinely hated their prior self or life, sometimes being too aggro (hormones help settle that down). It was empowering the clean slate and gave good income.

The mature ones will privately admit they're not "females in male bodies" - a thing said to conform to a norm or out of a need to be understood in a framework that works best - but are something else (neither nors, or yes even MEN).

Some of the pre ops had unnaturally small organs for which there is a scientific name - which I determined must have been to do with their mothers hormonal state or some other gestational factor. This was bound to steer them away from "straightness" in our superficial culture - especially as this "difference" was normally duly noted by extended family if they were polynesian - and sometimes meant they had been deliberately raised as females (being seen as not suitable for the other role).

A large proportion had been sexually abused by males or females as kids. Some claimed this had happened due to their softness or timidity / feminity attracting predators and had not altered self concept. More claimed this was a likely turning point resulting in, or shaping their orientation & early life situation eg ranaway to be taken in by others similar living on the fringes due to abuse or no options for gays workwise or as part of a family ("you're a pretty boy, here wear this dress and you'll make money ie from sugar daddies already lined up").

A proportion of maybe 10% had borderline personality disorder oft related to past abuse - instability of identity, mood and relationships, which meant their sex preferences were very changeable and you really could not say they fell in any camp for sure.

Early in their trans lives many of these people had a social pressure to only be with men and any relationships outside of that were seen as twisted, confused., letting the team down and plain wrong - with severe sanctions from mockery to getting bashed. Internal conflicts over the pressure to just like men often resulted in more escape through drugs.

I saw large numbers have highly secret flings or more rarely long relationships with women. In fact the majority would have attractions to females - often internally fought for many reasons but the majority would have slyly consummated at some point.

Over the years as times changed (well in the last 10 only) the male to female trans who had fallen for females in big ways the past 3 decades either came to terms with
A) being self termed bisexual or more often calling themselves "lesbian".
B) deciding their orientation was in fact just to the opposite sex but earlier life events threw them of course (or sometimes that the orientation was just to 1 such individual ie happens to be female who now takes precedence over earlier but not gone leanings)
C) resolving that it is too late for them to come out as straight or bi, holding small regrets this aspect wasn't acknowledged, developed or explored more but also being largely satisfied with the gay life lived and their role or achievements in that community. At the same time being able to publicly say "good luck to my trans sister so and so if she wants to try a les (ie hetero) relationship", which words of emancipating tolerance their own mentors could never have uttered.

Conversely several mature lesbians (in their 60s) including ones that tried but left straight nmarriages have quite bitterly expressed to me that they believe sexual abuse determined their sexuality.

The taboo around this subject has only lately been broken, with a growing understanding that straight jackets serve no good. I think it is insecure communities that say "identify yourself now, and stay loyal to the team forever - because hey, you had to be born this way". Its so more complex - but even when people aren't born gay but head gay that does not invalidate it as unnatural. Heterosexuality is largely learnt - monkeys not able to observe adults mating while they grow up are proven to not go about mating in the logical way for procreation, chosing wrong sexes andeven mating wrong body parts!

The expectations of those around us are a larger influence than we might give credit for.
The brain is part of it, upbringing and experience too, it doesn't matter how we arrive at who we are, but understanding and celebrating it, then not fearing to love the one you love is what matters. To end on a Mills and Boons note - just imagine if one passed on their greatest love opportunity of all due to having some fixed and rigid ideas re anatomical correctness and what preference one was allegedly born with!

[thod]

Well if it isn't physical or psychological or some combination then what is it? I dismiss ideas of a homosexual 'soul' and other metaphysical ghosts out of hand. So it can be studied by anatomists or psychologists, much in the way any sexual behaviour is, be it straight human or animal.

The argument is that had a heterosexual been presented with males since puberty then he would become homosexual in a Pavolvian manner. The same would be true of other objects too. Yet such a fetishist view is entirely psychological. Homosexuals insist they are born homosexual which would not be consistent with this model. Perhaps they have learned fetish behaviour, which is deeply ingrained, yet that would also suggest a cure is possible in the manner of other mental illnesses. The argument that 'it does no harm' applies to many mental problems, we only attempt to treat when it becomes problematic. Still there must be some homosexuals who wish to be straight and would welcome such a cure. The belief in total plasticity of sexual response would seem to be false in that animals do not, in general attempt to mate with objects or other species.

[rickster]

Well if it isn't physical or psychological or some combination then what is it? I dismiss ideas of a homosexual 'soul' and other metaphysical ghosts out of hand. So it can be studied by anatomists or psychologists, much in the way any sexual behaviour is, be it straight human or animal.

A behavioral study is a behavioral study. Science is science.

The argument is that had a heterosexual been presented with males since puberty then he would become homosexual in a Pavolvian manner. The same would be true of other objects too. Yet such a fetishist view is entirely psychological.

What argument are you talking about? Male homosexual couples raise homosexual males at about exactly the same rate as heterosexual couples, so that should indicate nurture doesn't have a lot to do with it.

Homosexuals insist they are born homosexual which would not be consistent with this model.

Do they/we? I don't. Can you back up that statement? You can't because it's a nonsensical generalization constructed on a false assumption.

Perhaps they have learned fetish behaviour, which is deeply ingrained, yet that would also suggest a cure is possible in the manner of other mental illnesses. The argument that 'it does no harm' applies to many mental problems, we only attempt to treat when it becomes problematic.

Here we go again...let's find some some "science" to prove those homos are mentally ill.

Still there must be some homosexuals who wish to be straight and would welcome such a cure.

And that's you're reasoning for wanting a cure for homosexuality? Exactly how many disgruntled homos are you aware of who need curing? Is it your compassion or your bigotry that wishes a "cure"? All "cures" have failed. If it's SO important for them to be straight they can go get some Viagra and fuck a chick: lots of straight guys can't get it up anywhere near a woman. It's a problem science has already addressed.

The belief in total plasticity of sexual response would seem to be false in that animals do not, in general attempt to mate with objects or other species.

Dogs hump legs. What's your point?

[admittedheretic]

It's actually incumbent on you to address your own bias, which Nemesis has already quite clearly pointed out to you by virtue of your many bunko interpretations of "science". You are obviously trying to establish a case of homosexuality being a matter of choice, in order to roll out your necessity-of-cure agenda, based on your unproven belief that homosexuality is abnormal.


Your reading comprehension lacks pal. I believe I said a number of times that I don't think anyone needs to be cured, but I do believe that those that do wish to, should be allowed to. Cured isn't even the right word to use at all. Change would be a better one. You can keep accuse me of having an anti-human agenda, but they are false accusations. I value the diversity of life above all else and if you understood this, you wouldn't keep on with these shenanigans.



You have gone out of your way to establish a case of science not serving your bigoted views, and blaming society and politics for it. Your cowardly swipe at mental problems and suicide doesn't need to be addressed by science: it needs to be addressed by all right-thinking people in society who are appalled by individuals who look to science to further denigrate people.




It's a factual statement. You have had it quite clearly pointed out to you how you are manipulating scientific findings to suit your own agenda, and actively agitating for science which supports it.

I am not a bigot of any order. I take an unbiased and objective position with regardless to my understanding of science(truth.)


You are misunderstanding many simple facts. You most certainly are trying to bring down anybody and everybody who rightly believes homosexuality to be normal.

Each and every attempt by toxic do-gooders to "reverse" disgruntled homosexuals has failed.
The only appropriate way of addressing those pathetic self-loathing souls "crying out" for help (to be heterosexuals) is to tell them the truth, and advise them to work on their self-loathing. Tell them it came about from a society of bigots, and they were foolish to ever give a shit about whether it was innate or by choice in the first place. Tell them if they don't like their homosexuality they're sure as hell not going to like a real problem like bone marrow cancer. Tell them that heterosexuals aren't misery-free either, and that their sexuality often causes them untold grief.

And while you're at it, ask yourself why you need to "shed light on those who are in the dark".

May I ask what facts I am misinterpreting? That is your at least your tenth empty accusation. You type a couple of paragraphs, but all you say is "you are wrong and I am right" without any sort of science what so ever. I agree with many things you say sir, but I don't understand why you think you are telling me things I don't know and already agree with. You instantly stereotyped me as being evil even though I haven't explicitly or implicitly shared my own moral beliefs. I don't share my moral beliefs because I don't have any on this particular issue. I don't think schizophrenia is wrong or unfit. I don't put people into any boxes because I really do believe we are all equal because we are one. When I use the term "abnormal" I am making a factual statement that a certain characteristic isn't typical of statistical majority. I don't think you are a very good debater because you let your emotions dominate how you even understand language. I don't think this makes you any less valuable, but different. I would love to share my thoughts with you if you can actually backup your claims instead of making one statement than going on a tangent.

I have always empathized for being "in the dark" because I think we've all experience in one form or another. I'm also an activist agaisnt the genocide of Africans that is happening before our eyes. I don't have any hidden agenda and I'm not even the slightest bit African. I have a personal experience where I shared dialogue with a person who feels he got tricked into thinking he was a homosexual and went through hell to get his old life back. He got caught up in drugs and other things which led he felt led him on that path. Gay advocates are such hypocrites that this man was discriminated against and outcasted by his local peers because of his change. He is now traveling the country trying to spread his message to others to help those who are like them. He is not going around saying that homosexuality is wrong and neither I am. We both just think people who want help, should be able to receive it. This hasn't been possible since 1973.

I have, refer to the book called Brain Plasticity and Behaviour by Bryan Kolb.

Here is an article that outlines differential plasticity in response to gonadal hormones in the orbital frontal and medial prefrontal cortices across development. You can also find info about this in virtually any study that examines lesion effects and recovery in different cortical regions (especially if the study is developmentally themed). Hell, you can find this stuff in introductory brain and behaviour text books. Again here is just one sample from a mountain of research. I would love to sit here and copy and paste citations all day, but I have better things to do.

Kolb, B., Pellis, S., & Robinson, T. E. (2004). Plasticity and functions of the orbital
frontal cortex. Brain and Cognition, 55, 104-115.

And why not;

Hernandez-Gonzalez, M., Prieto-Beracoechea, C. A., Arteaga-Silva, M., & Guevara, M.
A. (2007). Different functionality of the medial and orbital prefrontal cortex
during a sexually motivated task in rats. Physiology & Behaviour, 90, 450-458.


As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry but you obviously haven't been looking up the research I have recommended. I have provided names of very prominent researchers who study these things. Go look at the material then we can talk about it. If you aren't willing to look at this stuff yourself, then stop asking me to provide it.

As for your argument, I have taken nothing from it because you still have not provided any material to back a single thing you have claimed. You initially claimed that homosexuality was something you can treat and that "the science backs this up". Yet, you have not provided any science to back it up. Nor have you offered any examples of this supposed "treatment" or it's supposed efficacy. All you have given us is your bias and your misunderstandings of fundamental brain concepts. Until you can actually support your ideas, I find no more reason to respond to your posts.

I hate to break your heart nemesis, but just because you read it in a textbook; doesn't make it true. Many of the old ideologies have been at least challenged by more modern findings. Localization has not been proved to be universal so how can you be so confident in your field when fundamental ideas like the right hemisphere controls the right side of the body are wrong. Sure, the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body in the vast majority of people, but not in everyone one which means the model is incorrect. I have never denied the hormones can effect brain plasticity and our fundamental disagree I believe is you believe sexual orientation is concrete in the womb and I disagree. I do believe that events in the womb can influence a predisposition. What this basically boils down to is I believe that our diet effects our biology (duh) which in turn effects our DNA through epigenetic mechanisms. (not so commonly accepted.) Physics books today falsely teach how our sun creates energy and I think the mind is a bigger mystery than nuclear fission. You haven't commented on anything I posted in detail which leads me to believe you haven't read it and/or don't understand it. Throw me a bone or something, do not believe in digit theory? Or is it you fundamentally believe sexual orientation is 100% finalized in the womb? Obviously we both need to take a leap of faith in one direction or the other so I respect your view even though I think you are misled.

I'll start with the disclaimer that I define as bisexual.

Always the answer to this fake nature vs. nurture dichotomy - some of both! Are we going to now argue over percentages? I sincerely wish people would accept that both genetics and environment have a role, that sexuality can be both natural and fluid. Then this argument would be completely unnecessary.

From admittedheretic: "Would you be willing to admit that there are people who are "born straight" but someone fool themselves into being gay. The same could be said for the "born gay" who is married with children and then realizes one day he is gay. "

The idea you keep forwarding - that there's some significant portion of the population trapped in a gay lifestyle, longing to be free - is absurd. The part of sexuality that is fluid are the factors influenced by environment, and the environment in this country makes it often exceptionally difficult for gay people to be honest about their orientation. On what planet would someone "fool" themselves into being gay?

But there are multitudes of reasons why someone might fool themselves into being straight. This is why this "duality" argument imagined - if there is one side, there must be the other - is in many ways laughably unconnected to reality.

It is hard, if not impossible, to imagine someone living a gay lifestyle - a lifestyle that a lot of people have to work very hard to seek out - not simply choosing to define as straight and living a much easier, more widely accepted life. The gay people they know who might be judgmental are much smaller in number than, y'know, the rest of the world.

As a side note, you're quick to assume the gay people on this forum are biased, while you're a beacon of objectivity. What's all the interest in the subject about? Where's all this empathy for people living a gay lifestyle, yearning to be free coming from? Was this your experience, at one point? Or someone you know? Don't you think that could be clouding your judgment?

larkin, I do believe I was making my case for the minority of people. I'm sorry you have to twist my words into stereotyping me as hateful when I am not. There is a very real duality and what is absurd is for someone to deny it. I don't believe we SHOULD need special laws for gays as I believe they are fundamentally equal so why would they need to be special laws? However, I do feel the majority of people in this country are religious bigots and zealots and such laws are necessary to make progress. I don't really have any intrapersonal experiences that would cause any bias. I have and have had gay and bisexual friends. I've never even touched the issue of the science of sexual orientation with them. I feel for anyone who is oppressed and discriminated against for no good reason.

If the environmental influence is large enough than my vested interest is as follows. I believe in the diversity of life which means I value procreation to spread the DNA on. If any environmental factor causes one to never procreate, the DNA is eliminated. This is scary to me because it could be used as a mechanism of genocide like abortion.

Homosexuality is some heavy stuff. There are parts of the world that will kill you for being gay. I very much doubt that these individuals are doing it for the lifestyle. their existence may not prove that one is born gay but it certainly does point in that direction.

the brain is an amazing organ. admittedheretic you have not convinced anybody on here that you have any real understanding of it, or it's plasticity. What are you trying to prove with statements like this, "After reading that first sentence I had to stand up, do a couple of circles, and just repeat wrong, wrong, wrong! ". It's childish and only shows how juvenile and self righteous you are being. I stand neutral on the subject, just show some evidence to back up your claims.

I would like to see this forum remain hospitable to intelligent discussion. Especially when dealing with a subject such as this one.

It may seem childish, but it is just frustrating knowing that very intillegent people are being taught misinformation from their sources. They ultimately believe what they read in the book and it feels like nothing I can say can change their opinion which I accept. I just try and get them to listen to some authors they might find creditable who share the same message I am trying to spread. Like everyone else in this thread. You simply said, "dude, your wrong" and you didn't even have a single tiny example of what I do not understand. Could you tell me what brain localization is? Don't know? That is fine, but please don't insult by implying that my ideas are wrong when you haven't the slightest idea of what I'm speaking about.





admittedheretic added to this post, 13 minutes and 3 seconds later...

Beulah - Thanks for sharing your insights. I too believe sexuality issues to be a spectrum of "conditions." There really are people who are born transgendered and we have the genetic evidence to prove it. There are also people on the opposite end of the spectrum who's "condition" is developmental with or without genetic predisposition.

thod - I agree with you.

rickster - You need to work on your comprehension and theory of mind my friend. Thod didn't say he thinks homosexuality needs to be cured. He said he thinks that those who would like to be cured should be allowed to me. I personally have mild autism and I would never want to be "cured." I do understand why some people with it would want to be though.

/hyperfocus

[larkin]

larkin, I do believe I was making my case for the minority of people. I'm sorry you have to twist my words into stereotyping me as hateful when I am not. There is a very real duality and what is absurd is for someone to deny it. I don't believe we SHOULD need special laws for gays as I believe they are fundamentally equal so why would they need to be special laws? However, I do feel the majority of people in this country are religious bigots and zealots and such laws are necessary to make progress. I don't really have any intrapersonal experiences that would cause any bias. I have and have had gay and bisexual friends. I've never even touched the issue of the science of sexual orientation with them. I feel for anyone who is oppressed and discriminated against for no good reason.

I've not twisted anything; if you want to call it a minority fine, just show me these people. Tell me who these people are. You say the duality is real, it's absurd to deny it - then you're basically saying that there are people out there, having gay sex and defining as gay against their natural straight orientation, who are unhappy about it. Doesn't it strike you as odd that these people wouldn't just stop having gay sex? Or do you think that the more likely explanation is that at least part of them is gay, they seek out the sex, but environmental pressures have convinced them that they're actually straight? In spite of all the gay sex they keep having?

In sum: that people would choose to live a lie, against their natural orientation, only happens because there are environmental pressures to do so. Where are the environmental pressures to be gay? All I see are tremendous obstacles.

I really don't care if you're hateful or not, whatever that means, despite the "some of my best friends are gay!" lengths you travel to protest it in the rest of your response. The argument you're forwarding has little to no basis in reality, as do many of your arguments. See below:

If the environmental influence is large enough than my vested interest is as follows. I believe in the diversity of life which means I value procreation to spread the DNA on. If any environmental factor causes one to never procreate, the DNA is eliminated. This is scary to me because it could be used as a mechanism of genocide like abortion.

I don't feel the need to respond here, I just wanted to repost this in case people (understandably) skipped over reading all of your marathon post, to get the true tinfoil-hat nature of the thinking here.

[rickster]

Your reading comprehension lacks pal. I believe I said a number of times that I don't think anyone needs to be cured, but I do believe that those that do wish to, should be allowed to. Cured isn't even the right word to use at all. Change would be a better one. You can keep accuse me of having an anti-human agenda, but they are false accusations. I value the diversity of life above all else and if you understood this, you wouldn't keep on with these shenanigans.

What don't you understand about the fact that all attempts to change/cure homosexuals have failed? You say you "value the diversity of life above all else" in the same paragraph that parrots all your previous posts about a pressing need for science to de-program homosexuals, with nothing whatsoever to back up the need for such science. Where are all these people who need curing and changing?

I am not a bigot of any order. I take an unbiased and objective position with regardless to my understanding of science(truth.)


You are promoting a bigoted viewpoint. Your next sentence is so grammatically poor that its incomprehensible. With or without science, your bias is obvious. Your objectivity is laughable inasmuch as you have consistently ignored all science pointed out to you which does not support your bias.


May I ask what facts I am misinterpreting? That is your at least your tenth empty accusation. You type a couple of paragraphs, but all you say is "you are wrong and I am right" without any sort of science what so ever. I agree with many things you say sir, but I don't understand why you think you are telling me things I don't know and already agree with. You instantly stereotyped me as being evil even though I haven't explicitly or implicitly shared my own moral beliefs. I don't share my moral beliefs because I don't have any on this particular issue.

Intellectual deviousness is most certainly at the core of much human evil. I don't care about your moral beliefs: we are discussing the science of homosexuality, and thus far you have ignored all scientific facts presented to you.

I don't think schizophrenia is wrong or unfit. I don't put people into any boxes because I really do believe we are all equal because we are one. When I use the term "abnormal" I am making a factual statement that a certain characteristic isn't typical of statistical majority. I don't think you are a very good debater because you let your emotions dominate how you even understand language. I don't think this makes you any less valuable, but different. I would love to share my thoughts with you if you can actually backup your claims instead of making one statement than going on a tangent.

One doesn't need to be an especially good debater to recognize inflammatory analogies to mental disease and repeated references to normalcy within patronizations about you alleged equality beliefs. The only emotional aspect I'm bringing to this debate is my irritation at your constant dodging and weaving, and your deceit about your bias: you're going to have to come up with something a lot more objective than your feelings about my inherent value. Nice try, though...

I have always empathized for being "in the dark" because I think we've all experience in one form or another. I'm also an activist agaisnt the genocide of Africans that is happening before our eyes. I don't have any hidden agenda and I'm not even the slightest bit African. I have a personal experience where I shared dialogue with a person who feels he got tricked into thinking he was a homosexual and went through hell to get his old life back. He got caught up in drugs and other things which led he felt led him on that path. Gay advocates are such hypocrites that this man was discriminated against and outcasted by his local peers because of his change. He is now traveling the country trying to spread his message to others to help those who are like them. He is not going around saying that homosexuality is wrong and neither I am. We both just think people who want help, should be able to receive it. This hasn't been possible since 1973.

At the onset of this debate I stated my suspicions of your agenda inasmuch as a sting in the tail was probably on the way...along the lines of some "cured" homo out to "save" disgruntled homosexuals with a cure that does not exist. You have now confirmed this to be the case.

I can't see any "gay advocacy hypocrisy" in pointing out to you that your disingenuous nonsense about " not going around saying homosexuality is wrong" is the well-known mindfuck promoted by the Catholic Church: it doesn't justify your biased position and doesn't belong in a scientific debate.

[PeterIMC]

As far as I understand it, there's a part in the brain that's different in size in women and men. When a male has it the size that's normal in females, he's gay. It's just a matter of sexual preference being determined by that part in the brain. I don't remember what the name of it is.

I remember seeing various programs on tv where they spoke about this difference. One very clear one was twins where one of the 2 was gay. The only real physical difference between the 2: That small part of the brain.

[admittedheretic]

I've not twisted anything; if you want to call it a minority fine, just show me these people. Tell me who these people are. You say the duality is real, it's absurd to deny it - then you're basically saying that there are people out there, having gay sex and defining as gay against their natural straight orientation, who are unhappy about it. Doesn't it strike you as odd that these people wouldn't just stop having gay sex? Or do you think that the more likely explanation is that at least part of them is gay, they seek out the sex, but environmental pressures have convinced them that they're actually straight? In spite of all the gay sex they keep having?

I don't think you understand what duality I am evening talking about.

The proof is in the people who live their lives straight for X number of years (some get married and have kids) and then they disclose as being born gay their whole life. These people our accepted by society so why do disagree that it could happen the other way around where a person is gay for X number of years and than realizes they where born straight. If you disagree with my statements than your logical is hypocritical. Hopefully that clears things up..if you still disagree I don't think I can take anything you say seriously.


In sum: that people would choose to live a lie, against their natural orientation, only happens because there are environmental pressures to do so. Where are the environmental pressures to be gay? All I see are tremendous obstacles.

Why do people use drugs even though they know it leaves to obstacles? I'm not equating homosexuality to addiction in anyway, but just trying to see how silly of a question that is. What if the person was raised by Gay parents who raised a person to think they are also gay? I'm by no means denying the scale isn't tilted because being gay is stigmatized. I'm just saying it can be conditioned or learned to an extent. Which of course you think is absurd but you accept the notion that a gay kid could be raised to think he is straight. Sorry if I took the wrong words out of your mouth, but this is what a hypocrite would think.

I really don't care if you're hateful or not, whatever that means, despite the "some of my best friends are gay!" lengths you travel to protest it in the rest of your response. The argument you're forwarding has little to no basis in reality, as do many of your arguments. See below:



I don't feel the need to respond here, I just wanted to repost this in case people (understandably) skipped over reading all of your marathon post, to get the true tinfoil-hat nature of the thinking here.

Educate yourself: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Abortion is a mechanism of genocide and so is HIV. African is ridden with HIV and so is the gay community (sorry if that was blunt, but it is fact.) Abortion and homosexuality both eliminate DNA from the gene pool. You can accuse me of wearing a tinfoil-hat, that is typical as you've basically been programmed to do is. You've probably never given this much thought as your just lost in your egocentric world like most people or maybe these things don't have much basis, but I think they do.

Just hopping in to say that one of my greatest message board pet peeves is the suggestion that someone else has "comprehension issues" if they disagree with the OP.

That is all.

I went to extra lengths to prove a point and when someone accuses me of the exact opposite after I already clarified twice, I do challenge their comprehension. You obviously missed that too...

What don't you understand about the fact that all attempts to change/cure homosexuals have failed? You say you "value the diversity of life above all else" in the same paragraph that parrots all your previous posts about a pressing need for science to de-program homosexuals, with nothing whatsoever to back up the need for such science. Where are all these people who need curing and changing?



You are promoting a bigoted viewpoint. Your next sentence is so grammatically poor that its incomprehensible. With or without science, your bias is obvious. Your objectivity is laughable inasmuch as you have consistently ignored all science pointed out to you which does not support your bias.




Intellectual deviousness is most certainly at the core of much human evil. I don't care about your moral beliefs: we are discussing the science of homosexuality, and thus far you have ignored all scientific facts presented to you.



One doesn't need to be an especially good debater to recognize inflammatory analogies to mental disease and repeated references to normalcy within patronizations about you alleged equality beliefs. The only emotional aspect I'm bringing to this debate is my irritation at your constant dodging and weaving, and your deceit about your bias: you're going to have to come up with something a lot more objective than your feelings about my inherent value. Nice try, though...



At the onset of this debate I stated my suspicions of your agenda inasmuch as a sting in the tail was probably on the way...along the lines of some "cured" homo out to "save" disgruntled homosexuals with a cure that does not exist. You have now confirmed this to be the case.

I can't see any "gay advocacy hypocrisy" in pointing out to you that your disingenuous nonsense about " not going around saying homosexuality is wrong" is the well-known mindfuck promoted by the Catholic Church: it doesn't justify your biased position and doesn't belong in a scientific debate.

Bunch of empty accusations... AGAIN! Which research am I denying? Apparently you think I'm mixing up all sorts of things, but you can't name one? The pragmatics of my language is a little bit different because I have hyperlexia and can not visualize mental imagery, forgive me. I already stated I don't really have any moral beliefs on the matter as I am an atheist and I don't necessarily believe in good or evil; right or wrong. You can't even contribute anything with any scientific merit so what gives you so much confidence in your opinion? I don't think mental retardation is wrong, but I think we should try and "cure" it. I think mental retardation is just different; it happens to be so different they can't function in our society, but that does not mean that can not function. Here is where you get all emotional because you think I'm implying that homosexuals are mentally retarded... some of you people need to do some further soul searching because an INTJ does not let his or her emotion control their logic like some of you do. Disagree with and attack my ideas all you want, but you can't do it objectively. This is how the majority always suppressed the new scientific findings because you are comforted by the majority. I however am comforted in what I believe to be true. Even if you can't take me seriously hopefully I can at least let you realize that I'm pointing out some pieces of the puzzle that are overlooked. Spend some time on google and to see what the scientist have to say about homosexuality not being genetically caused. Now, if we where in the stage where we just started looking for the genes I wouldn't be so quick to form an opinion. But, we have looked for the "gay genes" and they are no where to be found. I need evidence of sorts to believe something; I don't just believe some random thing to be true because it hasn't been proven otherwise. Nor do I dismiss such random things. The bottom line is I can't tell certain people homosexuality isn't genetic just like I can't say a supernatural Jesus Christ isn't real. The difference is there is no proof of a supernatural Jesus, yet some delusional people believe there is. The evidence of homosexuality leans towards choice and this can not be denied. The people going against the grain scientifically just so happen to have the support of society because people today feel anti-humanity if they are anti-gay and they should. This is a similar mind control mechanism to how we have associated women's rights with abortion. A classical case of internal divide and conquer amongst the population. Then United Nations made it public that there intentions are to lower the worlds population and many are even duped into believing our planet is over populated. They can't get away with the gas chambers anymore now that we have technology to communicate or forced sterilizations like we did with the mentally ill because some of us know they are only mentally different. The mechanisms are like being a prisoner, but the prison is invisible. Dupe people into thinking they are doing something right and they will willingly eliminate their DNA.

[Wired]

Maybe they're not missing your points at all.

Maybe they think your points are invalid.

[Nemesis]

I hate to break your heart nemesis, but just because you read it in a textbook; doesn't make it true. Many of the old ideologies have been at least challenged by more modern findings. Localization has not been proved to be universal so how can you be so confident in your field when fundamental ideas like the right hemisphere controls the right side of the body are wrong. Sure, the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body in the vast majority of people, but not in everyone one which means the model is incorrect. I have never denied the hormones can effect brain plasticity and our fundamental disagree I believe is you believe sexual orientation is concrete in the womb and I disagree. I do believe that events in the womb can influence a predisposition. What this basically boils down to is I believe that our diet effects our biology (duh) which in turn effects our DNA through epigenetic mechanisms. (not so commonly accepted.) Physics books today falsely teach how our sun creates energy and I think the mind is a bigger mystery than nuclear fission. You haven't commented on anything I posted in detail which leads me to believe you haven't read it and/or don't understand it. Throw me a bone or something, do not believe in digit theory? Or is it you fundamentally believe sexual orientation is 100% finalized in the womb? Obviously we both need to take a leap of faith in one direction or the other so I respect your view even though I think you are misled.



I have 2 points I want to make very clear to you;

1) I have provided not only text books, but current research articles and names of prominent researchers that study exactly what is being discussed here. You clearly have not bothered to read this information yourself. I am not here to give you a crash course in neuroscience 101 and I have pointed you towards this literature so that you can read it and examine it with a critical mind on your own. I have thrown you more than a couple bones here.

2) You still have not provided a single study or a single piece of empirical evidence to back up anything you have claimed. If you were to provide any source to back up what you are claiming, I will gladly read through it and discuss it with you and the people posting on this thread. Until then, I don't really think you have anything to add to this conversation and I see no reason for it to continue.

I would enjoy communicating with you about your views on the diet/epigenetic link because I think there is a lot of very interesting findings out there about that. However, that may have to wait for another thread.

[admittedheretic]

Nemesis - I don't have the time to read that literature, but I will find time if you can make at least one interesting point that contradicts one of mine. You just keep saying, you are wrong... read this book. I'm not asking for a crash course, I'm asking for one definite point. Something you have failed do. Lets take a step back and deep breath to reflect on that scientists around the world don't have conclusive evidence for either of our positions, so both of our opinions involve a deal of faith. Would you let me know which specific claims you want evidence for? Do you understand what I was saying about the connection of schizophrenia, autism, and sex hormones? There is higher a homosexuality rates amongst people with mental illness; surely this must mean something. I use my intuition and am not involved in research so please don't expect me to make citations after every sentence. Can you take the position of a naturist and explain to me the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality? I don't think the answer to this question should influence our equality of humans so please don't accuse me of that.

To me, many "conditions" seem like past DNA being activated. I believe the accepted anthropologist view that homospaien is a hybrid of at least 22 apes. Could it be that conditions like Down's syndrome are really hybrid specie traits being activated? I think so.. The simian line is a palm crease noticed in monkeys and rarely humans.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

More importantly, review this..

The Neanderthal theory and the origin of autism
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

About 80-90% of classical autistics have blood type A which is observed in Chimps, but Chimps have no blood type B. Gorillas are the opposite as they have blood type B, but no A.

This isn't irrelevant to the discussion at hand because of the influence of sexual hormones in conditions like Autism and Schizophrenia. Are you familiar with digit theory and its inferences to sexuality? If not, it is worth googling. It isn't mainstream science because it was labeled "evil eugenics" and hidden, but if you do some poking around you'll find there are some peer reviewed correlations between finger length ratios and all sorts of "conditions." What I got out of it is that it clearly shows correlation with predispostion of homosexuality to have the opposite finger ratio with respect to sex, but there are still occurrences where the finger ratio which is also the estrogen to testosterone ratio is statistically normal. So what is it, that sexual hormones don't play a role in the disputation (nope, they do seem to play a roll) or that some people chose to be homosexual using mind over matter, or there is other mechanisms. I believe there to be truth in all there, but you dismiss the second point out of bias.

Here is an article that proves pedophiles really are attracted to children. I'm not putting equating the sexual deviance of being a pedophile and a homosexual and I can never seem to have an intillegent argument about this because people believe I am. Pedophiles can go through therapy to change their sexual attraction so why wouldn't straights or gays?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rickster]

Here is an article that proves pedophiles really are attracted to children. I'm not putting equating the sexual deviance of being a pedophile and a homosexual and I can never seem to have an intillegent argument about this because people believe I am. Pedophiles can go through therapy to change their sexual attraction so why wouldn't straights or gays?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Intelligent people don't often waste their time debating issues which you insist on framing within your bias.

You most certainly are deviously equating homosexuality to pedophilia. The link you have chosen to provide is proof of that, and simply demonstrates the breadth of your toxic agenda.

As nemesis has pointed out, you've had nothing of any scientific value to add to this conversation. I am pointing out that you have consistently ignored all requests to do so, while at the same time fast-tracking and advancing a reprehensible bias, which you dodge and weave your way around with one inflammatory straw man after another.

I see no further reason to participate in a debate which is undoubtedly destined to be hijacked ad infinitum by a self-apparent agenda which clearly caused the thread to be separated from its origins in the first place.

[Aristocrat Porn]

The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual so I always like to remind homosexuals that they can't switch back if therapy,




People can switch back and forth? Bloody hell...

[thod]

You most certainly are deviously equating homosexuality to pedophilia. The link you have chosen to provide is proof of that, and simply demonstrates the breadth of your toxic agenda.

Perhaps it is because you insist on attacking anyone that opposes your viewpoint. They are all bigots and homophobes and thus evil people.

There is much to be said for comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. The fact that one is consensual and the other not has no bearing. What is being asked is if there is a common mechanism, not the legality or morality. I read about a guy being repeatedly arrested for attempting to have sex with the sidewalk. It is suggested that homosexuality is fetishism and should be studied as such.

The fact that you dislike so much is that science and reason tell us that heterosexual sex is the default because it produces offspring and every single one of us is the product of such a union. This makes homosexuality a deviation and a defect. It is like the short guy, who secretly feels inferior, ranting against the notion of an average height.

[admittedheretic]

Amen thod. - One of my strongest arguments that goes against nemesis's belief is that sexual fetishes are plastic in the brain. They are by no means easy to change, but I suspect they might entirely and universally possible. I have to repeat myself to the emotionally unstable; I don't think this means people should be forced to change or stigmatized for not doing so.What nemesis needs to prove to me is the difference between the sexual fetish and sexual orientation plasticity. We both agree that the plasticity has critical points in the development, but he feels sexual orientation becomes concrete at some point. I do not believe ANY part of our brain ever becomes concrete. I do believe that neurons reinforce themselves so much that a great length of therapy is needed to make the smallest behavior change. What I want to know is how the neurons in the sexual orientation location of the brain work differently than other places. Animals stimulate their genitals on inanimate objects too, but what point does this serve? To say homosexuality is unnatural would mean it wouldn't exist. I hate to keep repeating over and over, but I value diversity amongst everything. I take an issue to ANYTHING that stops one of procreating, but I still believe people need to have the right to not procreate if they don't wish.

Aristocrat Porn - A pedophile can switch from liking children to liking adults. And we have empirical evidence of what "liking" is. Shocker I know... Now maybe you could suggest a reason that differs a pedophile from a homosexual? And do so from an objective scientific viewpoint... we're not talking about morality or politics. Those things aren't certain....let's talk the "SCIENCE" of homosexuality like the thread topic.

Rickster - I am not a very good speller because I have language difference because I have autism, I don't proofread my post (I know I should), and I type at a very fast pace. I have many thoughts that I have to squeeze into my working memory so I can't afford to slow down and self correct. Your arguments are like a broken record and you need to grab a mirror because the naive person you describe is you.

[Beulah]

Fetishists or fetishism unlikely have much relation to orientation, we're talking behaviour that excludes emotional intimacy when we talk fetish (diagnostic statistical manual).

Example - fetish for shoes, fetish for blondes etc

It is equally possible for someone hetero to have a fetish for bonking (or self masturbating) using blonde air hostesses as tools as it is for someone gay to have a fetish for bonking leather men (men in leather who'd become unattractive without it).

In both cases the kicks come from the visual or the feel of the objectified thing/human.
Straights can have fetishes just as gays can. It is unlikely however that orientation (which sex is preferred) would on any regular basis be a fetish, as orientation normaly involves emotional , spiritual and mental connection or intimacy. Smething the diagnostic definition of a fetish rules out.

If it is discardable and not likely to be loved its more likely a fetish eg a stiletto, a stocking or pair orf stolen undies giving much thrill factor or a one night stand by self confessed "sex addict" with preferred fantasy eg blonde air hostess (real or hired hooker in costume).

I do know one guy though whose "heterosexuality" appears all fetish and no substance. He inspired this post as he is super shallow to cartoon degree, high sexed and has a photo album containing all the hundreds of blonde women he has "loved before". My joke to him - not that well apparently as where are they all now. Including the wife he unimpressed by showing the album on their honeymoon as part of a bid to have her bleach her hair.

[Nemesis]

. I'm not asking for a crash course, I'm asking for one definite point.

Thank you for giving some sources here.

In my original post I made a very salient point. In regards to plasticity, various areas around the brain are differentially influenced by hormones and other mechanisms that induce structural and chemical changes in those specific areas over development. While localization of function is not absolute, there is ample evidence to suggest a high degree of localization does indeed occur.

This is very important to what you are claiming because the research suggests that things like pedophilia and other paraphilic behaviours do show some flux over time. Hence, they may be treatable (emphasis on the may). Again, different paraphilias show different degrees of malleability (Pedophilia shows very little). What I pointed out in my original post was that the evidence gathered while studying treatments of paraphilias indicates that no matter how much these paraphilic behaviours wax and wane in an individual over time, a persons sexual orientation remains the same. Hence, gay pedophiles get off on same sex children, and straight pedophiles get off on opposite sexed children. Gay foot fetishists dig male feet and Straight foot fetishists dig female feet. Orientation over-arches these fetishes. Going back to the plasticity thing above, this indicates that the areas involved in producing paraphilic behaviors do show flux, but the neural substrates behind orientation do not. Hence, there is far lower plasticity being seen in orientation than in paraphilias.

A vast number of studies using prenatal stress models have suggested that orientation can be influenced during gestation, but not in the postnatal environment. Interestingly, specific sex typical behaviours can be influenced. For example, you can induce female rats to perform male typical mounts by introducing androgens into the brain during puberty. However, their orientation does not change. They hump males. This tells us that certain "sex typical" behaviours show flux, others do not. This echoes what I was saying about paraphilias vs. orientation.

This of course brings up the whole hormone topic. Yes, hormones are very likely to play a massive role in things like autism and schizophrenia. This gets hairy when you try to connect those things and sexuality though. Keep in mind their is a much higher rate of autistic spectrum disorders among males than females. Even if you are correct in linking orientation and other disorders, this does not mean that the orientation is a disorder, it would be like claiming that being male is a disorder because more autistic people are male. Hormones effect many conditions that are correlated to other hormone influenced traits (like biological sex and sexual orientation)... so what!?

Junk science is formed when people infer a link between correlated things that actually share no causal nexus. Don't fall into this trap.

The digit theory you are pointing out is actually called the 2d:4d digit ratio and it is reasonably well supported. The thing that pops out immediately about that theory is that is is used as a very very VERY crude means to measure exposure to androgens in the prenatal period. What is indicated by the theory (as far as I understand it) is that the traits being linked to different digit ratios occur in the prenatal period and then can be observed in the ratios themselves later on. As I understand, (sometimes homosexual males) with low exposure to prenatal androgens show lower 2d:4d ratios than males exposed to higher levels of prenatal androgens. If you are correct, than if we were to effectively "treat" homosexuality, then we can make gay guys fingers longer? Again, the idea you are forwarding here actually indicates things that take hold in the uterus and then remain stable over time. As in, once again orientation appears to appear in the womb and remain stable.

As for the evolutionary value of homosexuality, there are many hypotheses out there that address this. I am not familiar enough with them to give you good info off the top of my head. I do have one very good link bookmarked that you may find extremely interesting as it focuses on the very concerns you have with evolution and homosexuality...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rickster]

Perhaps it is because you insist on attacking anyone that opposes your viewpoint. They are all bigots and homophobes and thus evil people.

I'm quite able to refute rubbish - nobody is being attacked. A bigoted mindset and lack of science are obvious. If you perceive "attacks" then defend them with some evidence but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

There is much to be said for comparing homosexuality to paedophilia. The fact that one is consensual and the other not has no bearing. What is being asked is if there is a common mechanism, not the legality or morality.

All sexuality has common mechanism. To compare homosexuality to pedophilia is one of the more obvious attempts to pair one socially undesirable sexuality with one prohibited sexuality, with a view to damning the former by association with the latter. You are digging yourself deeper into your agenda of bigotry by using such a transparently lame argument.

I read about a guy being repeatedly arrested for attempting to have sex with the sidewalk. It is suggested that homosexuality is fetishism and should be studied as such.

It is only "suggested" by people who are incapable of understanding the difference between sexuality and fetishism.

The fact that you dislike so much is that science and reason tell us that heterosexual sex is the default because it produces offspring and every single one of us is the product of such a union.

Well I'm most certainly glad heterosexuality is the default. How the hell else can you produce homosexuals?

[Nemesis]

I do not believe ANY part of our brain ever becomes concrete.

It is not a matter of belief, look at some of the sources I have given you. The first article I provided with Kolb et al. in authorship shows differential plasticity between the orbital frontal and medial prefrontal cortices during development. I am also not arguing that parts become concrete. I am saying that plasticity is not uniform and some areas show very little, and some areas show lots.

[Aristocrat Porn]

Aristocrat Porn - A pedophile can switch from liking children to liking adults. And we have empirical evidence of what "liking" is. Shocker I know... Now maybe you could suggest a reason that differs a pedophile from a homosexual? And do so from an objective scientific viewpoint... we're not talking about morality or politics. Those things aren't certain....let's talk the "SCIENCE" of homosexuality like the thread topic.


Im having a hard time trying to follow your train of thought.


Since you didnt grasp my irony, ill go ahead and say it. People who "go back and forth" because they "enjoy" it, are called bisexual. That's why we have that word, to save us the time it takes to type the whole "switch back and forth..." every time.

You see, they never stop being one thing. They are both things at the same time. If you are a father and also a lumberjack, you are both a father and a lumberjack all day long. You dont switch into lumberjack when you go to work, then switch back into father when you get home. That makes no sense.

As to pedophiles, nothing stops them from having any other fetish at all. There is nothing that implies so in the definition of the word.

[thod]

I'm quite able to refute rubbish - nobody is being attacked. A bigoted mindset and lack of science are obvious. If you perceive "attacks" then defend them with some evidence but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

But you don't refute, you attack the poster using an 'appeal to motive' argument. This is simply "well they would say that, because they are a bigot, thus we can dismiss the argument as false". It does not matter if they are a bigot, a communist, or a Martian none of these affects the argument. Why should others care that you hate bigots (a form of bigotry itself), if they have a true argument it is valid.

The logic of this case is simple. Heterosexuals produce the offspring, my parents were hetero as were my grandparents before them. This property makes such relationships superior to sterile unions. If something is superior then the other must be inferior, thus homosexual relationships are inferior. Now this is where your become emotional, having shown that your chosen relationships are inferior, you feel inferior and attempt to discredit this, yet there is no arguing against the offspring factor.

One such attack is argumentum ad obscurum where you attempt to discredit the value of offspring. In the final analysis nothing matters, there is no reason for preferring humans to continue, there is no ultimate reason for any choice at all outside of religious argument. However others take the view that some outcomes are more desirable, at least to them.

The other common argument is one of personal happiness. A homosexual would be happier with another man than with a woman, even though no offspring result. This is true and thus it provides an optimal solution for them. However the hetero gains equal happiness with a woman with the addition of offspring. Thus although both have optimised their happiness, the hetero still has the additional advantage of another benefit outside of happiness and makes it a superior relationship.

All the arguments used to promote homosexuality seem to apply equally to sex with plastic dolls. Yet we do not consider such to be desirable.

[Aristocrat Porn]

But you don't refute, you attack the poster using an 'appeal to motive' argument. This is simply "well they would say that, because they are a bigot, thus we can dismiss the argument as false". It does not matter if they are a bigot, a communist, or a Martian none of these affects the argument. Why should others care that you hate bigots (a form of bigotry itself), if they have a true argument it is valid.

The logic of this case is simple. Heterosexuals produce the offspring, my parents were hetero as were my grandparents before them. This property makes such relationships superior to sterile unions. If something is superior then the other must be inferior, thus homosexual relationships are inferior. Now this is where your become emotional, having shown that your chosen relationships are inferior, you feel inferior and attempt to discredit this, yet there is no arguing against the offspring factor.

One such attack is argumentum ad obscurum where you attempt to discredit the value of offspring. In the final analysis nothing matters, there is no reason for preferring humans to continue, there is no ultimate reason for any choice at all outside of religious argument. However others take the view that some outcomes are more desirable, at least to them.

The other common argument is one of personal happiness. A homosexual would be happier with another man than with a woman, even though no offspring result. This is true and thus it provides an optimal solution for them. However the hetero gains equal happiness with a woman with the addition of offspring. Thus although both have optimised their happiness, the hetero still has the additional advantage of another benefit outside of happiness and makes it a superior relationship.




Hmm... yea. Except for the fact that you pulled the "superior" out of nowhere. It is a judgment of value. It's personal and its yours to keep.


Some people don't want or like offspring. To them, its not superior at all. Say vhemt (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). So, yea... you based it on your morals, not on logic.




All the arguments used to promote homosexuality seem to apply equally to sex with plastic dolls. Yet we do not consider such to be desirable.


Hang on there, who's we?

[thod]

Hmm... yea. Except for the fact that you pulled the "superior" out of nowhere. It is a judgment of value. It's personal and its yours to keep.

This is the argument to obscurity again nothing can be superior because nothing matters without ultimate meaning. However we know that those that produce offspring survive and pass their ideas on. Thus it is superior at promoting its own continuance. Perhaps it doesn't matter that it should continue, yet all we have is that which did continue and thus the property of continuance would seem to be important and backed by observation of the natural world.

[Aristocrat Porn]

This is the argument to obscurity again nothing can be superior because nothing matters without ultimate meaning. However we know that those that produce offspring survive and pass their ideas on. Thus it is superior at promoting its own continuance. Perhaps it doesn't matter that it should continue, yet all we have is that which did continue and thus the property of continuance would seem to be important and backed by observation of the natural world.


No, thats just apathy and lack of action. You are basically saying "it's always being that way, so it seems important that it continues to be so" and trying to pass that on as logic.

Its not logic. I agree with you that nothing matters, but i have no idea what point you are trying to make or why you think labeling it as "superior" is so important.

[rickster]

But you don't refute, you attack the poster using an 'appeal to motive' argument. This is simply "well they would say that, because they are a bigot, thus we can dismiss the argument as false". It does not matter if they are a bigot, a communist, or a Martian none of these affects the argument. Why should others care that you hate bigots (a form of bigotry itself), if they have a true argument it is valid.

Let me make something very clear. I have responded to you and OP by disassembling your own rambling and unscientific statements and absurd assumptions. Your coded and highly inflammatory language needs to be noted and addressed. If you don't like seeing your own words coming back at you as rebuttals of your bigotry then that's just too bad: you should have presented facts instead. I see no value in tolerating bigotry as the driving force of a debate which has so far presented little or no science, but a whole lot of unvalidated non-facts, poor arguments and intended though ultimately irrelevant slurs.

[thod]

No, thats just apathy and lack of action. You are basically saying "it's always being that way, so it seems important that it continues to be so" and trying to pass that on as logic.

It is the naturalistic argument. We do not understand why the universe is the way that it is nor do we try to justify it. We simply observe and say what is. Thus I cannot tell you why Neanderthals died out or what purpose there was in them having ever existed. All I can say is that they used to exist. Should humans cease to breed they would go the same way.

My desire for the continuity of the human race is just that, a desire. I do not have the answers, perhaps the next generation will figure it out and decide to end the continuity or not. Should I decide to end it now, then it is final and I do not take decisions when I do not know. Thus the best strategy seems to be to continue and pass the decision on to the next generation in the hope of a resolution.

Let me make something very clear. I have responded to you and OP by disassembling your own rambling and unscientific statements and absurd assumptions. Your coded and highly inflammatory language needs to be noted and addressed. If you don't like seeing your own words coming back at you as rebuttals of your bigotry then that's just too bad: you should have presented facts instead. I see no value in tolerating bigotry as the driving force of a debate which has so far presented little or no science, but a whole lot of unvalidated non-facts, poor arguments and intended though ultimately irrelevant slurs.

Case proven.

[Beulah]

A vast number of studies using prenatal stress models have suggested that orientation can be influenced during gestation, but not in the postnatal environment. Interestingly, specific sex typical behaviours can be influenced. For example, you can induce female rats to perform male typical mounts by introducing androgens into the brain during puberty. However, their orientation does not change. They hump males.

Humping as much speaks to experimentation as orientation. Mammal social behaviours require shaping - we are instinct retarded. The monkeys which are a tad closer to us than rats show that disrupted attachment and lack of parental role models ie no observation of straight sex while young does result in higher rate of same sex orientation (or at least attempted humping on their shoulders).

Also, regardless of the prenatal studies (likely too young to show life long outcomes as yet) plenty of studies do show orientation change late in life. Which confirms I could believe what my eyes have so often seen. Fully hetero women go gay. Fully gay men go straight. Fully straight guys go gay. Sometimes all of these go bi. I think this is an uncomfortable proposition to one and all - whether gay or straight who prefer to feel there is no ambiguity and it is all open and shut predetermined at birth. So EASY to think that, and allows justification or pathologisation dependent on your agenda.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
A quick google produces a review of studies indicating fluidity or switching is a real phenomenon for 2% of the population. Initialy found in a 1950s study (likely questionable as to truth telling in those days), but reconfirmed in an 80s studies per above link.

2% may not sound like much - but it could be looked upon as 10% of the gay demographic or as several billion people. Not all are simply awakened bi's. Some do a full switch - when people testify to this themselves and aren't motivated by social pressure etc then why not believe them. Why try and make them fit a pet theory. I know the 2% (see initial post on this thread), hell I could even be part of it since I was fully hetero till mid 20s, and am fully not now. This all comes down to social learning, no need for rebalancing by a strong male ttachment as I now have sufficient balls, and rational choices making males sexually redundant for me. I just feel my taste evolved with me - not that birth made me hetero awhile and then not!

Gawd this heteros are breeders so are superior/correct argument has serious disconnects at each link, and is the most insipid nonsense I've ever come across. Reflects heavy conditioning toward the "one must reproduce to be fulfilled or societally responsible" outlook.

NON BREEDERS ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE ECOSYSTEM - look at my female Prime Minister (forced to hide her gayness in a sham mariage for years). There again...evil one.

OK better case in point - look at my Solicitor General. Now he is doing a lot more to advance civilisation than some of those hetero clansfolk on Springer. Sorry to offend any INTJ clan who might be following this!

[Aristocrat Porn]

It is the naturalistic argument. We do not understand why the universe is the way that it is nor do we try to justify it. We simply observe and say what is. Thus I cannot tell you why Neanderthals died out or what purpose there was in them having ever existed. All I can say is that they used to exist. Should humans cease to breed they would go the same way.

My desire for the continuity of the human race is just that, a desire. I do not have the answers, perhaps the next generation will figure it out and decide to end the continuity or not. Should I decide to end it now, then it is final and I do not take decisions when I do not know. Thus the best strategy seems to be to continue and pass the decision on to the next generation in the hope of a resolution.




Thats absolutely perfect. So you as an individual choose to have heterosexual relations in order to guarantee the continuation of our species. Keep in mind it only makes sense because you care about reaching a resolution; other people might not.


That has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality being inherently superior or inferior, (because you can't assume that everyone else would agree with you - and even if someone does, he still has a lot of other choices. Have heterosexual sex at least once and then carry on being gay, hire a woman to have his child through AI...). So labeling it as that on such grounds is not only useless, it is also impossible.

[rickster]

Why try and make them fit a pet theory. I know the 2% (see initial post on this thread), hell I could even be part of it since I was fully hetero till mid 20s, and am fully not now. This all comes down to social learning, no need for rebalancing as I now have sufficient balls, and rational choices making males sexually redundant for me. I just feel my taste evolved with me - not that birth made me hetero awhile and then not!

That's pretty much my story. It never occurred to me to have sex with a guy till I was maybe 21. I definitely see it primarily as a socialization issue, and the "science" of homosexuality therefore confusing but ultimately quite irrelevant.

NON BREEDERS ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE ECOSYSTEM - look at my female Prime Minister (forced to hide her gayness in a sham mariage for years). There again...evil one.

OK better case in point - look at my Solicitor General. Now he is doing a lot more to advance civilisation than some of those hetero clansfolk on Springer. Sorry to offend any INTJ clan who might be following this!

Fuck the ecosystem and easliy-offended INTJ klanspeople: man when this homo's on a roll I'm just like Jesus Christ, only better. Prime Minister & Solicitor General chores seem kinda, well...menial.

[larkin]

To ah: I know you're "using your intuition" so of course, I won't expect a citation after every sentence (that would imply there was any basis for your statements at all, which there often is not) but let me suggest two things to you before we go any further. One, before you decide to post your rambling thought stream could you know, google it or something? Try to find any reason for making the statement at all, much less claiming it as "science"?

There is higher a homosexuality rates amongst people with mental illness; surely this must mean something. I use my intuition and am not involved in research so please don't expect me to make citations after every sentence.

I'll answer only the lines of thought that are marginally related to psychology, since that's what I studied. There are higher rates of mental illness among homosexuals - depression, anxiety, substance abuse disorders - but given the nature of the mental illness, the most likely explanation is the high number of environmental stressors. Everyone is susceptible to mental illness with enough stress. Although some people might be more genetically predisposed to it than others, it's unlikely genetics is the answer here. If so we would be more likely to also see a higher correlation in other axis 1 disorders like schizophrenia.

So what is it, that sexual hormones don't play a role in the disputation (nope, they do seem to play a roll) or that some people chose to be homosexual using mind over matter, or there is other mechanisms. I believe there to be truth in all there, but you dismiss the second point out of bias.

For the last time: obviously environmental factors play a role in self-definition. That is not the same as "changing" someone's genetic orientation. So yes, certainly someone could self-define as gay "for X number of years and than realizes they where (sic) born straight", from your earlier post. Perhaps there are people out there who have had that experience, although again I think it's probably exceedingly rare, given all the environmental pressures to be straight. Why would someone choose to self-define as gay if their orientation is straight? (You say this statement is comparable to asking why people do drugs - well, yeah, more so than you think, because people do drugs because they want to, even if they say they don't. If they didn't want to, they would just stop doing them.)

Your theoretical example - of a child being raised by two gay parents - is technically possible but so rare that it's virtually insignificant. And I imagine that when they realized they were straight, they just started living a straight life.

But that's not what you originally said. You said there were people out there "trapped" as gay, "crying out on message boards and no one was listening". Who are these people? And why aren't they simply straight? I suppose these people could exist, I'm just saying that they don't, because there are no environmental pressures to be gay. This is what I mean when I say this argument is unconnected to reality. And you've yet to show me where they are.

Pedophiles can go through therapy to change their sexual attraction so why wouldn't straights or gays?

Again, flat wrong. At best, therapy can help pedophiles manage their attraction, but not change it. And even then, therapy to treat sexual disorders has some of the lowest success rates of all mental illness.

Lastly: "Can you take the position of a naturist and explain to me the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality?"

No. To both you and Thod: I have no interest in qualifying homosexuality for you, any more than a straight married couple needs to explain their decision not to have children. Like 99% of human behavior, it does not need an evolutionary purpose to achieve validity. Can you take the position of a naturist and explain to me the evolutionary purpose of you posting on this forum?

[Urbicande]

Being also gay, that is a very interesting thread ...

If we can unlearn to be homosexual (as mistakenly stated the initiator of this thread), I would be more interested in testing that theory to see if heterosexuals could learn to be gay ... that would be absolutely great (for some ; ugly men can stay heterosexual if they like).

Being gay has nothing to do with brain, simply because it is well proven that the brain of gay people is totally located "down there" ...

No kidding, being gay is just a matter of taste, no study ever managed to establish a pattern or cause or whatever. Just like some people like blue, then a few years later like green, it can evolve and it does not make you a freak with mental imbalance.

Sure I think I could learn to be heterosexual (just have to buy a car and two kids, easy, oh... and the wife of course (forgot her on the highway last time)), but I could not practice what I learn, women will always lack the main part.

Maybe, It's like why some people are left-handed ... and in a sensibly constant ratio.

Stop the clichés. You have as many kinds of gay people that kinds of heterosexual people. Some have always been drawn to the same sex, some switched, some do both, and each gay people has a different story.

For me, I think I am gay because I knew I would never be able to have Nicole Kidman, so by despair, I turn on to guys ...


When reading the firs question from the initiator of the thread : "On your right hand, which fingers is longer, the index or the ring?" ... you know that it will be pure provocation.

Always looking for some rational reason. Maybe scientist could explain homosexuality by working "a contrario", id est by wondering what makes most people heterosexual ... Oh yeah, I forgot, breeding ... sorry.

[Nemesis]

I'm going to turn around on the naturalist argument here. How do you explain the observation that homosexuality occurs across all human populations and much of the non-human world and has likely been there for a long time? If your claim is that homosexuality is an illness is true, wouldn't this mark the first and only illness or disease that effects all human and non-human populations evenly? Seems pretty damned unlikely to me. The most likely answer I can think of for this is that homosexuality is just a normally occurring variant within populations.

[rickster]

I'm going to turn around on the naturalist argument here. How do you explain the observation that homosexuality occurs across all human populations and much of the non-human world and has likely been there for a long time? If your claim is that homosexuality is an illness is true, wouldn't this mark the first and only illness or disease that effects all human and non-human populations evenly? Seems pretty damned unlikely to me. The most likely answer I can think of for this is that homosexuality is just a normally occurring variant within populations.

Within the naturalist construct, homosexuality itself must be deemed as entirely natural inasmuch as all phenomena has a natural cause.

The "disease" of homosexuality as a medical condition is non-existent, and only in its social context is it considered abnormal or harmful.

I'd be most interested to learn how this obvious conflict is resolved by reason or science.

[nacht]

Here is an article that proves pedophiles really are attracted to children. I'm not putting equating the sexual deviance of being a pedophile and a homosexual and I can never seem to have an intillegent argument about this because people believe I am. Pedophiles can go through therapy to change their sexual attraction so why wouldn't straights or gays?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Two points.

First:
Last I checked, pedophilia was traditionally viewed as incurable. Child molestation and pedophilia. An overview for the physician (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) indicates "available interventions are symptomatically palliative rather than curative," in short, they deal with the outward expression of symptoms rather than changing who the person is attracted to.

CBT is used for "relapse prevention" in a similar manner to addiction control and has been shown to be effective in this role, and there are other therapies that prevent relapse in different ways or that can help the person adjust to normal society, but the attraction to prepubescent children remains.

Similarly, it is possible to "treat" homosexuals so that their outward expression changes, but it does not appear to be possible to treat them so that their base sexual orientation changes. This also appears to be true for gender identity, which is another can of worms entirely.

Second: Different parts of the brain are different. Even if pedophilia were curable, it doesn't imply anything about homosexuality one way or the other, because it doesn't necessarily reside in the same mechanisms in the brain.

ETA:

Just in case anyone thinks that the link I provided contains out of date information, try Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which concluded from the most recent research as of 2007 that "the urges can be managed, but the core attraction does not change." In the conclusion, it stated:


The combination of pharmacologic and behavioral treatment coupled with close legal supervision appears to help reduce the risk of repeated offense. However, the interventions do not change the pedophile's basic sexual orientation toward children

[admittedheretic]

Thank you for giving some sources here.

In my original post I made a very salient point. In regards to plasticity, various areas around the brain are differentially influenced by hormones and other mechanisms that induce structural and chemical changes in those specific areas over development. While localization of function is not absolute, there is ample evidence to suggest a high degree of localization does indeed occur.

This is very important to what you are claiming because the research suggests that things like pedophilia and other paraphilic behaviours do show some flux over time. Hence, they may be treatable (emphasis on the may). Again, different paraphilias show different degrees of malleability (Pedophilia shows very little). What I pointed out in my original post was that the evidence gathered while studying treatments of paraphilias indicates that no matter how much these paraphilic behaviours wax and wane in an individual over time, a persons sexual orientation remains the same. Hence, gay pedophiles get off on same sex children, and straight pedophiles get off on opposite sexed children. Gay foot fetishists dig male feet and Straight foot fetishists dig female feet. Orientation over-arches these fetishes. Going back to the plasticity thing above, this indicates that the areas involved in producing paraphilic behaviors do show flux, but the neural substrates behind orientation do not. Hence, there is far lower plasticity being seen in orientation than in paraphilias.

A vast number of studies using prenatal stress models have suggested that orientation can be influenced during gestation, but not in the postnatal environment. Interestingly, specific sex typical behaviours can be influenced. For example, you can induce female rats to perform male typical mounts by introducing androgens into the brain during puberty. However, their orientation does not change. They hump males. This tells us that certain "sex typical" behaviours show flux, others do not. This echoes what I was saying about paraphilias vs. orientation.

All you are explaining is that neurons reinforce themselves. Neurons don't know what their function is and they don't care. I know there is research to back up what you say, but it says nothing more than hormones influence the neurons somehow. I can easily understand how they could influence the rate at which neurons fire, but nothing more. The neurons aren't all that complex. You can view addiction from many different perspectives from substance, sexual, or exercise and come with many different conclusions like you are doing. The dopamine doesn't know what it is addicted to nor does it care. What is the difference in a homosexuals brain? What if there is nothing wrong with any mechanism and it is 100% developmental? Baby geese chose a mother as the first moving object they see. Most of time it is their mother, but it could also be a person. Just because the geese has a human as mother doesn't mean the mechanism of developing so would have been abnormal.

This of course brings up the whole hormone topic. Yes, hormones are very likely to play a massive role in things like autism and schizophrenia. This gets hairy when you try to connect those things and sexuality though. Keep in mind their is a much higher rate of autistic spectrum disorders among males than females. Even if you are correct in linking orientation and other disorders, this does not mean that the orientation is a disorder, it would be like claiming that being male is a disorder because more autistic people are male. Hormones effect many conditions that are correlated to other hormone influenced traits (like biological sex and sexual orientation)... so what!?

Man, you don't read what I say. I already repeated myself three or four times that I don't think "disorders" are disorders. I think they are simply differences.

Junk science is formed when people infer a link between correlated things that actually share no causal nexus. Don't fall into this trap.

The digit theory you are pointing out is actually called the 2d:4d digit ratio and it is reasonably well supported. The thing that pops out immediately about that theory is that is is used as a very very VERY crude means to measure exposure to androgens in the prenatal period. What is indicated by the theory (as far as I understand it) is that the traits being linked to different digit ratios occur in the prenatal period and then can be observed in the ratios themselves later on. As I understand, (sometimes homosexual males) with low exposure to prenatal androgens show lower 2d:4d ratios than males exposed to higher levels of prenatal androgens. If you are correct, than if we were to effectively "treat" homosexuality, then we can make gay guys fingers longer? Again, the idea you are forwarding here actually indicates things that take hold in the uterus and then remain stable over time. As in, once again orientation appears to appear in the womb and remain stable.

Statistics speak for themselves. There is SIGNIFICANT correlation.

Actually, you can call it whatever you want. Another non-INTJ trait is using technicalities to show superiority through using logic too linearly. The only reason you implicitly think it is crude is because it has been tainted from Nazi eugenics. You don't understand the theory correctly. Estrogen causes the index to finger and testosterone grows the ring finger in the 1st trimester. Low or high levels won't change a RATIO. It depends on how much of which sex hormone. Autism is correlated with lower ratios which makes perfect sense with the research of autism and testosterone. Also goes hand in hand with the "extreme male brain" theory. I never said or implied we should pre-screen for homosexuality. You continue to disgust me with your ignorance that I am somehow morally evil. They do indeed remain stable over time, it has been documented. The ratio at birth is pretty much the ratio you will always have. Also, research shows lefties have a longer middle finger on the left hand and it the same thing happens with right handers.

As for the evolutionary value of homosexuality, there are many hypotheses out there that address this. I am not familiar enough with them to give you good info off the top of my head. I do have one very good link bookmarked that you may find extremely interesting as it focuses on the very concerns you have with evolution and homosexuality...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You don't procreate, you don't exist. There is no counter argument. How can you deny this!?





I'll answer only the lines of thought that are marginally related to psychology, since that's what I studied. There are higher rates of mental illness among homosexuals - depression, anxiety, substance abuse disorders - but given the nature of the mental illness, the most likely explanation is the high number of environmental stressors. Everyone is susceptible to mental illness with enough stress. Although some people might be more genetically predisposed to it than others, it's unlikely genetics is the answer here. If so we would be more likely to also see a higher correlation in other axis 1 disorders like schizophrenia.

Environmental stressers of course will lead to depression, but they do not cause conditions like Bi-Polar. There is increased homosexuality in bi-polar, borderline, autism, retardation, and pretty much any genetically predisposed condition. The schizophrenia spectrum has much higher rates of being asexual. Could you link to me to the research about there not being a correlation of higher homosexuality rates in schizophrenia? I'm aware there have been some ideas that schizophrenia is suppressed homosexuality, and the reach didn't conclude anything. I find it hard to believe there would be any such connection. However, sexual hormones do play a role in schizophrenia so I again I ask for you to back up what you claimed.


For the last time: obviously environmental factors play a role in self-definition. That is not the same as "changing" someone's genetic orientation. So yes, certainly someone could self-define as gay "for X number of years and than realizes they where (sic) born straight", from your earlier post. Perhaps there are people out there who have had that experience, although again I think it's probably exceedingly rare, given all the environmental pressures to be straight. Why would someone choose to self-define as gay if their orientation is straight? (You say this statement is comparable to asking why people do drugs - well, yeah, more so than you think, because people do drugs because they want to, even if they say they don't. If they didn't want to, they would just stop doing them.)

It is a nature vs nurture argument. I clarified earlier that I don't think a person chooses sexual orientation with will power. Would you care to discuss why some cultures have ZERO occurrences of homosexuality? There is cultural influence to be gay even if it is stigmatized. It's called being deviant and no I don't think deviance has anything to do with morality. Ever noticed how there are some gay people who focus on nothing more than trying to appear unique to people? Always wanting attention... sounds like borderline to me. Why do people admit to crimes they did not commit? Animals aren't rational.

Your theoretical example - of a child being raised by two gay parents - is technically possible but so rare that it's virtually insignificant. And I imagine that when they realized they were straight, they just started living a straight life.

But that's not what you originally said. You said there were people out there "trapped" as gay, "crying out on message boards and no one was listening". Who are these people? And why aren't they simply straight? I suppose these people could exist, I'm just saying that they don't, because there are no environmental pressures to be gay. This is what I mean when I say this argument is unconnected to reality. And you've yet to show me where they are.

Why do you feel they should be denied professional attention if they need it? I'm suppose to show you who they are, but you acknowledge they exist. Think about how irrational your logic is? Your let the emotions and bias effect your emotion... If you can't refrain from doing so I'm going to have to ignore you like the couple of others posting here.


Again, flat wrong. At best, therapy can help pedophiles manage their attraction, but not change it. And even then, therapy to treat sexual disorders has some of the lowest success rates of all mental illness.

The subjects studied are the ones who are getting caught because there problem is out of control. I think it would be fair to say the severity is most likely a bell disturbing like everything else. The ones who need the most help are the ones who are going to have a more reinforced system. How can you say the therapy isn't effective when there isn't even a scientific proof of what the therapy is suppose to do. We don't understand this stuff... this is why we are debating... I know you get mixed up thinking your argument is right and mine is absurd, but nothing on the table thus far is conclusive. But yeah, you say I'm flat wrong. You don't see the big picture at all.

Lastly: "Can you take the position of a naturist and explain to me the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality?"

No. To both you and Thod: I have no interest in qualifying homosexuality for you, any more than a straight married couple needs to explain their decision not to have children. Like 99% of human behavior, it does not need an evolutionary purpose to achieve validity. Can you take the position of a naturist and explain to me the evolutionary purpose of you posting on this forum?

We use this forum because we are social creatures. We became social creatures because it was necessary to survive. Although the extent in which it effects our survival has fallen dramatically, it is at least some explanation toward a purpose. There is no purpose for any trait if it isn't passed on. Why aren't you interested in answering? You secretly agree with us because you are intelligent, but you cloud it because you assume it would imply you would believe other immoral beliefs. You have been conditioned to do so and it keeps you in your box (where you belong if you don't want to get out.)

Being also gay, that is a very interesting thread ...

If we can unlearn to be homosexual (as mistakenly stated the initiator of this thread), I would be more interested in testing that theory to see if heterosexuals could learn to be gay ... that would be absolutely great (for some ; ugly men can stay heterosexual if they like).

Being gay has nothing to do with brain, simply because it is well proven that the brain of gay people is totally located "down there" ...

No kidding, being gay is just a matter of taste, no study ever managed to establish a pattern or cause or whatever. Just like some people like blue, then a few years later like green, it can evolve and it does not make you a freak with mental imbalance.

Sure I think I could learn to be heterosexual (just have to buy a car and two kids, easy, oh... and the wife of course (forgot her on the highway last time)), but I could not practice what I learn, women will always lack the main part.

Maybe, It's like why some people are left-handed ... and in a sensibly constant ratio.

Stop the clichés. You have as many kinds of gay people that kinds of heterosexual people. Some have always been drawn to the same sex, some switched, some do both, and each gay people has a different story.

For me, I think I am gay because I knew I would never be able to have Nicole Kidman, so by despair, I turn on to guys ...


When reading the firs question from the initiator of the thread : "On your right hand, which fingers is longer, the index or the ring?" ... you know that it will be pure provocation.

Always looking for some rational reason. Maybe scientist could explain homosexuality by working "a contrario", id est by wondering what makes most people heterosexual ... Oh yeah, I forgot, breeding ... sorry.

I stated I believe any person could change sexual orientation. Yes, it works both ways. I said it would involve intense therapy; not pretending to be stereoscopically straight. *sigh* Did you read the thread title?

Two points.

First:
Last I checked, pedophilia was traditionally viewed as incurable. Child molestation and pedophilia. An overview for the physician (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) indicates "available interventions are symptomatically palliative rather than curative," in short, they deal with the outward expression of symptoms rather than changing who the person is attracted to.

CBT is used for "relapse prevention" in a similar manner to addiction control and has been shown to be effective in this role, and there are other therapies that prevent relapse in different ways or that can help the person adjust to normal society, but the attraction to prepubescent children remains.

Similarly, it is possible to "treat" homosexuals so that their outward expression changes, but it does not appear to be possible to treat them so that their base sexual orientation changes. This also appears to be true for gender identity, which is another can of worms entirely.

Second: Different parts of the brain are different. Even if pedophilia were curable, it doesn't imply anything about homosexuality one way or the other, because it doesn't necessarily reside in the same mechanisms in the brain.

ETA:

Just in case anyone thinks that the link I provided contains out of date information, try Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which concluded from the most recent research as of 2007 that "the urges can be managed, but the core attraction does not change." In the conclusion, it stated:

Whenever we can't prove something, we view it as incurable. There are cures to certain types of autistic behaviors, but because it is an umbrella condition; there are many causes and thus nothing can be said to the effect that there is one cure-all solution. Ask yourself who they are treating? The ones being treated are the ones who got caught and of course they will respond poorly to therapy because there deviance is very reinforced. But the point is that some do respond and this alone disproves that the brain is 100% concrete at times like some people claim. If you truly change someones behavior, they've changed their sexual orientation. There is no truth to your statement that the attraction lasts forever because again, the brain is 100% CHANGEABLE.

Different parts of the brain are not different in a certain regard. If I took out a chunk of your brain from the "bodily movement" part of your brain, your visual area of the brain might take over for the functions lost. Things don't happen in certain areas of the brain, but statistically a lot of peoples functions are similarly located. Your points just scratch the surface..they are much more complicated then you make them out to be. All you are saying is that nobody really knows the truth and I agree it, but I thought that was obvious. Maybe you where confused like other people because they just believed the majority is right instead of thinking for themselves...

[nacht]

Whenever we can't prove something, we view it as incurable.


You are changing your argument once you've been found to be wrong.

Your statement, and I quote, "Pedophiles can go through therapy to change their sexual attraction." Pedophilia has never been found to be treatable through therapy in the sense of "chang their sexual attraction."

If you can't back up your points, don't make them. [i]Especially don't make them and then--after being proven to be wrong--handwave, claim you didn't make that point, and then try to make a different point entirely.

This goes well beyond "we can't prove something" as well. This is what decades of research in this field have demonstrated so far, and while it is plausible a treatment might be found in the future that actually does change pedophiles orientation, you cannot claim that one exists that can "change their sexual attraction" or that there is any evidence that such is even possible. Just say that "well, one might be found in the future." You then tried to use this "fact" to back up a further point indicating that because pedophiles can change, homosexuals could change too when all available evidence indicates that neither pedophiles nor homosexuals can change.

Even assuming that it is the same part of the brain, which isn't valid.

The rest of your reply to me is just handwaving around this point. If you are willing to stop handwaving and use citations, as well as address the citations others give you, we can have an actual conversation.



There is no truth to your statement that the attraction lasts forever because again, the brain is 100% CHANGEABLE.


Citations please.

Simple disproof: When is the best time to learn a language?

Further disproof: Male and female brain structure is different, and MTF transsexuals fall in the range of females (and vice-versa, see this study (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which was a replication of this study (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), , along with the differences noted in other areas (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed), and the continuing research (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed)). If the brain was "100% CHANGEABLE" as you assert, how do you propose changing the neuron counts, which correlate strongly with gender identity?


Maybe you where confused like other people because they just believed the majority is right instead of thinking for themselves...

You were the one who made the errant point, and now you are trying to back it up with a logical fallacy (personal attack). So let's start here, do you retract your statement?

[Nemesis]

All you are explaining is that neurons reinforce themselves. Neurons don't know what their function is and they don't care. I know there is research to back up what you say, but it says nothing more than hormones influence the neurons somehow. I can easily understand how they could influence the rate at which neurons fire, but nothing more. The neurons aren't all that complex. You can view addiction from many different perspectives from substance, sexual, or exercise and come with many different conclusions like you are doing. The dopamine doesn't know what it is addicted to nor does it care. What is the difference in a homosexuals brain? What if there is nothing wrong with any mechanism and it is 100% developmental? Baby geese chose a mother as the first moving object they see. Most of time it is their mother, but it could also be a person. Just because the geese has a human as mother doesn't mean the mechanism of developing so would have been abnormal.



Man, you don't read what I say. I already repeated myself three or four times that I don't think "disorders" are disorders. I think they are simply differences.



Statistics speak for themselves. There is SIGNIFICANT correlation.

Actually, you can call it whatever you want. Another non-INTJ trait is using technicalities to show superiority through using logic too linearly. The only reason you implicitly think it is crude is because it has been tainted from Nazi eugenics. You don't understand the theory correctly. Estrogen causes the index to finger and testosterone grows the ring finger in the 1st trimester. Low or high levels won't change a RATIO. It depends on how much of which sex hormone. Autism is correlated with lower ratios which makes perfect sense with the research of autism and testosterone. Also goes hand in hand with the "extreme male brain" theory. I never said or implied we should pre-screen for homosexuality. You continue to disgust me with your ignorance that I am somehow morally evil. They do indeed remain stable over time, it has been documented. The ratio at birth is pretty much the ratio you will always have. Also, research shows lefties have a longer middle finger on the left hand and it the same thing happens with right handers.



You don't procreate, you don't exist. There is no counter argument. How can you deny this!?



1) Plasticity is the brain's ability to adapt to environmental conditions. Both internal (hormones or otherwise) and external (reinforcement and other conditions in the world) conditions. This is such a fundamental concept. I am simply awestruck here.


I find it very difficult to believe that homosexuality is natural when combined with monogamy it eliminates itself from the gene pool. That sounds more like a disease to me personally.

2) You have actually claimed that Homosexuality is some sort of disease in prior posts. That's why people are reacting the way they are. If you make that claim, back it up.

3) Yes, statistics may be significant, but that still does not imply a causal connection. Correlation does not imply or equal causation. Again, this is a very fundamental and basic concept.

4) The 2d:4d digit ratio refers to androgen exposure in the womb. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Again, fundamental knowledge. You actually have this one ass backwards.

*I apologize for citing Wiki here. A quick search of 2d:4d in Pubmed will confirm my statement.

5) Excuse me!? Have I said once during our discussion said that I think you are immoral or evil? I haven't. Nor have I implied that. I have been debating you on purely scientific lines. I do not care about your morals what so ever. In fact, I have been purposely avoiding any moral argument with you. I have provided science that contradicts your claims and asked for you to support yours. You have not done so.

Not only are you lacking in the basic science behind your own argument, but you actually have some of your facts completely backwards. It is clear that you are incapable of continuing this discussion in any meaningful way.

[Urbicande]

I stated I believe any person could change sexual orientation. Yes, it works both ways. I said it would involve intense therapy; not pretending to be stereoscopically straight. *sigh* Did you read the thread title?


Yes I read the title, I even read the rest of the thread ... you are not the only one who can read (and understand what he reads of course).

And it seems to me that your "science" in title is just an excuse to express your points of view on some aspects of homosexuality, including as says Nemesis (point 2, and we are probably not alone to have felt that), implicitely stating that homosexuality is some sort of disease, trying to find hormonal or other reason to back that up.

To remind also a basic fact, homosexuality has been removed from DSM in 1973 and thus is no longer diagnosed as a mental illness.

When I read posts implying that homosexual behavior is inferior to heterosexual behaviour, it makes me puke.
For information, in 2006 a Member of the French Parliament has been saying exactly the same, trying to justify such a statement by a philosophic, social, and scientific approach. He has been convicted of homophobia and had to pay damages to LGBT associations (not much but this is symbolic).

Several statements in this thread are insulting. That's why I think that you are using a pseudo scientific debate.

I agree with nemesis. It seems obvious to me that you lack some science basics and have been drawing quickly conclusions from incoplete facts and studies. More you don't seem to read the responses and always try to come back to your initial point.


I will not enter a scientific debate on this. Other people are much more qualified than me on a lot of subjects.
My point is, please mind your words, bear in mind that human beings do not resume to hormones, and so on.

Science can study the reason of homosexuality, but should not refer to changes of orientations, judgmental considerations ...

Thanks to Nemesis and others for their neutrality and objectiveness, trying to keep the thread within real science and avoid judgmental considerations.


Oh and ... to finish, as Edwina says in Ab Fab (gay reference, I wonder if it's hormonal) ... you can drop the attitude, you are only a human being (original citation for fans is : You can drop the attitude, you only work in a shop ... said to the hostess of an art gallery).

[nacht]

Man, you don't read what I say. I already repeated myself three or four times that I don't think "disorders" are disorders. I think they are simply differences.


Go talk to someone who is a low-functioning Borderline Personality or someone who suffers from severe PTSD and come back and tell me how that isn't a "disorder."

[admittedheretic]

You are changing your argument once you've been found to be wrong.

Your statement, and I quote, "Pedophiles can go through therapy to change their sexual attraction." Pedophilia has never been found to be treatable through therapy in the sense of "chang their sexual attraction."

If you can't back up your points, don't make them. Especially don't make them and then--after being proven to be wrong--handwave, claim you didn't make that point, and then try to make a different point entirely.
What do I have to back up? The proof is that there are people who aren't life afflicted for life after therapy. If this isn't the cause then why do we stigmatize people who have a "permanent" illness. Shouldn't we just lock them up for good? This doesn't prove my statements, but I do believe it disproves the idea that it is concrete.
This goes well beyond "we can't prove something" as well. This is what decades of research in this field have demonstrated so far, and while it is plausible a treatment might be found in the future that actually does change pedophiles orientation, you cannot claim that one exists that can "change their sexual attraction" or that there is any evidence that such is even possible. Just say that "well, one might be found in the future." You then tried to use this "fact" to back up a further point indicating that because pedophiles can change, homosexuals could change too when all available evidence indicates that neither pedophiles nor homosexuals can change.

Even assuming that it is the same part of the brain, which isn't valid.

If you the other posts you wouldn't repeat silly misunderstandings like this. The idea that you can go to a SPECIFIC part of the brain and find a function is entirely false. Different people use different areas of their brain to do the same function. Neuron count does vary from place to place. You can't prove otherwise so don't be so harsh on my opinion. There is no general conses amongst this issue with REAL scientists so you can't have a citation for something that is isn't understood. We all are making leaps of faith here..don't pretend like you aren't either.
The rest of your reply to me is just handwaving around this point. If you are willing to stop handwaving and use citations, as well as address the citations others give you, we can have an actual conversation.


Citations please.

Simple disproof: When is the best time to learn a language?
As a child because the brain is more plastic then of course. Maybe hormones have something to do with why this is, but I'd like a physical explanation of why this occurs and Nemesis hasn't been able to provide anything. As adults, in order to learn something new we often have to give something up. Maybe there are some areas that do sort of have a "blank slate" effect that allows children to learn FASTER. The keyword being faster. It is just so much faster that what a child can do in 2 weeks may take an elderly person 2 years.
Further disproof: Male and female brain structure is different, and MTF transsexuals fall in the range of females (and vice-versa, see this study (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which was a replication of this study (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), , along with the differences noted in other areas (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed), and the continuing research (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed)). If the brain was "100% CHANGEABLE" as you assert, how do you propose changing the neuron counts, which correlate strongly with gender identity?

How do I explain a change in the number of neurons? REINFORCEMENT. As you reinforce things the neurons increase and as you forget things the neurons decrease. At no other demonstrated area in the brain is there a notion that the number finalizes or falls under a restricted range. I believe the ball is actually in your court to disprove this statement. How about you give me a citation for it while your at it? /sarcasm

You were the one who made the errant point, and now you are trying to back it up with a logical fallacy (personal attack). So let's start here, do you retract your statement?
I am only retaliating to personal attacks and I have not insulted anyone's character. Why would I retract my people who no little of the mind have a different opinion than mine?



1) Plasticity is the brain's ability to adapt to environmental conditions. Both internal (hormones or otherwise) and external (reinforcement and other conditions in the world) conditions. This is such a fundamental concept. I am simply awestruck here.

Yes, so what is the difference in this mechanism in a heterosexual person versus a homosexual? How can you possibly accuse me of not understanding what plasticity is?

2) You have actually claimed that Homosexuality is some sort of disease in prior posts. That's why people are reacting the way they are. If you make that claim, back it up.

Would you care to quote me where I without a shadow of a doubt claimed that it is a disease? Once again I am insulted as this couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not going to run away with my tail between my legs, but I will treat you with the same lack of a respect.

3) Yes, statistics may be significant, but that still does not imply a causal connection. [I]Correlation does not imply or equal causation. Again, this is a very fundamental and basic concept.

... Why did you even feel the need to explain that? There is no context for it, you just felt like saying something?

4) The 2d:4d digit ratio refers to androgen exposure in the womb. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . Again, fundamental knowledge. You actually have this one ass backwards.

*I apologize for citing Wiki here. A quick search of 2d:4d in Pubmed will confirm my statement.

The androgen in turn effect everything I said. Again, I am lost by your random fact claims because you seem to think they disprove something I say. You might want to consider multiple sources of information with controversial topics like these, but I guess your comfortable with wiki. Pub Med Central has many articles that discuss the ratio and its purpose. Sure, it is not the best way to know the measure of the sex hormones, but it is the best we have.

5) Excuse me!? Have I said once during our discussion said that I think you are immoral or evil? I haven't. Nor have I implied that. I have been debating you on purely scientific lines. I do not care about your morals what so ever. In fact, I have been purposely avoiding any moral argument with you. I have provided science that contradicts your claims and asked for you to support yours. You have not done so.
You haven't proved ANYTHING and neither have I. So ironic because you have repeated accused me of trying to prove preconceived beliefs when in reality it is you who is doing it.

Not only are you lacking in the basic science behind your own argument, but you actually have some of your facts completely backwards. It is clear that you are incapable of continuing this discussion in any meaningful way.

This is like your 25th time of saying "you opinion is wrong and you misunderstand things" but I can't clarify why. When I disagree I have some substance. How about we switch things up and you guys just all pretend to assume my beliefs are correct and then disprove them? Your not interested in doing that because your not interested in an OBJECTIVE understanding of this issue. Your viewpoint is subjective and thus subject to bias from your own emotions.



Yes I read the title, I even read the rest of the thread ... you are not the only one who can read (and understand what he reads of course).

And it seems to me that your "science" in title is just an excuse to express your points of view on some aspects of homosexuality, including as says Nemesis (point 2, and we are probably not alone to have felt that), implicitely stating that homosexuality is some sort of disease, trying to find hormonal or other reason to back that up.

To remind also a basic fact, homosexuality has been removed from DSM in 1973 and thus is no longer diagnosed as a mental illness.

It was removed because of social and political pressure, NOT SCIENCE. There was no scientific merit for its removal. I am not implicitly that, that is only your biased interpretation.

When I read posts implying that homosexual behavior is inferior to heterosexual behaviour, it makes me puke.

I don't think anyone in this thread has used the word inferior or believes so. If your father was gay, you wouldn't be here at this moment. Case and point.

For information, in 2006 a Member of the French Parliament has been saying exactly the same, trying to justify such a statement by a philosophic, social, and scientific approach. He has been convicted of homophobia and had to pay damages to LGBT associations (not much but this is symbolic).

Several statements in this thread are insulting. That's why I think that you are using a pseudo scientific debate.

At least this man admits he thinks with emotions instead of rationality. You are going to need to argue that my science is made up with a little more than your feelings pal.

I will not enter a scientific debate on this. Other people are much more qualified than me on a lot of subjects.
My point is, please mind your words, bear in mind that human beings do not resume to hormones, and so on.

I have minded my words and I haven't said anything that SHOULD offend a homosexual. Just because the hateful share some ideas with me doesn't mean that I should be stereotyped. You should treat others how you wanted to be treated. Excuse me if I rip into someone a little bit after they've taken a 180 degree understanding of what I was trying to convey.

Science can study the reason of homosexuality, but should not refer to changes of orientations, judgmental considerations ...

LOL - What are you afraid they will find?

[Vyrokashan]

As far as I understand it, there's a part in the brain that's different in size in women and men. When a male has it the size that's normal in females, he's gay. It's just a matter of sexual preference being determined by that part in the brain. I don't remember what the name of it is.

A portion of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men than in heterosexual women. Homosexual men have the same size as heterosexual women.

Simon LeVay's study of the size of INAH-3 in heterosexual men and women and homosexual men. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Sadly, some nutjobs prevented him from performing the same study on homosexual women, but it is believed to correlate to this study.

Sorry, I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but there is science behind homosexuality. They are born with it due to prenatal stress and hormone exposure, and they have no choice in the matter. Homosexual people have tried to change their orientation, but there have been no recorded real case of someone being able to change their orientation.

There is also an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality. Prenatal stress by overpopulation increases the chance of the hormone exposure that prevents the masculinization of the INAH-3 in men(and possibly women), leading to a continuously larger portion of society that will not reproduce as the population increases, thus preventing us from overpopulating ourselves to death.

Please, I would like to see what excuse you come up with for why this has no value.

[Nemesis]

Quite the rant there. Are you planning to back up any of your claims yet, or do you still want to shit on everyone for disagreeing with you? Let it all out. As soon as you are ready to discuss this like an adult, I'm more than happy to continue this discussion.

[admittedheretic]

Go talk to someone who is a low-functioning Borderline Personality or someone who suffers from severe PTSD and come back and tell me how that isn't a "disorder."

It's a general consensus amongst people that having low function in our society qualifies one as truly suffering from a disorder. The ones who are low functioning can't take care of themselves enough to even survive. If one can survive, then there is nothing wrong with them. Now the quality of ones life with a "disorder" is an entirely different story. The DSM basically amounts to another form of social control just like law enforcement. If you are a statistical outlier you are in trouble! Many of the criteria for diagnosis of conditions are culturally biased. Supposedly schizophrenics hold "strange religious beliefs" when in all reality 90% of our entire planet believes in gods that could more or less be equated with Santa Claus. 90% of the planet is delusional people controlled by their religion in one way or another. Being an atheist/agnostic doesn't make one a scientist, but being a scientist does make you an atheist/agnostic.

A portion of the hypothalamus is twice as large in heterosexual men than in heterosexual women. Homosexual men have the same size as heterosexual women.

Simon LeVay's study of the size of INAH-3 in heterosexual men and women and homosexual men. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Sadly, some nutjobs prevented him from performing the same study on homosexual women, but it is believed to correlate to this study.

Sorry, I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but there is science behind homosexuality. They are born with it due to prenatal stress and hormone exposure, and they have no choice in the matter. Homosexual people have tried to change their orientation, but there have been no recorded real case of someone being able to change their orientation.

There is also an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality. Prenatal stress by overpopulation increases the chance of the hormone exposure that prevents the masculinization of the INAH-3 in men(and possibly women), leading to a continuously larger portion of society that will not reproduce as the population increases, thus preventing us from overpopulating ourselves to death.

Please, I would like to see what excuse you come up with for why this has no value.

I don't know why you would feel that I would feel that would have no value..

So, if it is caused by stress what should we do about it? I'm asking objectively.

Your overpopulation evolutionary mechanism is laughable, but clever. You seem to have fallen a victim to the overpopulation myth. That is an entirely different argument, but long story short.. you feel we are over populate when the math says otherwise. There is no evolutionary advantage to giving up the ability to procreate.

[mnmeq]

this makes about as much sense to me as trying to cure a preference for strawberry ice cream.

I had a definite emerging preference for women by around the age of 4 before I could have any understanding of what sex and sexual preference were, or the social/cultural implications. This of course I came to understand retrospectively. so unless my experience is anomolous I would definitely favor that we are generally wired from birth with a predisposition rather than being something chosen freely.

[Vyrokashan]

I happen to know why I think you would find no value in it. Why, how could I know that? Because you didn't address the things that disproved your original theory, but rather the theories that were added as an afterthought to the first bit of information.


So, if it is caused by stress what should we do about it? I'm asking objectively.

Your overpopulation evolutionary mechanism is laughable, but clever. You seem to have fallen a victim to the overpopulation myth. That is an entirely different argument, but long story short.. you feel we are over populate when the math says otherwise. There is no evolutionary advantage to giving up the ability to procreate.


It is not caused by stress, one of the causations of the correlated prenatal hormone exposure is stress. Other things can cause the hormone inbalance, too, eg., an older male sibling messing with the hormone balance within the womb. One type of stress that does cause it, however, is from dense population, which usually means, to some degree, overpopulation(In a single area, or a world).

You misread my paragraph about homosexuality being an anti-overpopulation tool. Reread it, and quote for me where I said that we are currently overpopulated. I will clarify that I did not say that we give up to ability to procreate, but that a portion of the population is unable to procreate, and that portion gets larger as population increases. And being homosexual does not remove the ability to get a women pregnant/be pregnant, homosexual men could be sperm donors if times were dire enough.


Like others, however, until you start bringing up your own proof for why we are wrong besides how one person's theories are wrong the way you see them. I have given links and proof against your original claims, and all you have paid attention to is a theoretical stress-induced advantage that has not been tested, but is quite easy to see being possible if read correctly. Come up with [some better]/[an actual] argument(s) about why my linked studies are wrong, or why a theoretical advantage does not work.

[nacht]

What do I have to back up? The proof is that there are people who aren't life afflicted for life after therapy. If this isn't the cause then why do we stigmatize people who have a "permanent" illness. Shouldn't we just lock them up for good? This doesn't prove my statements, but I do believe it disproves the idea that it is concrete.


Did you bother to read the citations I provided?

Treatment for pedophiles is consistently referred to as palliative and not curative. Do you understand the difference?

You are the one making the assertion that this is not the case, the burden of proof lies on the claimant.

Your claims:

Pedophiles can be cured of their desire for children, therefore homosexuals can be cured of their desire for the same sex.

There are two claims here.

First: You are claiming that pedophiles can be cured of their desire for children.

Second: You are claiming that since pedophiles can be cured of their desire for children, homosexuals can be similarly cured of their desire for same sex individuals.

Basically, you have assumed A, A->B.

All prevailing evidence on this point indicates that pedophiles cannot be, I have provided ample evidence on this point and you have just provided handwaving. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means provide academic citations to this point, but all evidence I have seen on this point (some of which I have provided here in academic citations) indicates A'.

Your second assumption is that if A then B. You have yet to provide any evidence to this point, just more handwaving about how you think the brain works which seems to be largely contradicted for our purposes here by available citations on this point (which have been provided by Nemesis, myself, and several others).

If you the other posts you wouldn't repeat silly misunderstandings like this.

I have read the posts in this thread, you have yet to actually establish your case beyond some vague assertions and some unrelated citations (or citations that you don't seem to actually understand, alternatively).


We all are making leaps of faith here..don't pretend like you aren't either.

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

My claim is that there is no present therapy or combination of therapies that can actually cure pedophilia or, for that matter, homosexuality. I have provided evidence to this point.

I have also claimed that your assumptions are not necessarily valid and need evidence to support them. You have yet to provide that evidence.

How do I explain a change in the number of neurons? REINFORCEMENT.

The context in which I made that statement was with respect to transsexuals, which is frequently experiences the opposite of "reinforcement." Prevailing evidence also doesn't indicate that this part of the brain increases in neuron count post-op, which one would expect if it were simply a matter of reinforcement (this is explained and investigated in the studies I linked to).


I believe the ball is actually in your court to disprove this statement.


Not really. I haven't asserted any statements are "not true to the best of our knowledge" that I have not been able to provide recent academic citations for. If you have a specific statement you think I have made that I should back up, I am happy to do so.


I am only retaliating to personal attacks and I have not insulted anyone's character. Why would I retract my people who no little of the mind have a different opinion than mine?


You have backed up your argument with a personal attack logical fallacy once you were effectively challenged on it.

Do you retract your errant claim with respect to pedophilia?

Your second sentence doesn't parse in english, would you mind rephrasing?

[aku chi]

this makes about as much sense to me as trying to cure a preference for strawberry ice cream.

I think a better analogy would be: 'replacing a preference towards starfruit with a mutually exclusive preference towards apples.' You're going to get the same amount of enjoyment out of eating your preferred fruit but it might be easier to find suitable apples. Unless the majority of the human population is homosexual, it would be easier to find a mate as a heterosexual. (The analogy, of course, isn't perfect because eating food isn't consensual and sexual orientation isn't quantized.)

That being said, I have absolutely no knowledge as to whether or not it is possible or practical to change one's sexual preferences. Common sense would suggest that it is not easy (at the very least). Nor would the above motivation be a particularly strong incentive to change preferences (unless the homosexual population was significantly reduced).

The overpopulation theory is interesting. It could explain the ancedotal evidence that homosexuality is more prevelant now than in the past. Of course, an increase in humanity's general tolerance of differences could also explain how more people report having homosexual preferences in the present (compared to the past).

rickster, in the event that you're still reading the posts in this thread: Nobody has suggested that 'curing' homosexuals should be forced in any way. If indeed it is possible and practical to change one's sexual preferences (I doubt it is), how would it be a bad thing to make public this knowledge? If a person wanted to change their sexual preferences (seemingly, most don't), why deny them this option?

[rickster]

rickster, in the event that you're still reading the posts in this thread: Nobody has suggested that 'curing' homosexuals should be forced in any way. If indeed it is possible and practical to change one's sexual preferences (I doubt it is), how would it be a bad thing to make public this knowledge? If a person wanted to change their sexual preferences (seemingly, most don't), why deny them this option?

I'm delighted to hear that, as I am sure is every group on earth ever deemed to be socially undesirable, and needing "scientific" study, with a view to possible "cure".

Nobody here has come close to proving that sexual preferences can be changed, or that there is any justification for doing so. Since the overwhelming weight of evidence points to the fact that very few disgruntled homosexuals wish to "change", it is scientifically responsible to closely examine the oppressive social bigotry which is well-enough documented here and everywhere else before deciding there is anything worthy of scientific study.

Your hypothesis is a ridiculous string of "ifs", and I fully support denying anybody scientific "treatment" for problems which are clearly caused by social dysfunction. We have uncured homosexuals walking around today with shattered brains from the "science" of electric shock therapy. Others with fried brains from anti-psychotic "experiments". While feigning objectivity and concern for all these as-yet-unknown souls allegedly in need of treatment, have you paused long enough to look at the damage science has already done to homosexuals? Have you looked at the facts before you've sailed in and suggested more of the same?

Until you can prove any real justification for the "science" of homosexuality, any person in their right mind would continue to believe that its scientific study has no real value to society whatsoever apart from reinforcing bigotry.

[Urbicande]

It was removed because of social and political pressure, NOT SCIENCE. There was no scientific merit for its removal. I am not implicitly that, that is only your biased interpretation.


Yeah Right ... despite communications saying otherwise.
I was not born at the time, but I guess you probably know better ... (again and as for everything)



I don't think anyone in this thread has used the word inferior or believes so. If your father was gay, you wouldn't be here at this moment. Case and point.


Some posts by Thod.
True I completely acknowledge that if my father wasn't hetero ... bla bla bla ... same for catholic priests, by the way.

As long as you limit your sentence to that, it's fine, no problem.



At least this man admits he thinks with emotions instead of rationality. You are going to need to argue that my science is made up with a little more than your feelings pal.


Oh yes, I have emotions. That is what makes us human.

I am going to NEED ? eh I don't need anything boy ... what do you think you are ? the God of scientific evidence, judging cases ? the world has been spinning without your thoughts and still will.


What are you afraid they will find?


I am not afraid of the reasons. I would be very interested if we could, for example, prove that homosexuality is due to hormonal imbalance (which I doubt simply because a lot of gay have had an heterosexual life for a lot of years before becoming gay, and thus there may be far more than one and only reason for homosexuality) ...

But I am afraid of the guys that will add : "so that by using appropriate hormonal treatment we could cure it" or use wrong criteria such as "eh if your 2d:4d ratio is that, then you are gay, no you can't say otherwise, you are gay, full stop, science says it".

This kind of extra bit is inappropriate.


Last but not least. It is not always bad to put feelings in such a subject matter. This is done to prevent drifting. That's why we usually have Bioethic laws and so on (I am not sure such laws are as protective in the US than in EP)

"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme"

But I understand this thread is your sandbox to play with and keep you busy so I let you play. Have fun :-)

[aku chi]

Nobody here has come close to proving that sexual preferences can be changed, or that there is any justification for doing so. Since the overwhelming weight of evidence points to the fact that very few disgruntled homosexuals wish to "change", it is scientifically responsible to closely examine the oppressive social bigotry which is well-enough documented here and everywhere else before deciding there is anything worthy of scientific study.
I never tried to prove that sexual preferences can be changed. In fact, I didn't try to prove anything in my post. Nor does my post rely on such 'proofs'.

Your hypothesis is a ridiculous string of "ifs", and I fully support denying anybody scientific "treatment" for problems which are clearly caused by social dysfunction. We have uncured homosexuals walking around today with shattered brains from the "science" of electric shock therapy. Others with fried brains from anti-psychotic "experiments". While feigning objectivity and concern for all these as-yet-unknown souls allegedly in need of treatment, have you paused long enough to look at the damage science has already done to homosexuals? Have you looked at the facts before you've sailed in and suggested more of the same?
I didn't make any hypotheses in my post. I asked you a hypothetical question that you ignored. Let me try again: "If a person wanted to change their sexual preferences (and it was possible to do so), why deny them this option?" I understand that you don't believe it's possible to change a person's sexual preferences and I'm not asking you to debate this point. If it were possible (note the hypothetical), why would this option be undesirable? I am of the general opinion that giving people more options is generally a good thing.

Until you can prove any real justification for the "science" of homosexuality, any person in their right mind would continue to believe that its scientific study has no real value to society whatsoever apart from reinforcing bigotry.
Are you afraid of the outcomes of such scientific research (understand that I say say this with absolutely no idea what said outcomes will be)? I am of the opinion that the generation of knowledge is generally a good thing. Sure, knowledge can reinforce bigotry, but the knowledge itself isn't the problem. I think it would be poor precedent to abandon scientific research because its outcomes might fuel some bigots.

[paleoeco]

I didn't make any hypotheses in my post. I asked you a hypothetical question that you ignored. Let me try again: "If a person wanted to change their sexual preferences (and it was possible to do so), why deny them this option?" I understand that you don't believe it's possible to change a person's sexual preferences and I'm not asking you to debate this point. If it were possible (note the hypothetical), why would this option be undesirable? I am of the general opinion that giving people more options is generally a good thing.

From purely a hypotethical, if it were possible to change sexual orientation, I would think it wrong to deny anyone that option. After all, given the difficulties in many cultures to be gay and a "full-member" of that culture, I would imagine there are some who would change. The societal pressures against being gay in most cultures is precisely the reason so many people remain in the closet and/or experience depression.

However, in a society in which heterosexuality is still the normative, and homosexuality is considered aberrant, and if it were possible to change homosexuality, it wouldn't really remain an option. In a society that does not consider heterosexuality and homosexuatliy as equally normative, there will be intense pressure for all homosexuals to change and thereby really make the "increased choice" angle meaningless. I imagine this is preciely why so many gays and lesbians would avoid this argument. It typically is a "set-up" for forcing heterosexual re-education.

And, all this being said, in a society in which both are equally normative, and if it were possible to change orientations, I would imagine that people would change their orientation in both directions. Let's face it: part of the reason gay men have so much sex (generally speaking) is because we don't have to contend with women. Lots of men could get laid more frequently if they weren't chasing skirts.

[rickster]

Are you afraid of the outcomes of such scientific research (understand that I say say this with absolutely no idea what said outcomes will be)? I am of the opinion that the generation of knowledge is generally a good thing. Sure, knowledge can reinforce bigotry, but the knowledge itself isn't the problem. I think it would be poor precedent to abandon scientific research because its outcomes might fuel some bigots.

Given the fact that "science" already has a history of abominations created in the name of "treating" homosexuality and all treatments have failed, any reasonable person should be highly suspicious of possible outcomes which show no promise of social benefit, but an obvious probability of reinforcing bigotry.

Most ethical scientists have already established the normalcy of homosexuality, so exactly what further science are you advocating that hasn't been dismissed here already? Of course you "have no idea what outcomes will be". Why should when you are essentially advocating a hit-and-miss scientific approach that maybe comes up with something, sometime. No need to point out that your quest for knowledge has all the hallmarks of what's not permissible in a court of law: a "fishing expedition".

What exactly do you mean by opening your your noble crusade for "knowledge" with an inflammatory "Are you afraid..."? Tell me exactly what I should be afraid of. Or are you just laying out an abusive spook-out based on your incorrect assumption / hope that homosexuals will be completely and totally debunked by science?

I've already answered you ridiculous "if" question. Now answer some of mine.

[zibber]

What if homosexuality is an "illness" or "disorder"? Introversion and (selective) misanthropy can be "diagnosed" as "S.A.D." or somesuch, but I embrace it. In my world, superficiality would be diagnosed as some disorder (maybe I'll call it "being a stupid idiot syndrome"), but superficial people embrace it, glorify it and have made a culture out of it. Good for them. Some people are attracted to those biologically in the same little group; good for them.

I guess my main point is: why don't you go cry about it?

[aku chi]

Thank you, paleoeco, for a well-thought, calm response.

However, in a society in which heterosexuality is still the normative, and homosexuality is considered aberrant, and if it were possible to change homosexuality, it wouldn't really remain an option. In a society that does not consider heterosexuality and homosexuatliy as equally normative, there will be intense pressure for all homosexuals to change and thereby really make the "increased choice" angle meaningless. I imagine this is preciely why so many gays and lesbians would avoid this argument. It typically is a "set-up" for forcing heterosexual re-education.
I suppose this is a legitimate fear but ancedotal evidence (on this thread, no less) would suggest that there would be planty of homosexuals who are uninterested in changing their sexual preferences. And I would disagree that societal pressure to be heterosexual is equivalent to 'forcing heterosexual re-education'.

And, all this being said, in a society in which both are equally normative, and if it were possible to change orientations, I would imagine that people would change their orientation in both directions. Let's face it: part of the reason gay men have so much sex (generally speaking) is because we don't have to contend with women. Lots of men could get laid more frequently if they weren't chasing skirts.
I hadn't thought of that particular motivation but I have thought of several motivations for people to change their sexual orientation in one direction or the other. I might post them later.


Given the fact that "science" already has a history of abominations created in the name of "treating" homosexuality and all treatments have failed, any reasonable person should be highly suspicious of possible outcomes which show no promise of social benefit, but an obvious probability of reinforcing bigotry.
Well, I'm skeptical too but not for the same reasons you are. I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by assuming reasearchers are bigots by default. And I don't think any argument that relies on this assumption is valid.

Most ethical scientists have already established the normalcy of homosexuality, so exactly what further science are you advocating that hasn't been dismissed here already? Of course you "have no idea what outcomes will be". Why should when you are essentially advocating a hit-and-miss scientific approach that maybe comes up with something, sometime.
I don't think the ethics of homosexuality is relevant to my question. I generally support scientific research until I have a good reason not to. In this instance, I have no good reason.

What exactly do you mean by opening your your noble crusade for "knowledge" with an inflammatory "Are you afraid..."? Tell me exactly what I should be afraid of. Or are you just laying out an abusive spook-out based on your incorrect assumption / hope that homosexuals will be completely and totally debunked by science?

I've already answered you ridiculous "if" question. Now answer some of mine.
I don't think you have answered my question (see paleoeco's post for an example of what and answer to my question might look like).

You come across as hostile and defensive. You actively reject scientific research. From this, it seemed reasonable that you are afraid of the outcomes of said scientific research. I don't know what 'abusive spook-out' is but I doubt I intended to employ it. And here again you show an unwillingness to actually answer a question I pose.

[Nemesis]

Given the fact that "science" already has a history of abominations created in the name of "treating" homosexuality and all treatments have failed, any reasonable person should be highly suspicious of possible outcomes which show no promise of social benefit, but an obvious probability of reinforcing bigotry.


I am going to agree here wholeheartedly. If you look at the attempts made by John Money to alter gender behaviour and sexual orientation (The John/Joan case specifically) you see nothing but disaster when trying to "treat" or alter sexuality. Because of this, attempts to "treat" such things as a condition should be approached extremely cautiously (if ever at all).

I would add 1 point of contention though. I think scientific pursuits to understand the development of sexual behaviour and orientation should continue. However, I see no reason to make this science prescriptive. What I am often disturbed by, is when people use scientific findings to derive an "ought" from an "is". That is fallacious reasoning.

That being said, I would like to tackle the "if" question posed earlier. Let's assume for a moment, hypothetically, that research uncovered variance in sexual orientation to be some sort of "abnormality". There is still no indication that homosexuality itself causes any innate harm to anybody. Thus, there would still be no reason to make the science prescriptive. There would still be no reason to "treat" homosexuality as an illness. Still, as Rickster alluded to, there are still many people who would want to push that agenda anyways. I agree, and I find that to be a particularly unfortunate realization.

EDIT:

It is unfortunate that this trend is likely to carry on and influence proper scientific research well into the future. Research dealing with gender and sexuality will likely always be walking on an ethical tight rope. However, it's very important for people to know that there is proper research being done in the field. As someone who is involved in such research, I really encourage people to be extremely cautious when looking at the findings and avoid prescriptive interpretations.

[rickster]

aku chi[/B];613897]

[QUOTE]Well, I'm skeptical too but not for the same reasons you are. I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by assuming reasearchers are bigots by default. And I don't think any argument that relies on this assumption is valid.

I made no such claim. I'll work out what favors I'm doing myself, myself. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.


I don't think the ethics of homosexuality is relevant to my question. I generally support scientific research until I have a good reason not to. In this instance, I have no good reason.

I mentioned nothing about the ethics of homosexuality. I think a history of butchering homosexuals' brains is a very good reason to not trust science on the matter.

I don't think you have answered my question (see paleoeco's post for an example of what and answer to my question might look like).

Well use his answer if you like it better.

You come across as hostile and defensive. You actively reject scientific research. From this, it seemed reasonable that you are afraid of the outcomes of said scientific research. I don't know what 'abusive spook-out' is but I doubt I intended to employ it. And here again you show an unwillingness to actually answer a question I pose.


More assumptions, none of which are factual or relevant.

EDIT...from nemesis

I would add 1 point of contention though. I think scientific pursuits to understand the development of sexual behaviour and orientation should continue. However, I see no reason to make this science prescriptive. What I am often disturbed by, is when people use scientific findings to derive an "ought" from an "is". That is fallacious reasoning.


Unfortunately most science directed at undesirable groups is rarely interpreted as "is". That having been said I actually support ongoing good science around sexual behavior and orientation.

[Nemesis]

Oh, I forgot to mention! If you are interested in the evolutionary side of the discussion here, check out some of the work done by a behavioural geneticist named Alan Sanders or a biologist named Anne Perkins on the topic.

[Urbicande]

What if homosexuality is an "illness" or "disorder"? Introversion and (selective) misanthropy can be "diagnosed" as "S.A.D." or somesuch, but I embrace it. In my world, superficiality would be diagnosed as some disorder (maybe I'll call it "being a stupid idiot syndrome"), but superficial people embrace it, glorify it and have made a culture out of it. Good for them. Some people are attracted to those biologically in the same little group; good for them.

I guess my main point is: why don't you go cry about it?


Maybe because an illness implies a malfunction of the body or of the mind causing harm to the person.

Homoexuality does not imply any malfunction of the body, nor of the mind, and does not cause harm to anybody.


I agree with you about superficiality, this should be diagnosed as a severe condition :-) ... it causes harm to the superficial person itself, a shame they do not realize it :-)



Fully agree with Rickster and Nemesis.

The general subject of the devellopment of sexual behaviour is very interesting and important, and can help understand and cure real sexual disorder.

My fear is of extrem groups focusing on homosexuality because they still see it as a disorder for religious or social reasons. Usually, they tend to use these studies to make pseudo-scientific points from biased and incomplete analysis (and there as been some studies paid by extrem groups or done by oriented scientists trying to reach a predetermined conclusion).

I think homosexuality has many origins from biologic reasons to social reasons, and because of that we must take care to people falsely reciprocating these studies.

Oh, I forgot to mention! If you are interested in the evolutionary side of the discussion here, check out some of the work done by a behavioural geneticist named Alan Sanders or a biologist named Anne Perkins on the topic.

Yes thanks, do you have some links ?

[Nemesis]

Yes thanks, do you have some links ?

Absolutely.

Dr. Sanders.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Dr. Perkins.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As per usual, simply plug these peoples names into Pubmed and you can peek at primary sources and raw data.

[zibber]

Maybe because an illness implies a malfunction of the body or of the mind causing harm to the person.

Yes, but define "harm"?

(Take smokers.)

[paleoeco]

And I would disagree that societal pressure to be heterosexual is equivalent to 'forcing heterosexual re-education'.

I didn't claim that the society pressure is equivalent. I pointed out that in a society that is heterosexual-normative and considers homosexuality to be aberrant, IF there is a way to change it, it is not at all a stretch of the imagination to foresee forced re-education. There are multiple instances of gay men being forcibly subjected to a particular therapy to "cure" them.

A society in general rarely embraces non-comformity for behaviors that are considered aberrant, and will frequently go to extremes to enforce conformity. Think of the Spanish Inquistion. Religion was a choice and could be changed at any time. Catholocism was the normative, and Judaism was not. Jews were given a choice: convert or be forced to convert, or if they were lucky, just leave. Some converted, some left, some died for their beliefs.


I hadn't thought of that particular motivation but I have thought of several motivations for people to change their sexual orientation in one direction or the other. I might post them later.

I'd be very curious as to the motivations you could imagine for heterosexuals choosing to change for homosexuality.

[Tough Love]

What type of brain would bisexuals have re: the link provided?

[aku chi]

I didn't claim that the society pressure is equivalent. I pointed out that in a society that is heterosexual-normative and considers homosexuality to be aberrant, IF there is a way to change it, it is not at all a stretch of the imagination to foresee forced re-education. There are multiple instances of gay men being forcibly subjected to a particular therapy to "cure" them.
And naturally, we should oppose such re-education attempts. But I don't think this possibility is sufficient to avoid researching sexual preferences. I think it is dangerous precedent to oppose research because you fear the reprocussions of the results of said research (for their own sake or how others will interpret them). Would you agree?

I'd be very curious as to the motivations you could imagine for heterosexuals choosing to change for homosexuality.
Okay, here it goes (the first two reasons have complement motivations for homosexuals choosing to change for heterosexuality):

- A desire to not procreate / become pregnant (seeing as not being attracted to the opposite sex greatly reduces the chance that you will accidently procreate)
- Your homosexual partner is more likely to be familiar with your 'equipment', seeing as they possess it themselves. This could result in more pleasurable intercourse.
- If you date someone who is your sex and a similar clothing size, you effectively double your wardrobe.

(The last two were borrowed from 'Seinfeld')

Despite these motivations, I think that the loss of identity and fear of change that would be present in all sexual preference changes would be sufficient to dissuade most people from pursuing the change.

[nacht]

I am going to agree here wholeheartedly. If you look at the attempts made by John Money to alter gender behaviour and sexual orientation (The John/Joan case specifically) you see nothing but disaster when trying to "treat" or alter sexuality.

Just a point of order on this, the John/Joan (or David Reimer) case wasn't about sexual orientation, but rather one of gender identity, which is a somewhat separate beast.

[Nemesis]

Just a point of order on this, the John/Joan (or David Reimer) case wasn't about sexual orientation, but rather one of gender identity, which is a somewhat separate beast.

Reimer was raised with the intent of being attracted to males. So, it did involve altering orientation indirectly. I would have noted the other Money attempts to change orientation directly, but I felt that I would probably have to go back and crack some books to get enough detail. I am lazy :p Nevertheless, a very valid point.

[Beulah]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Someone whose identification as a gay man may have been influenced by contempt for available hetero male role models. And who then felt social pressure not to go straight but to go transsexual. Went ahead and got "mutilated" by sex change from a wish to please a partner, to his regret.

So this sheds doubt on repeated claims from some that social pressure is only to be straight so no-one would elect the harder road due to pressure. It all depends with whom you mix.

[nacht]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Someone whose identification as a gay man may have been influenced by contempt for available hetero male role models. And who then felt social pressure not to go straight but to go transsexual. Went ahead and got "mutilated" by sex change from a wish to please a partner, to his regret.

So this sheds doubt on repeated claims from some that social pressure is only to be straight so no-one would elect the harder road due to pressure. It all depends with whom you mix.

Bad boundaries and lack of self-understanding are pervasive in our society. That isn't precisely relevant.

Any time you have an "in group," especially one that feels in some way abnormal or persecuted, there will be social pressure not to leave that in group. You can see it among blacks in the US, the LGBT community, and in just about everything else: there is going to be social pressure not to leave.

While there are bound to be some individual exceptions, it is not really relevant to the main point: that heteronormative expectations exist in our society, and these will create fairly extreme pressure on people.

[admittedheretic]

paleoeco - You make many valid points that I personally agree with on ethical and moral levels. However, as as self proclaimed scientist I have an objective viewpoint. That is, ethics and morals are side lined and I attempt to explain something the way it occurs without bias. Nemesis actually accused me of being too objective which I find laughable as it discredits him as a scientist (he claimed he is a paid scientist.) He later admitted his bias while discussing bioethics. I don't go out of my way to point out where people are being bias, but ironically he repeated falsely accused me of being bias as well while he denied he could possibly be.

aku chi - I requested that they just assumed one of my opinions to be correct so that I can could show them how it connected to others ideas, but they weren't interested. People tend to form a bias opinion and then go to great lengths to prove it backwards. Which is perfectly okay because no ones opinion has been conclusively been proven right or wrong at this point. I'm sure we all would rather have someone in total ignorance chose to protect the right of humans by being Pro-Gay than have them be hateful religious bigot zealots.

A couple of months ago and I was talking with some practicing psychology PhDs and some students striving to become one. One was doing her big paper on how her scientific understanding forms her opinion on the matter. I had brought up digit theory or the index-ring finger ratio (2d:4d for those who are in the field and think it there is an absolute way to explain something) with respect to conditions like Autism which have been linked with higher testerone levels. Surprisingly no one had never heard of this before so I explained and perhaps I shouldn't have said anything, but I mentioned the studies of how it pertain to homosexuality. I really just wanted to help them consider that the ratio might have some effect on Autism. As soon as I said the word "homosexuality" they totally discredit the finger ratio idea and had the nerve to accuse to educate me on the difference of correlation and causation. They had never heard of the digit ratio, but now I was sure they will probably never look into it because they believe is a silly pseudo tool that COULD be discriminate against people. I don't deny that it could and I understand why such a thing should be kept hidden, but I don't think such a feeling should hinder scientific progress. Statistics speak for themselves and I have yet to see a study where the tested hypothesis was that the digit ratio is wrong. How could someone be so confident in there scientific understanding of homosexuality and never have heard of the digit ratio? When they let their emotionals interfere with their rational is how. I have some evidence to support the digit ratio is true, but have some skepticism. And with no evidence that disproves it, I think I will side with the supporting evidence if not at least entertain the idea for some time. The same goes for the big picture. There is way more evidence supporting homosexuality as being caused by nurture than natures although is appears to be both. I'm curious of the occurrences caused completely by nurture and I do believe this occurs in society. This does not mean that I don't think combination of nurture and nature occurrence exist either because I think it would be absurd to deny that.

[larkin]

This does not mean that I don't think combination of nurture and nature occurrence exist either because I think it would be absurd to deny that.

So what's the point in quibbling over percentages, really, then? Would it even make sense that it was the same percentage nurture/nature for everyone?

[rickster]

However, as as self proclaimed scientist I have an objective viewpoint. That is, ethics and morals are side lined and I attempt to explain something the way it occurs without bias.

How true: you are a self-proclaimed scientist. You are not a scientist. But you have refuted all science sent your way. You have provided no data, no case studies, no psychology, and no psychiatry to support your claims about a pressing need for science to "reverse" homosexuality. When a "self-proclaimed scientist" sidelines ethics and morals to promote unproven ideas with a self-proclaimed objectivity it's quite reasonable to assume their entire theory / theories is bunko. You have been given the benefit of the doubt by reasonable people with significant scientific knowledge, but have instead ignored all that has been refuted.

You were even given an opportunity to back up your "the way it occurs without bias" drivel within a naturalism philosophical framework: you also ignored that opportunity.

I requested that they just assumed one of my opinions to be correct so that I can could show them how it connected to others ideas, but they weren't interested. People tend to form a bias opinion and then go to great lengths to prove it backwards. Which is perfectly okay because no ones opinion has been conclusively been proven right or wrong at this point.

It's always "they" and "them" isn't it? It's you who have it backwards: from the onset, your non-science has been peppered with bias, and most importantly, unproven claims. Are you now admitting your scientific pretenses are just opinions? In view of the science already presented it's quite obvious that your opinions have been refuted as entirely valueless.


I'm sure we all would rather have someone in total ignorance chose to protect the right of humans by being Pro-Gay than have them be hateful religious bigot zealots.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

A couple of months ago and I was talking with some practicing psychology PhDs and some students striving to become one. One was doing her big paper on how her scientific understanding forms her opinion on the matter. I had brought up digit theory or the index-ring finger ratio (2d:4d for those who are in the field and think it there is an absolute way to explain something) with respect to conditions like Autism which have been linked with higher testerone levels. Surprisingly no one had never heard of this before so I explained and perhaps I shouldn't have said anything, but I mentioned the studies of how it pertain to homosexuality. I really just wanted to help them consider that the ratio might have some effect on Autism. As soon as I said the word "homosexuality" they totally discredit the finger ratio idea and had the nerve to accuse to educate me on the difference of correlation and causation. They had never heard of the digit ratio, but now I was sure they will probably never look into it because they believe is a silly pseudo tool that COULD be discriminate against people. I don't deny that it could and I understand why such a thing should be kept hidden, but I don't think such a feeling should hinder scientific progress. Statistics speak for themselves and I have yet to see a study where the tested hypothesis was that the digit ratio is wrong. How could someone be so confident in there scientific understanding of homosexuality and never have heard of the digit ratio? When they let their emotionals interfere with their rational is how. I have some evidence to support the digit ratio is true, but have some skepticism. And with no evidence that disproves it, I think I will side with the supporting evidence if not at least entertain the idea for some time.

I am sure somebody from a group of Psychology PhDs would have asked you for some back-up for your ideas. It is highly unlikely that such a group has dismissed you out of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and political correctness.

The same goes for the big picture. There is way more evidence supporting homosexuality as being caused by nurture than natures although is appears to be both. I'm curious of the occurrences caused completely by nurture and I do believe this occurs in society. This does not mean that I don't think combination of nurture and nature occurrence exist either because I think it would be absurd to deny that.

While that may or may not be true, it does not support your biased opinion that science has some obligation to research homosexuality "reversal". Especially since you have provided no science whatsoever - only unsubstantiated theories formulated with a marked intolerance for real science, and a wilful desire to selectively ignore and manipulate both sociological and scientific truths.

[JustMel]

I'm sure that Matthew Shepherd's parents took great comfort at his funeral and the sentencing of his murderer in the idea that their son "chose" to be gay.

Your theory is refuted by actual science. You have provided no scientific data to back up your claims. I'm with the others on this one. Either provide proof or admit that it's simply your opinion and not scientific fact. It would still be wrong but you'd no longer be trying to claim scientific basis on something you have yet to prove with scientific data.

[Urbicande]

I requested that they just assumed one of my opinions to be correct so that I can could show them how it connected to others ideas, ....


You can't ask others to assume the first step in order to prove your chain of thoughts. Even if the rest of the chain is valid, if the first step is not ... it does not prove anything.



Statistics speak for themselves.


You used that phrase several times.

What do you mean by "statistics speak for themselves ?" ... by definition statistics are not 100% sure, that's statistics.

All these studies are based on statistics. It sure can give a lead for further non-statistical studies, but by itself it may be largely insufficient.

Mainly because with statistics, you always have people of the population who are out of the box, and people out of the population who are in the box (sorry, I am French, I do not know how to put that in English). So a statistical study should never be taken for its conclusion only, but the one who refers to it should be aware of the conditions of the study, the calculations, etc ...

Especially for the gay population, whatever the tested parameters is, you can always find individuals who do not satisfy the parameters.

The science for the statistics is maths, not biology and so on. And biology is twisted enough to play easily with statistics.

I am pretty sure that in the 2d:4d study, several tested people had a "wrong" ratio and were gay ... but statistically, the conclusion was indeed OK.

And it may be indeed highly probable that someone with a 2d:4d ratio OK is gay. But you must keep in mind that there always is a probability that he is not, and that gay persons do not satisfy the ratio.

And I am not sure that the 2d:4d ratio could be a tool used to determine a percentage of "natural" homosexuality vs nurtured homosexuality. But that is an interesting lead.


So if you affirm to the PhD that statistics speak for themselves, I am not surprise that they wanted to educate you about correlation and causation.


PS : And by the way, I far prefer the wording of this post to the wording of your previous posts :-)

[admittedheretic]

So what's the point in quibbling over percentages, really, then? Would it even make sense that it was the same percentage nurture/nature for everyone?

I'll say they matter discretely in that I would think differently if the number was zero percent than for say a non zero percent. I think it might be a lot like classical autism. Strike one: You inherit genes that predispose you to autism . Strike two: An environmental factor influences a biological change. Strike three: Atypical development. What happens if you only have strike one? You might have an INTJ personality for one :p If you have just strike two you might have a sensory integration processing disorder or auditory problem. If you have strike one and two you are very likely to subjected to an atypical development. Just have strike three? You get cases like developmental hyperlexia or non-verbal learning disorder. If you have a certain combination of all three, then there is a high risk for classical autism.

Twin studies of autism have indicated about a 90% chance of genetic link.

Twin studies of homosexuals have indicated only about a 50% of genetic link which doesn't necessarily mean there is any genetic causation at all because obviously the twins shared a womb.



I'm sure that Matthew Shepherd's parents took great comfort at his funeral and the sentencing of his murderer in the idea that their son "chose" to be gay.

Your theory is refuted by actual science. You have provided no scientific data to back up your claims. I'm with the others on this one. Either provide proof or admit that it's simply your opinion and not scientific fact. It would still be wrong but you'd no longer be trying to claim scientific basis on something you have yet to prove with scientific data.

What would Matthew Shepherd's parents have to do with anything regarding the science of homosexuality? You think serial killers parents feel comforted that their children inherited dna and/or had a rough childhood that predisposed them to doing such behavior? The drum beat you dance it is that of emotional irrationality. It's common knowledge that emotions disrupt our rationality so I wasn't necessarily accusing you of being irrational, but you clearly are emotional sensitive to this issue. Might I ask why?

My theory is not refuted by actual science. You don't even know what my theories are.
I have provided scientific data as well as pointed out when I was making intuitions without data.
There is nothing to be gained by looking at something the same way as everyone else.

You can't ask others to assume the first step in order to prove your chain of thoughts. Even if the rest of the chain is valid, if the first step is not ... it does not prove anything.

I disagree. Your logic baffles me.

You used that phrase several times.

What do you mean by "statistics speak for themselves ?" ... by definition statistics are not 100% sure, that's statistics.

All these studies are based on statistics. It sure can give a lead for further non-statistical studies, but by itself it may be largely insufficient.

Mainly because with statistics, you always have people of the population who are out of the box, and people out of the population who are in the box (sorry, I am French, I do not know how to put that in English). So a statistical study should never be taken for its conclusion only, but the one who refers to it should be aware of the conditions of the study, the calculations, etc ...

I of course seek the biological functioning, but alas no one understands that. There are other statistical studies that show different ratio populations amongst individuals with ADHD and other conditions. It's not like this is something just invented to pertain to homosexuality. If you read my very first post you would see that I mentioned sometimes the ratio doesn't seem to apply at all. So I gave supporting claims, but said I am still skeptical. No one has been able to provide any real proof that the ratio is not true. That is, if this idea has been proven enough that it is published in peer reviewed journals. Wouldn't you think if it was totally bogus someone would do a study where the hypothesis is disproving it?

Especially for the gay population, whatever the tested parameters is, you can always find individuals who do not satisfy the parameters.

Yes. That doesn't mean that the correlations are meaningless.

The science for the statistics is maths, not biology and so on. And biology is twisted enough to play easily with statistics.

I am pretty sure that in the 2d:4d study, several tested people had a "wrong" ratio and were gay ... but statistically, the conclusion was indeed OK.

And it may be indeed highly probable that someone with a 2d:4d ratio OK is gay. But you must keep in mind that there always is a probability that he is not, and that gay persons do not satisfy the ratio.

And I am not sure that the 2d:4d ratio could be a tool used to determine a percentage of "natural" homosexuality vs nurtured homosexuality. But that is an interesting lead.


So if you affirm to the PhD that statistics speak for themselves, I am not surprise that they wanted to educate you about correlation and causation.

I've acknowledge several times that this whole thing is very messy and subject to mass confusion. My opposition has been pretty firm in their claims that I am dead wrong without any scientific based rational themselves. I'm also an atheist against abortion as I believe it can be used to dupe people into willing commuting genocide. That is exactly what is happening with the African race. It is interesting to me because I feel that a certain number of people only are Pro-Abortion because otherwise they feel they are invading on women's autonomy. I fully support women's autonomy and the abortion issue doesn't address the real discrimination they face in our culture at all. An entirely different issue I know, but I feel a similar theme plays at with homosexuality. It seems to want to objectively understand is stereotyped with being anti human rights and I become frustrated when I am caused of such when my intentions are the opposite. I value diversity above all else so my issue is that homosexual behavior lowers our diversity by not procreating. I also value their diversity as people, but there is nothing I can say to convince some people that I really do value their diversity as people.

PS : And by the way, I far prefer the wording of this post to the wording of your previous posts :-)

If you look at my previous posts I was sort of cramming many thoughts into words in a short period of time :p That and my emotions impair my mental ability just like everyone else.

[JustMel]

I'm not emotional about homosexuality or any other form of sexuality. You seem to perceive any disagreement with your opinions and pseudo science as emotional. Your problem, not mine. I believe who you fuck is your business and no one else's. I also believe that what gender you choose to have sex with, fuck, or build a life together with is no one else's business including the government.

I dislike and am greatly annoyed by judgmental pseudo scientists who try to insist that people "choose" to be gay when respectable science has proven that it's not a choice. Why would someone choose to live a life that will be ridiculed and judged? Why should someone who is born with a certain physiology have to pretend they are something else just to make you comfortable? They shouldn't because unless you're the one having the sex it's not your business.

Through the years I have had a great many gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances. I have noticed that the people who ridicule them the most have been the ones that were afraid to admit they had same sex or bi-sexual fantasies/feelings/thoughts and they were afraid of what OTHER people would think if they were to express or act on them. So, how afraid are you that you might like it if you tried it? Or do you object on a religious/moral ground?

This claim that you disagree with homosexuality because it doesn't allow those couples to procreate seems to leave out the fact that those couples have other ways to parent. They can adopt or use a surrogate/sperm donor. For years people have been saying that someone needs to adopt some of the kids in the foster care system. Same sex couples can provide a loving and safe home for kids they adopt/have via other methods. People, regardless of sexual orientation, still manage to want, have and raise children so again your idea is fallacy.

[Mogura]

I couldn't care less what makes homosexuals homosexual. They are people just like you and me, and worthy of the respect, compassion, and privacy that one should accord to another living being...

[admittedheretic]

I'm not emotional about homosexuality or any other form of sexuality. You seem to perceive any disagreement with your opinions and pseudo science as emotional. Your problem, not mine. I believe who you fuck is your business and no one else's. I also believe that what gender you choose to have sex with, fuck, or build a life together with is no one else's business including the government.

Ok, so your blind to your emotions influencing your rational like everyone else. We are having a scientific discussion and you through out this emotional appealing line which challenges the objectivity of the scientific method.

I'm sure that Matthew Shepherd's parents took great comfort at his funeral and the sentencing of his murderer in the idea that their son "chose" to be gay.

I also believe it is nobodies business (especially not the government) and I advocate personal freedom of all sorts.

I dislike and am greatly annoyed by judgmental pseudo scientists who try to insist that people "choose" to be gay when respectable science has proven that it's not a choice. Why would someone choose to live a life that will be ridiculed and judged? Why should someone who is born with a certain physiology have to pretend they are something else just to make you comfortable? They shouldn't because unless you're the one having the sex it's not your business.

Hahaha! This is laughable!

You make empty claims that my judgment is based of of a pseudo science, yet you can't actually add any substance to why you might feel this way.

I am not convinced myself that my ideas are true as that would only hindering being objective or finding the truth. If science had proven this subject do you think there would be this much controversy around it? Would you care to name to me one of this respectable science or the ideas that prove it is not choice? It's okay that you don't know anything, but just so you know I don't have much respect for opinion if it isn't founded upon anything. I don't have any respect for Pro-Lifers who use religion as the reason for their movement either.

Those comments just put you amongst the ranks of rickster in this thread I'm afraid :(



Through the years I have had a great many gay and lesbian friends and acquaintances. I have noticed that the people who ridicule them the most have been the ones that were afraid to admit they had same sex or bi-sexual fantasies/feelings/thoughts and they were afraid of what OTHER people would think if they were to express or act on them. So, how afraid are you that you might like it if you tried it? Or do you object on a religious/moral ground?

No I'm not afraid that If I tried it I might like. I do object against religious/moral ground when it comes to scientific research.

This claim that you disagree with homosexuality because it doesn't allow those couples to procreate seems to leave out the fact that those couples have other ways to parent. They can adopt or use a surrogate/sperm donor. For years people have been saying that someone needs to adopt some of the kids in the foster care system. Same sex couples can provide a loving and safe home for kids they adopt/have via other methods. People, regardless of sexual orientation, still manage to want, have and raise children so again your idea is fallacy.

Those are all modern methods of procreating a homosexuals. If your belief is that it is natural and has been here for thousands of years then your idea is nearly worthless. What is the origin of homosexual behavior? If it is to be a genetic condition then there will have to be some sort of origin, but the issue is it is impossible to have an origin for something that naturally weeds itself.

I realize it seemed like a simple notion to debunk at first, but the big picture went totally over your head. You can not argue against my evolutionary argument, but you can irrationally convince yourself that your belief is more correct then mine. Keep your head tucked into your shell because it is clear you don't want to know the truth for some reason or another.

I could care less what makes homosexuals homosexual. They are people just like you and me, and worthy of the respect, compassion, and privacy that one should accord to another living being...

Science does care what causes it and for good reason. There hasn't been a single person that has even suggested they have any less worth or value as a person in this thread.

[JustMel]

There you go again calling people stupid because they don't agree with you. You have yet to show any real scientific research that shows it is a choice. You can't claim a stance without proof.

Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities; Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.

There is no consensus (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual
develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research
has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences
on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude
that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that
nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of
choice about their sexual orientation.

No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent
association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed,
several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially
likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings. Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his same sex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to self determination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Much of the false data used to support the untruth that homosexuality is a "sickness" is a product of Paul Cameron, a psychologist discredited by the APA. Link below for a complete expose on Mr. Cameron and his false data:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Consider the findings of lengthy Kinsey Institute interviews with nearly 1000 homosexuals and 500 heterosexuals (Bell & others, 1981; Hammersmith, 1982). The investigators assessed nearly every imaginable psychological cause of homosexuality--parental relationships, childhood sexual experiences, peer relationships, dating experiences.
Their findings: Homosexuals were no more likely than heterosexuals to have been smothered by maternal love, neglected by their father, or sexually abused.
More recent studies have also found that sons of homosexual men were not more likely to become gay if they lived with their gay dad, and that 9 in 10 children of lesbian mothers developed into heterosexuals (Bailey & others, 1995; Golombok & Tasker, 1996).


New research indicates that sexual orientation is at least partly physiological. Researcher Simon LeVay (1991) discovered this while studying sections of the hypothalamus taken from deceased heterosexual and homosexual people.
As a gay scientist, LeVay wanted to do "something connected with my gay identity," but he knew he had to avoid biasing the results. So he did the study "blind," without knowing which donors were gay. After nine months of peering through his microscope at a cell cluster he thought might be important, LeVay sat down one morning and broke the codes.
His discovery: The cell cluster was reliably larger in heterosexual men than in women and homosexual men. As the brain difference became apparent, "I was almost in a state of shock ... I took a walk by myself on the cliffs over the ocean. I sat for half an hour just thinking what this might mean" (LeVay, 1994).
It should not surprise us that brains differ with sexual orientation. Remember our maxim: Although we find it convenient to talk separately of psychological and biological explanations, everything psychological is simultaneously biological.

[nacht]

However, as as self proclaimed scientist I have an objective viewpoint.

"scientists are not the paragons of rationality, objectivity, open-mindedness, and humility that many of them might like others to believe" -- Marcello Truzzi

I don't believe in the objective viewpoint of scientists, I've known too many of them over the years (my father is a microbiologist, I grew up going to parties where a Ph.D. or MD was--outside of myself--the lowest level of education in the room). Much less so-called "self-proclaimed scientists."


That is, ethics and morals are side lined and I attempt to explain something the way it occurs without bias.


From what I can tell, you have failed in this attempt.

I don't go out of my way to point out where people are being bias, but ironically he repeated falsely accused me of being bias as well while he denied he could possibly be.

Your biases have been showing very clearly in this thread. If you are attempting to distance yourself from your biases then the way to move forward is to acknowledge them and attempt to factor that in to your decision making process rather than denying the existence of something that is painfully obvious to everyone else in the room.

[rickster]

I don't go out of my way to point out where people are being bias, but ironically he repeated falsely accused me of being bias as well while he denied he could possibly be.

You have no case for crying "reverse bias".

In the matter of outrageous claims the claimant is invariably under scrutiny for bias - be it from journalists, lawyers, analysts, scientists or simply people with enough experience in communications to carefully read what is actually being said. It is quite irresponsible to ignore bias and let it go unchallenged. A journalist does not publish a politician's "recommendations" without analyzing the bias content, and a lawyer argues against biased jurors and challenges apparently biased witnesses on the stand. Why? Because the truth will never be arrived at unless the bias factor has been identified in the original and ongoing claim/s.

Biased opinions and claims expose themselves. They follow a predictable pattern beginning with the claimant's initial avoidance of the apparent bias being brought up. They then begrudgingly acknowledge further attention being drawn to their bias by some form of denial: often patronizing their perceived "accuser". Further challenges to their bias invariably produce hostility and/or claims of bias on the part of their "accuser". This pattern does not establish lack of bias, but instead erodes the claimant's credibility as well as the inherent objective value of their claims.

I'm still waiting for some "science" or plausible sociology - biased or otherwise - which supports your claims that there is a need for science to respond to your unproven assumption that homosexuality could - or should - be reversed.

[Beulah]

You have no case for crying "reverse bias".

I'm still waiting for some "science" or plausible sociology - biased or otherwise - which supports your claims that there is a need for science to respond to your unproven assumption that homosexuality could - or should - be reversed.

I just looked back through thread and can't find evidence this is his assumption. But there may be an assumption it is better to be straight (for reproductive ease if thats your bent).

I doesn't take science to show orientation in some individuals can be non static. The proof is in the pudding of known cases. I know some - so thats the end of inquiry for me. And there seems to be nothing world shaking to your average non hetero in the idea some gays could switch, albeit rarely. This idea only seems to threaten "control freak" type gays, with very rigid ideas about sexuality being 100% fixed for everyone at birth. The gay equivalent of the religious fundamentalist homophobic, in my book. Be straight or damned - be gay or go away! Shallow A+

It's clear though why people think this kind of inquiry or question, when phrased neutrally and with no presupposition of normality for all subjects, is off limits (unless naivety abounds).
1) Most gay people will stay that way and are happy to be not hassled and have quiet enjoyment of who they are.
2) History exposes numerous reasons for a pact to put up the "do not disturb" sign and remain vigilant to threats eg the inquisition, accusations of paedophilia extending to this century due to Greek early gay culture being a bit licentious over 1000 years ago, biblical based persecution, pathologisation resulting in anything from lobotomy to high young male suicide rates.
3) Those with a potential to change who wish to "go straight" will usually not number high nor will they experience such difficulty in transitioning to a visible straight relationship as people leading false straight lives but needing to come out gay. Those taking the road less travelled of gay to straight or bi will presumably not need the help of science - nature, pheromones. love or whatever will just take over as in the opposite scenario.

So what I get from this thread is that the scientific question or inquiry of what sugar and spice goes into making one straight or gay or whatever is really quite unnecessary to answer, quite trivial compared to bigger sociological questions such as how to stop young gays from suicide (not stigmatising by suggesting they're freaks helps), or how to educate society not to think the defence of provocation for murdering gays who "make eyes" is somehow sane.

Ethically research dollars are scarce and should address real concerns and problems of the group affected. Are we mistakes needing correction appears not highest on the list, anymore than it would be for heteros - tho I myself have some serious reservations about the normality of heteros who mass produce offspring and would like to correct that subgroup (:

But the thread raises some interesting points. The word bonding was used and thats an easy concept I think to communicate the normality of it. I saw a lovely picture of a bonded gay couple buying oreos ahead of me in the supermarket tomight. One ran back to the biscuit aisle to add them to the purchase as he'd remembered the partner liked them. Awww how sweet.
Looked straight they did but the bond and reduced personal space was obvious and the love in their demeanors. It wasn't broke, and I think ANYONE would have seen that - why fix it.

[rickster]

I just looked back through thread and can't find evidence this is his assumption. But there may be an assumption it is better to be straight (for reproductive ease if thats your bent).

I refer you Page 1, Post #1

The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual so I always like to remind homosexuals that they can't switch back if therapy, but of course only if they really want it to happen. I know there are some people out there who want out of the gay lifestyle, but don't know where to go for help. They are stuck believing they where born that way and can never change when that is false.

OP created his add-and-build assumption on this partial gibberish. He adamantly states however that "some" disgruntled homosexuals are "helplessly" victimized by a system which - according to him - wrongly believes that homosexuality cannot be changed. His misunderstanding of the science of brain fluidity was only the first of his absurd assumptions he has yet to acknowledge as patently false.

Despite his assertions, I don't believe he has been in any way challenged by any "threatened control freak" gays with any rigid ideas about sexuality being fixed at birth.

So what I get from this thread is that the scientific question or inquiry of what sugar and spice goes into making one straight or gay or whatever is really quite unnecessary to answer, quite trivial compared to bigger sociological questions such as how to stop young gays from suicide (not stigmatising by suggesting they're freaks helps), or how to educate society not to think the defence of provocation for murdering gays is somehow sane.

Bingo. Without a doubt sociology is a discipline which can be studied as a science, as scientists study the natural world. The "science" of homosexuality isn't served by chemists and physicists alone, when social scientists are able to present overwhelming evidence of findings which prioritize humanity's need to re-focus scientific research away from experiments which may yield little or nothing of value.

[Beulah]

I refer you Page 1, Post #1

The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual so I always like to remind homosexuals that they can't switch back if therapy, but of course only if they really want it to happen. I know there are some people out there who want out of the gay lifestyle, but don't know where to go for help. They are stuck believing they where born that way and can never change when that is false.



Oh - gulp. Now that's loaded. "Switch back" presupposes they have deviated from the default setting of hetero. "can change..if want it to happen".... presupposes choice in the matter for all comers. "Want out of the gay lifestyle" - how is this lifestyle defined, options are no less heterogenous than a straight lifestyle. Maybe they are just in a part of it that isn't compatible eg a club scene when they'd rather be at home at 10 in domestic bliss. Maybe thats what's meant.

But if they want out of being gay thats just silly - as silly as wanting out of being ones own nationality - unless they suspect they could as or more happily live with other preferences.

And if this is the case, or they've had experiences throwing their presumed primary orientation in doubt then it is obvious if they struggle with this where to get help. Firstly - if its right or the person then like birds and bees it'll come naturally to a point. Secondly if there is some discomfort or uncertainty show me one community or workplace or school environment that does not have counsellors perfectly capable of facilitating people to explore their conflicts and supporting them to implement any changes they might desire. Be it no change (affirming gy identity) or big change (affirming switch).

This doesn't take studies to affirm choices or changes made - it just takes client centred counselling using basic microcounselling skills. As a qualified counsellor I see no merit to the argument conflicted folk have nowhere to go. They do not need lessons on correct sexual positions - just clarity about where they are at. This requires no determination nor "wanting it enough" as per OP. Just self knowledge / understanding.

The last thing I'll do as a counsellor is try to put clients in a box due to studies. It would be like someone undecided whether to live in Europe near family or the US for a great job and I get out a travel guide and decide whats got the most attractions then manipulate - no go!

[admittedheretic]

Beulah - Even if I am dead wrong about homosexually, I still think there is much to learned when discussion such an issue from a behavioral perspective. Like I keep repeating, emotions make rationality go out the window and I think peoples reposes here prove that. Individuals in this thread have gone as far as quoting links which say "there is no scientific agreement on the cause" and then with complete confidence they will dismiss my ideas as immoral and theirs as correct. New comers to the thread think I'm saying homosexually isn't biological and that I'm some how denying evidence that proves homosexuality isn't choice. The only theory really being denied by people here is my idea of switching orientation through intense therapy and the digit ratio. Also I have been repeatedly attacked as being biased, yet when the time came in thread, the accusers admitted their own bias based off of principles of bio ethics. They claim I am being objective which is what science research should be! Rickster has done nothing, but put the wrong words in my mouth and I started ignoring him pages ago, I suggest you do the same for the sake of your time as he will play the repeat/loop game with you.

[Vyrokashan]

Beulah - Even if I am dead wrong about homosexually, I still think there is much to learned when discussion such an issue from a behavioral perspective. Like I keep repeating, emotions make rationality go out the window and I think peoples reposes here prove that. Individuals in this thread have gone as far as quoting links which say "there is no scientific agreement on the cause" and then with complete confidence they will dismiss my ideas as immoral and theirs as correct. New comers to the thread think I'm saying homosexually isn't biological and that I'm some how denying evidence that proves homosexuality isn't choice. The only theory really being denied by people here is my idea of switching orientation through intense therapy and the digit ratio. Also I have been repeatedly attacked as being biased, yet when the time came in thread, the accusers admitted their own bias based off of principles of bio ethics. They claim I am being objective which is what science research should be! Rickster has done nothing, but put the wrong words in my mouth and I started ignoring him pages ago, I suggest you do the same for the sake of your time as he will play the repeat/loop game with you.
On Digit Ratio: There is a very loose correlation between homosexuality and digit ratio. It just is not reliable enough to predict someone's sexuality.


Science Research: They dismiss your ideas on lack of provided evidence, not as immoral. You seem to be oblivious whenever anyone asks you what your sources are. Maybe they might be more willing to listen if you had an actual, linked source to counter theirs?

[TravelnTrain]

The title of this thread, split from another, got my attention, especially since I'm gay. This forum includes many members who are scientists and I generally find their posts enlightening, nicely constructed (Point A, Basis for point A, Objective evidence for point A, etc) and extremely cogent. In this thread, Nemesis stands out as the best example, in my opinion. As for non-scientists, paleoeco was equally cogent (forgive me, paleo if you are, in fact, a scientist but I didn't see that claim).

@admittedheretic

I tried very hard to understand you're viewpoint, your underlying rationale, and your objective evidence. What I mostly found were conflicting comments that were logically hard to follow and lots of instances where a moderator had to edit your posts to remove trolling and flaming. If you want me to take you seriously, I suggest you change how you post. I realize you mentioned in this thread that you have autism and, as a result, you quickly type thoughts and don't self-edit. Exactly how does your autism prevent you from re-reading what you type and editing it before you actually post?

But until you change, I do have some questions about what you already posted that I don't believe are redundant:

1) In your original post, you refer to "The scientist in me." What kind of scientist are you, by degree, training or position? (or point me to a link where you explained this)

2) You also stated in that same post that "The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual..." Later you made comments about choosing being gay that also mentioned it wasn't about will power. Exactly what is being chosen and how?

3) In post #4, you posted a link to a study that would suggest brain symmetry might correlate to sexual orientation. The best I can tell is that you contradicted yourself. I don't claim to be a scientist, but I don't believe one can alter one's brain symmetry. So let's have a do-over.

What part do you believe biology plays, if any, in sexual orientation? If biology does play a part, what biological components can be changed? Please cite "the science" behind your beliefs, like Nemesis did his.

You made repeated comments about brain plasticity. Specifically what is the scientifically verifiable correlation between plasticity and your claim that one can learn and unlearn homosexuality? And please don't refer to studies about other topics like sexual fetishes or autism, which seemed to be your way of implying correlation (but I may have misunderstood why a topic on gays suddenly had comments about these topics).

4) Nemesis asked on several occasions (as did a few others in tandem, I believe) that you offer a scientific rebuttal to the presence of homosexuality across species and cultures if you are going to assert "choice" is involved. I'm still waiting. What is the rebuttal or the link where you made it?

5) You made the following comments early on in response to paleo:

Your opinion as a gay male is bias and it is no surprise that you feel you where born with your orientation. There isn't sufficient scientific research to side with your belief, but like most people, you believe what is comforting.

I never said your opinion should be dismissed, I just said its biased.

Yes, you didn't use the words "your opinion should be dismissed." But you need to realize that telling posters their beliefs exist because "you believe what is comforting" is dismissive.

So let's try my version with a different question. I remember very clearly when I first started feeling sexual arousal. And I was aroused by other guys, not girls. I always had great relationships with girls, but having sex with them was not on the list. So I have absolutely no conscious memory of ever moving myself in that direction. In fact, I have never met a heterosexual male who claimed he chose to be straight. Ever. When they started feeling sexual attraction it was for women. Mine was for men.

To be clear, I'm not saying I believe I was born this way to comfort myself. I don't hear you suggesting that straight men believe they were born straight "to comfort themselves." I have no other rational explanation for my conscious contribution to my attraction to men.

So, fill me in. How does science conclusively explain the role I played in the development of my orientation? And your explanation will have to make sense to my experience before I'll consider it credible.

6) Finally, the scientists I have known are always quick to use comments like "based on our current understanding," meaning leaving room for new theories and evidence. In one of your later posts, you stated,

I am not convinced myself that my ideas are true as that would only hindering being objective or finding the truth.

Here's why I'm having trouble believing this comment. Throughout this thread you make very strong statements and position them as fact when it comes to this topic. You can't have it both ways. So, again, if you want me to believe you and take you more seriously, please be more objective in how you describe your claims and evidence.

[SeaCzar]

I'm not emotional about homosexuality or any other form of sexuality. You seem to perceive any disagreement with your opinions and pseudo science as emotional. Your problem, not mine. I believe who you fuck is your business and no one else's. I also believe that what gender you choose to have sex with, fuck, or build a life together with is no one else's business including the government.

Afuckingmen to this. I am no scientist when it comes to sexuality, but I would think that one's sexual preference(s) is not different from being right or left handed, having green eyes or blue. Somehow, the implications of the OP here is that there is a wrong or incorrect sexuality. How is that possible? Curing homosexuality? Sure, you can teach a southpaw to write with his/her right hand, blonds can dye their hair another colour, and there are contact lenses to change the colour of your eyes, but you are only altering appearances here, not changing an underlying reality. Furthermore, why should you? Humanity is a diverse lot, and should be celebrated and encouraged as such. The alternative was tried in the 1930s and 40s. Those practicing this alternative were known as Nazis.

[rickster]

Beulah - Even if I am dead wrong about homosexually, I still think there is much to learned when discussion such an issue from a behavioral perspective.

Platitudes aside, your idea as presented of "a behavioral perspective" has to do with little more than "intense therapy" in order to bring about reversal of homosexuality. Would you, or could you, specify exactly what form of therapy you have in mind? Is it experimental, or is it within accepted therapeutic guidelines?

Like I keep repeating, emotions make rationality go out the window and I think peoples reposes here prove that.

You keep repeating that generalization, and it's a dis-service to every rational and reasonable challenge which your unreasonable assumptions and poor science have attracted.

...and then with complete confidence they will dismiss my ideas as immoral and theirs as correct.

Nobody's dismissed your ideas as immoral. I would imagine nobody cares about the morality of your ideas. I do however care about the ethics of your ideas. Are you prepared to take an ethical stance on any and all further scientific scientific investigations into homosexuality, and it's impact on a group of people who have a history of being medically and scientifically abused?

New comers to the thread think I'm saying homosexually isn't biological and that I'm some how denying evidence that proves homosexuality isn't choice. The only theory really being denied by people here is my idea of switching orientation through intense therapy and the digit ratio.

Herein lies the fundamental hypocrisy of your position. Both aspects of your "theory" have already been debunked.

Also I have been repeatedly attacked as being biased

Your bias has been noted in the context of the opinions and ideas you have promoted. You have not in any way been "attacked", and if you are feeling under siege it's possibly because your ever-changing arguments have been refuted as rubbish.

Rickster has done nothing, but put the wrong words in my mouth and I started ignoring him pages ago, I suggest you do the same for the sake of your time as he will play the repeat/loop game with you.

Nice try, but again you are merely being asked to back up your own words with some substance.

[admittedheretic]

On Digit Ratio: There is a very loose correlation between homosexuality and digit ratio. It just is not reliable enough to predict someone's sexuality.


Science Research: They dismiss your ideas on lack of provided evidence, not as immoral. You seem to be oblivious whenever anyone asks you what your sources are. Maybe they might be more willing to listen if you had an actual, linked source to counter theirs?

I never claimed explicitly or implicitly that the ratio can accurately predict ones sexual orientation. I do believe it to be an accurate estimate of the sex hormones in the womb. So even if it isn't correlated significantly with orientation there is still an interesting relationship between sex hormones and homosexuality. On another thread I made about the digit ratio there is some and i stress some anecdotal evidence to support the idea (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Note how those with the opposite ratio typical of their sex have a homosexual or bisexual orientation.

Nobody here has disproved anything I have said with evidence and I never have claimed to have proven anything my self. I haven't needed to counter anything anyone else has posted because it all looks legitimate to me. There just isn't anything that directly implies that the condition is genetic.

Bottom line.
Twin studies of homosexuality only have a ~50% chance of both being homosexual and the entire 50% COULD be accounted for because they shared the same womb.
A genetic condition like autism in twins is ~90%.


There is no evolutionary advantage to giving up the ability to procreate.

You can't counter those arguments, but you can just deny they exist like some people here.



The title of this thread, split from another, got my attention, especially since I'm gay. This forum includes many members who are scientists and I generally find their posts enlightening, nicely constructed (Point A, Basis for point A, Objective evidence for point A, etc) and extremely cogent. In this thread, Nemesis stands out as the best example, in my opinion. As for non-scientists, paleoeco was equally cogent (forgive me, paleo if you are, in fact, a scientist but I didn't see that claim).

@admittedheretic

I tried very hard to understand you're viewpoint, your underlying rationale, and your objective evidence. What I mostly found were conflicting comments that were logically hard to follow and lots of instances where a moderator had to edit your posts to remove trolling and flaming. If you want me to take you seriously, I suggest you change how you post. I realize you mentioned in this thread that you have autism and, as a result, you quickly type thoughts and don't self-edit. Exactly how does your autism prevent you from re-reading what you type and editing it before you actually post?

Nemesis disclosed himself as being biased and unobjective. All he did anyway was mention the works of authors because he clearly doesn't understand what they say himself. I asked him to clarify just one point, but he could not do it.

I never intended to troll or flame anyone. I have been discretely insulted time and time again in this thread and I'm sorry if people can't handle a little retaliation. Skim over what Rickster posted, nothing but slander. It takes me a huge great deal of effort to self-correct and I would rather spend my time doing other things. If I really butcher something I can always clarify it later, but some people tend to hold me to whatever I originally said even if I clarified my intentions where otherwise.






But until you change, I do have some questions about what you already posted that I don't believe are redundant:

1) In your original post, you refer to "The scientist in me." What kind of scientist are you, by degree, training or position? (or point me to a link where you explained this)



I have a bachelors degree in science not that it should matter. What makes me a damn good scientist is that I separate my emotions from my logic; something a paid scientist should be ashamed of if they can't do.



2) You also stated in that same post that "The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual..." Later you made comments about choosing being gay that also mentioned it wasn't about will power. Exactly what is being chosen and how?


To clarify, my position is that homosexuality is caused by the environment both prenatal and through development. What I mean by that is that people just can't change their orientation over night by using mind over matter. I'm well aware of how it is deeply seeded biologically. It may have not been the homosexuals choice, but the condition could a rise as result of the choices of say the parents made.


3) In post #4, you posted a link to a study that would suggest brain symmetry might correlate to sexual orientation. The best I can tell is that you contradicted yourself. I don't claim to be a scientist, but I don't believe one can alter one's brain symmetry. So let's have a do-over.


Could you explain what this contradicts?

What part do you believe biology plays, if any, in sexual orientation? If biology does play a part, what biological components can be changed? Please cite "the science" behind your beliefs, like Nemesis did his.

I don't believe the biological part is completely understood and nor should anyone. The brain is made up of neurons which basically are like ones and zeros on your hard drive. The neurons are associated with a brain function, but they all work the same. That is, there is no difference between a neuron that makes your eyes blink and the neurons that are responsible for storing your sexual orientation. The difference of opinion I have with Nemesis and again there isn't enough evidence to prove either of our view points, is that Nemesis believes the brain permanently "hardens" in some areas where I argue that the brain is forever plastic. When a neuron fires it sets off physically approximate neurons regardless of the functions. This allows us to reinforce functions and form memories. Something like sexual orientation is reinforced so much that it is very hard to change, but my point is that it is not impossible to change. Nemesis just posted information that hormones effect neurons, but nothing he posted has anything to do with a mechanism that prevents a neuron from being mailable.

You made repeated comments about brain plasticity. Specifically what is the scientifically verifiable correlation between plasticity and your claim that one can learn and unlearn homosexuality? And please don't refer to studies about other topics like sexual fetishes or autism, which seemed to be your way of implying correlation (but I may have misunderstood why a topic on gays suddenly had comments about these topics).

Haha, I didn't read your entire post ahead of time and it seems I'm always just a step ahead of what you are going to ask. I believe a right handed person can convert to a left handed person at anytime in their life. Sure it is much harder to do as we age, but never impossible. How can you deny the references between fetishes and autism? They are some of the only clues we have on how the brain works. If I had a source for that claim I would have posted it by now, but my point is no one has any sources that prove this isn't a possibility. I think it should at least be considered.


4) Nemesis asked on several occasions (as did a few others in tandem, I believe) that you offer a scientific rebuttal to the presence of homosexuality across species and cultures if you are going to assert "choice" is involved. I'm still waiting. What is the rebuttal or the link where you made it?


I don't understand what you are saying here, please clarify.


5) You made the following comments early on in response to paleo:




Yes, you didn't use the words "your opinion should be dismissed." But you need to realize that telling posters their beliefs exist because "you believe what is comforting" is dismissive.

So let's try my version with a different question. I remember very clearly when I first started feeling sexual arousal. And I was aroused by other guys, not girls. I always had great relationships with girls, but having sex with them was not on the list. So I have absolutely no conscious memory of ever moving myself in that direction. In fact, I have never met a heterosexual male who claimed he chose to be straight. Ever. When they started feeling sexual attraction it was for women. Mine was for men.

To be clear, I'm not saying I believe I was born this way to comfort myself. I don't hear you suggesting that straight men believe they were born straight "to comfort themselves." I have no other rational explanation for my conscious contribution to my attraction to men.

So, fill me in. How does science conclusively explain the role I played in the development of my orientation? And your explanation will have to make sense to my experience before I'll consider it credible.

This thread is about the science of homosexuality. When people state their opinions with the absence of anything scientific and only plea upon emotional judgments; I think I had every right to make the notion that all they where doing is comforting themselves. Nobody gets on anyones case when they state that it is PROVEN that people are born gay despite there being no conclusive evidence to suggest that. I have tried my best to be respectful, but it is hard to when in turn you are not getting any either.


6) Finally, the scientists I have known are always quick to use comments like "based on our current understanding," meaning leaving room for new theories and evidence. In one of your later posts, you stated,



Here's why I'm having trouble believing this comment. Throughout this thread you make very strong statements and position them as fact when it comes to this topic. You can't have it both ways. So, again, if you want me to believe you and take you more seriously, please be more objective in how you describe your claims and evidence.

My views are entirely objective and in fact Nemesis again accused them of being too objective! Since you are letting him doing the thinking for you why is it that you say the opposite as him? Once again, I would probably not have felt the need to point out the bias if he had actually provided anything with scientific merit. Paleo made many great moral, ethical, and political points (I agree with almost entirely everything he said), but that is not the matter at hand.

Afuckingmen to this. I am no scientist when it comes to sexuality, but I would think that one's sexual preference(s) is not different from being right or left handed, having green eyes or blue. Somehow, the implications of the OP here is that there is a wrong or incorrect sexuality. How is that possible? Curing homosexuality? Sure, you can teach a southpaw to write with his/her right hand, blonds can dye their hair another colour, and there are contact lenses to change the colour of your eyes, but you are only altering appearances here, not changing an underlying reality. Furthermore, why should you? Humanity is a diverse lot, and should be celebrated and encouraged as such. The alternative was tried in the 1930s and 40s. Those practicing this alternative were known as Nazis.

I never made implications that there is a wrong or incorrect sexuality. You haven't actually contributed anything of scientific merit and you speak of changes in appearances when a change in homosexuality would be a change in behavior. There is a world of a difference between the two. Funny that you mention the Nazis because I assume you believe them to be evil because of the Jewish genocide attempt. Genocide doesn't mean you have to kill an entire once, but you can weed them out by having them not procreate and murdering the unborn. Abortion and homosexuality are both mechanisms that could be used for genocide.

[JustMel]

Twin studies of homosexuality only have a ~50% chance of both being homosexual and the entire 50% COULD be accounted for because they shared the same womb.
A genetic condition like autism in twins is ~90%.

Link to the data you are getting this from please.

To clarify, my position is that homosexuality is caused by the environment both prenatal and through development. What I mean by that is that people just can't change their orientation over night by using mind over matter. I'm well aware of how it is deeply seeded biologically. It may have not been the homosexuals choice, but the condition could a rise as result of the choices of say the parents made. This thread is about the science of homosexuality. When people state their opinions with the absence of anything scientific and only plea upon emotional judgments; I think I had every right to make the notion that all they where doing is comforting themselves. Nobody gets on anyones case when they state that it is PROVEN that people are born gay despite there being no conclusive evidence to suggest that. I have tried my best to be respectful, but it is hard to when in turn you are not getting any either. I posted scientific data on page 4. This is scientific data that shows there is a BIOLOGICAL difference in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. You are saying it's due to choices the parents made. Where did this come from? Links to data please. Try posting some actual data that supports your claims. If you can't then you should stop saying it's based on science because without the science you are merely voicing opinions.

Consider the findings of lengthy Kinsey Institute interviews with nearly 1000 homosexuals and 500 heterosexuals (Bell & others, 1981; Hammersmith, 1982). The investigators assessed nearly every imaginable psychological cause of homosexuality--parental relationships, childhood sexual experiences, peer relationships, dating experiences.
Their findings: Homosexuals were no more likely than heterosexuals to have been smothered by maternal love, neglected by their father, or sexually abused.
More recent studies have also found that sons of homosexual men were not more likely to become gay if they lived with their gay dad, and that 9 in 10 children of lesbian mothers developed into heterosexuals (Bailey & others, 1995; Golombok & Tasker, 1996).
New research indicates that sexual orientation is at least partly physiological. Researcher Simon LeVay (1991) discovered this while studying sections of the hypothalamus taken from deceased heterosexual and homosexual people.
As a gay scientist, LeVay wanted to do "something connected with my gay identity," but he knew he had to avoid biasing the results. So he did the study "blind," without knowing which donors were gay. After nine months of peering through his microscope at a cell cluster he thought might be important, LeVay sat down one morning and broke the codes.
His discovery: The cell cluster was reliably larger in heterosexual men than in women and homosexual men. As the brain difference became apparent, "I was almost in a state of shock ... I took a walk by myself on the cliffs over the ocean. I sat for half an hour just thinking what this might mean" (LeVay, 1994).
It should not surprise us that brains differ with sexual orientation. Remember our maxim: Although we find it convenient to talk separately of psychological and biological explanations, everything psychological is simultaneously biological.

[admittedheretic]

Link to the data you are getting this from please.

Just google "Homosexual twin studies" or "Autism twin studies."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I posted scientific data on page 4. This is scientific data that shows there is a BIOLOGICAL difference in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. You are saying it's due to choices the parents made. Where did this come from? Links to data please. Try posting some actual data that supports your claims. If you can't then you should stop saying it's based on science because without the science you are merely voicing opinions.
I have never denied there being a biological difference so why do you claim this like it somehow proves something I said wrong? I did not say it was a a result of a choice a parent made. Why don't you post some scientific evidence that suggests what I say is incorrect instead of just voicing your opinion? Sheesh..

[rickster]

I have a bachelors degree in science not that it should matter. What makes me a damn good scientist is that I separate my emotions from my logic; something a paid scientist should be ashamed of if they can't do.

Has your science degree happened in the last day or so? Until now you have been calling yourself "a self-proclaimed scientist"! This inconsistency with regards to your qualification should matter greatly to all who have responded to you in good faith.

Funny that you mention the Nazis because I assume you believe them to be evil because of the Jewish genocide attempt. Genocide doesn't mean you have to kill an entire once, but you can weed them out by having them not procreate and murdering the unborn. Abortion and homosexuality are both mechanisms that could be used for genocide.

There's a fine analogy. Nazis, Jews, homos, genocide and abortion. Now what point are you trying to make?

[deinotes]

Haha, I didn't read your entire post ahead of time and it seems I'm always just a step ahead of what you are going to ask. I believe a right handed person can convert to a left handed person at anytime in their life. Sure it is much harder to do as we age, but never impossible. How can you deny the references between fetishes and autism? They are some of the only clues we have on how the brain works. If I had a source for that claim I would have posted it by now, but my point is no one has any sources that prove this isn't a possibility. I think it should at least be considered.

Are you aware of the studies that have been done when they wanted to change boys into girls and girls into boys ?
And how miserable that failed because the "subjects" always felt themselves a boy/girl no matter how much they where treated as the other gender and how much hormones they got.
I think this is the same of gays hear the stories it's not the story of one day i became gay because the lifestyle appealed to me it's i always felt attracted to men/females and i came out of the closet.
I think your logic is flawed.
Btw here is the product of the experiments that have done :
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I think being gay is just as big a defect as being a intj it's just a abnormality from the masses and i think this is 100% fine.I rather not end up in a blue eyed blond haired society where everybody is the same.
The reason why scientist and poeple in general are against the idea of you is because of the slippery slope argument and not because of the data you represent.
Look where it got us in the 1940's in creating a Utopian society where all "diseases" where cured.
If it's diagnosed as a disease there is a cure for it and when there is a cure for it poeple except that you take the cure to fit in.


Just google "Homosexual twin studies" or "Autism twin studies."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

LOL, I can also google the earth is flat and i can find plenty of links.
Look at the source of the link not really a unbiased source it's from a site that sees homosexuals as a disease that can be cured.
You really should take a second critical look at the scientific material you are using and do some additional research.

[Beulah]

I'm AFRAID I might grasp the meandering thought train of admitted heretic, who ironically for his nik advocates religious nut compatible gay theory, in an autistic manner(highly focussed on one area of inquiry). God help me.

If I may translate I think this is his hypothesis broken down.

Its not genetic as per twin study evidence, so any biological "vulnerability", or rather "predisposition" if we want non discriminatory language comes after ovum meets sperm.

Nature gives gay guys a different brain, that has a (mechanism) unknown causal link to gay outcomes ie causing same sex attraction when puberty rolls round, but its not really nature but nurture - as while this occurs due to hormonal disturbances in utero, these same hormonal changes are caused by maternal stress. The baby from the stressed womb is put off 'em for lyf!

To recap - some women get migraines if upset. some gay babies! It's always the mothers fault, or she can blame dad I suppose for stressing her out. This theory can incorporate gayness in other animals too - ever seen how battery hens live or the stress of those low on pecking order eg meercats with their paranoia.

To strengthen this thesis though we need lots of gay lower animals, and higher gayness levels in the lower human socioeconomic or minority groups (likely more stressed). And some experiments in which we get a control group of preggers women on valium and then induce stress to another group of pregnant women then scrutinise the offspring for limp wrists (;, altered digit ratios, enlarged hypothalamus and hair spray purchases as teen boys.

2. Because a major factor in the brain changes leading to gayness is prenatal hormonal impact on brain development - no missing cells or anything - the original straightness imparting hardware is (eureka) still in there, co-existing with the hormonally altered gayness generating part of the brain that has gained dominance. There is an unknown mousey hetero imprisoned in every gay, so to speak.

3. Because brains are amazingly good at reinventing and at making new connections (per plasticity theory), even to the point functions are not localised and can move or develop newly eg after strokes - someone with a desire to rewire their orientation could in theory do so.
It would be bloody hard work if one had no straight leanings whatsoever - not even a glimmer of bi-ness - just like relearning to walk after a head injury or building a new life after the memory loss following a stroke, especially given the effect of long conditioning by your life history and past positive reinforcement of same sex sex ='s orgasm. But is feasable - IF YA REALLY DETERMINED, LIKE AS DETERMINED AS ED HILARY TO CLIMB EVEREST. Pretty cool huh!

4. Given that the science or hypothesis is new (originating at INTJ forum), being based on recent neuroscience findings on autism and ? paedophilia, there is unlikely to be any established therapies that draw on the theory base put forward. Although autism or paedophile therapies if successful could be models.

5. Admitted Heretic is however meeting quite a few folk who'd certainly be interested in this upcoming revolutionary treatment (except for suspicious old INTJs), because a change is as good as a holiday. So when the therapy becomes available he will be able to cut the ribbon and lead the procession through the revolving Arthur Martha door.

Even if all this is oneday proven true, I say so what. Work with the hand life dealt you.
Even if gayness is all at the doorstep of maternal stress that does not invalidate it or make it an ailment or make it any less desirable than being a statistical minority of any other kind.

If nurture made me a thoughtful person, or an outspoken person eg due to having a family that never listens so what. Why judge it. It just is and best celebrate it because its not desirable or worth the work to try and change my fundaments if I and others like me.

Trying to make everyone the same or give options for sameness or equality of opportunity in "happy traditional American family stakes", which seems to motivate heretics inquiry, is not a great aspiration. On that logic we'd create controlled conditions for all births, after finding the original first human dna at the moment we jumped from ape to tailless which we'd perpetually recycle most likely in mandatory test tube births.

I note that the head of the Brady bunch family was gay in real life. There's a moral there.

[firebee]

There just isn't anything that directly implies that the condition is genetic.


A condition can be fixed and present from birth without being genetic.


There is no evolutionary advantage to giving up the ability to procreate.


Homosexuals do not necessarily give up the ability to procreate.

Furthermore, it is not necessarily so that a genetic trait confers no evolutionary advantage when it impairs reproduction when fully expressed. The classic example of this is sickle-cell anemia -- one copy of the gene confers resistance to malaria, which is tremendously advantageous in areas where malaria is endemic, but two copies causes a disease which can drastically shorten the lifespan and reduce the function of the individual while they live.

It is also possible that autism is another such example. It seems reasonable to note that at least some variations of autism substantially impact the ability of the individual to find a mate and reproduce. If this is a genetic condition, why does it still exist? One potential explanation can be found in the observation that autism may be somewhat more prevalent in the children of engineer - engineer marriages, which are becoming more common now that women can enter the profession with reasonable freedom. Here, it is possible that the engineer parents each have a set of genetic traits that confer advantage on them by allowing them to process information more efficiently, perceive subtle patterns, et cetera -- but when their child fully inherits these traits, they end up with a disabling condition.


It takes me a huge great deal of effort to self-correct and I would rather spend my time doing other things.


It takes us a huge great deal of effort to understand you. If you can't be troubled to express your ideas coherently, why should we trouble ourselves to interpret what you say?


What makes me a damn good scientist is that I separate my emotions from my logic; something a paid scientist should be ashamed of if they can't do.


If you're separating your emotions from your logic, why is it relevant that rickster is supposedly slandering you? Why is it necessary to make a show of ignoring him (while not actually ignoring him) and piously suggesting to others that they do the same? What does this have to do with your theories regarding homosexuality?

It appears more likely that you are fooling yourself into believing that you are separating your emotions from your logic, while still being influenced by subtle (and not-so-subtle) bias. Regrettably, this is not an uncommon flaw among scientists regardless of the source of their income.

It may have not been the homosexuals choice, but the condition could a rise as result of the choices of say the parents made.


What sort of choices do you have in mind?


I believe a right handed person can convert to a left handed person at anytime in their life. Sure it is much harder to do as we age, but never impossible.


It's nice that you believe that, but it is not true. One can train oneself to perform tasks (particularly gross motor skills) equally well with both hands, but this does not change the underlying dominance. Unless impaired, the dominant hand will pick up new tasks more quickly than the non-dominant hand, and the non-dominant hand may never be able to function well at fine motor skills such as handwriting.

We can dance about whether this constitutes impossibility or merely extreme difficulty, but from a practical point of view the difference is immaterial -- if you are left-handed today you can be fairly assured of being left-handed when you die.


This thread is about the science of homosexuality. When people state their opinions with the absence of anything scientific and only plea upon emotional judgments; I think I had every right to make the notion that all they where doing is comforting themselves.

Why are you so interested in speculating on the emotional state of other people if you are completely and totally objective?


Nobody gets on anyones case when they state that it is PROVEN that people are born gay despite there being no conclusive evidence to suggest that.

Why are you concerned about whether people "get on other people's cases" or not if you are completely and totally objective?


I have tried my best to be respectful, but it is hard to when in turn you are not getting any either.

Why is it relevant whether or not people express respect to you if you are completely and totally objective?

Your posts in this thread generally indicate that you are more concerned with whether other people are reacting to you in ways that you approve of, than in presenting a coherent and well-supported argument. This does not exactly do wonders to convince us that you have freed yourself from the bonds of foolish emotion.


I never made implications that there is a wrong or incorrect sexuality.

I can see why you feel this is so, because you're clearly making at least some attempt to be fair, but your statements still bear the mark of prejudice against homosexuals. Your statement is simply that sexual orientation is malleable -- that a gay person could become straight or a straight person could become gay. If you are being truly even-handed, and you see both modes as being equally valuable, why do you concern yourself exclusively with people who are "trapped in the gay lifestyle" and who are "living a lie" as gay people? What about the straight people who long for the ability to sustain attraction for their own gender? Where's the love for the aspiring unicorns and minotaurs?

Furthermore, while it is admittedly quite difficult to follow the line of your argument, you refer to homosexuality (but not heterosexuality) as a mental illness, you compare homosexuality to "confused humping of inanimate objects", and you refer to homosexuality as being a form of genocide and comparable to abortion (of which you disapprove).

Referring to homosexuality as a form of mental illness does not exactly convey an appreciation of diversity. Comparing humans who experience sexual attraction to same-gender humans to dogs who hump squeaky toys is frankly derogatory. And most people (including, apparently, yourself) rather disfavor genocide, so characterizing homosexuality as a form of genocide can easily lead to the (mistaken?) impression that you are not a fan.

Your posts give every appearance of exhibiting both bias and denial of the capacity for bias. This is not exactly a promising foundation for truly objective debate.

[Beulah]

why do you concern yourself exclusively with people who are "trapped in the gay lifestyle" and who are "living a lie" as gay people? What about the straight people who long for the ability to sustain attraction for their own gender? Where's the love for the aspiring unicorns and minotaurs?ate.

I would be so happy if I could convert an uncle gay and 2 aunties gay as none are suited to hetero relationships. He is a bully to his partner and needs someone more masculine and strong to stand up to him and use linear logic male straight talk to keep him in line. The 2 aunties are far too wimpy and bad judges of character to the point their heterosexuality is likely to land them with xxx type males and murdered. But I think its too late, his brain would have needed the stressed uterus - and the women are just too comfortable in their skins. Tragic really.

[JustMel]

I have never denied there being a biological difference so why do you claim this like it somehow proves something I said wrong? I did not say it was a a result of a choice a parent made. Why don't you post some scientific evidence that suggests what I say is incorrect instead of just voicing your opinion? Sheesh..

To clarify, my position is that homosexuality is caused by the environment both prenatal and through development. What I mean by that is that people just can't change their orientation over night by using mind over matter. I'm well aware of how it is deeply seeded biologically. It may have not been the homosexuals choice, but the condition could a rise as result of the choices of say the parents made.


Yes, you did say it could be something the parents did that "caused" them to be homosexual. It can't be both. It's either biological or nurture. Pick a side. Furthermore, I have posted data that proves you wrong.



Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness and has not been since the 70's by any reputable organization. Prejudice does not equal mental illness.



Much of the false data used to support the untruth that homosexuality is a "sickness" is a product of Paul Cameron, a psychologist discredited by the APA.



It is physiological and biological in nature. New research indicates that sexual orientation is at least partly physiological. Researcher Simon LeVay (1991) discovered this while studying sections of the hypothalamus taken from deceased heterosexual and homosexual people. The cell cluster was reliably larger in heterosexual men than in women and homosexual men.

[nacht]

Actually 50% in the realm of behavior is a rather large number. Comparing with autism is also disingenuous, given that Autism is a development disorder (Axis I). More recent research has indicated that older research tended to have biased sample groups, and also indicated that (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum):

All analyses demonstrated familial resemblance for sexual orientation. Resemblance was greater in the monozygotic twins than in the dizygotic twins or in the dizygotic twins plus nontwin siblings. Biometrical twin modeling suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors, but family environment may also play a role. No evidence was found for a violation of the equal-environment assumption regarding monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs


But even if it has very low genetic components, that doesn't mean that it is "curable" under any reasonable definition of the term.

[admittedheretic]

A condition can be fixed and present from birth without being genetic.

Yeah, if it is caused by the environment AKA the nurture.





It is also possible that autism is another such example. It seems reasonable to note that at least some variations of autism substantially impact the ability of the individual to find a mate and reproduce. If this is a genetic condition, why does it still exist? One potential explanation can be found in the observation that autism may be somewhat more prevalent in the children of engineer - engineer marriages, which are becoming more common now that women can enter the profession with reasonable freedom. Here, it is possible that the engineer parents each have a set of genetic traits that confer advantage on them by allowing them to process information more efficiently, perceive subtle patterns, et cetera -- but when their child fully inherits these traits, they end up with a disabling condition.


The varieties of autism with low functioning are believed to be caused be the environment and there is more and more evidence support this belief. The traits aren't simply inherited. Yet, the genetic predisposition influence is the highest of all known disorders. If you would have read some of my other posts you would have learned about the 3 strikes theory of the cause of autism. Genetic precondition, Environmental influence in and out of the womb, and atypical development.




If you're separating your emotions from your logic, why is it relevant that rickster is supposedly slandering you? Why is it necessary to make a show of ignoring him (while not actually ignoring him) and piously suggesting to others that they do the same? What does this have to do with your theories regarding homosexuality?

Actually I said a couple of times that my emotions influence the way I communicate, but they don't interfere with my logic.

It appears more likely that you are fooling yourself into believing that you are separating your emotions from your logic, while still being influenced by subtle (and not-so-subtle) bias. Regrettably, this is not an uncommon flaw among scientists regardless of the source of their income.


Actually I said a couple of times that my emotions influence the way I communicate, but they don't interfere with my logic.






It's nice that you believe that, but it is not true. One can train oneself to perform tasks (particularly gross motor skills) equally well with both hands, but this does not change the underlying dominance. Unless impaired, the dominant hand will pick up new tasks more quickly than the non-dominant hand, and the non-dominant hand may never be able to function well at fine motor skills such as handwriting.


The dominance can be reversed. A left eye dominate person can convert to being right eye dominant. Google it.








I can see why you feel this is so, because you're clearly making at least some attempt to be fair, but your statements still bear the mark of prejudice against homosexuals.

Didn't read anything after that line. I am not being prejudice, period.


Yes, you did say it could be something the parents did that "caused" them to be homosexual. It can't be both. It's either biological or nurture. Pick a side. Furthermore, I have posted data that proves you wrong.


Black and white logic at its finest here. Why do you think it has to be one or the other. Do you know what genetic disposition means? And I do believe I said something of the sort that it would have to be have been an environmental influence AND development in which case a parent has a high influence. You don't understand these simple things, but you think I am wrong... /laughs




Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness and has not been since the 70's by any reputable organization. Prejudice does not equal mental illness.



Already went over this. It was removed for political and social reason. There was NO sientific reason for its removal.





It is physiological and biological in nature.


Of course.


Actually 50% in the realm of behavior is a rather large number. Comparing with autism is also disingenuous, given that Autism is a development disorder (Axis II). More recent research has indicated that older research tended to have biased sample groups, and also indicated that (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum):



But even if it has very low genetic components, that doesn't mean that it is "curable" under any reasonable definition of the term.

Autism is not a developmental disorder. Development is an important key component, but it is no root cause.

If you believe genetics has a role in personality type than I think you could already come up with one explanation as to why there seems to be a genetic pattern with homosexuals. There is higher than normal homosexuality rates in many mental illnesses that also have genetic markers, but this alone doesn't prove anything.

If homosexually is developmentally caused, I believe it could be reversed because I believe the brain is plastic forever.

[nacht]

Autism is not a developmental disorder. Development is an important key component, but it is no root cause.

If you want to claim to be a "scientist" it might help if you bothered to actually familiarize yourself with the language that the scientists who study what you are talking about use.

Check the online psychology textbook (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), or the CDC page on the DSM (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Autistic Disorder is 299.0, 299.80 is Asperger's and "Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Including Atypical Autism)," along with Rett's Disorder. 299.10 is Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. This is how developmental disorders are classed, and Autism is consistently classed as a developmental disorder.

There is some debate over whether it is Axis I or Axis II (the original DSM-IV qualified developmental disorders as Axis II, I believe the DSM-IV-TR classes them as Axis I), but there is no debate that autism is a Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

Now, as to your nonsense about "but [development] is no root cause" it shows a base misunderstanding of what the term "developmental disorder" means, since that it is more of a reference to when it shows up then what causes it.

You can also see this article on JAMA (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) titled "Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Preschool Children," who's context states that "Prevalence rates of autism-spectrum disorders are uncertain, and speculation that their incidence is increasing continues to cause concern."

Comparing autism and autism-spectrum disorders with homosexuality is comparing apples and power saws. Very, very different things.


If you believe genetics has a role in personality type than I think you could already come up with one explanation as to why there seems to be a genetic pattern with homosexuals. There is higher than normal homosexuality rates in many mental illnesses that also have genetic markers, but this alone doesn't prove anything.


What is it, exactly, do you think I have tried to prove?

Your other points, e.g., regarding homosexuals and mental illness have already been addressed in this thread and are not in any way topical.


If homosexually is developmentally caused, I believe it could be reversed because I believe the brain is plastic forever.


You believing it doesn't make it so, not to mention that prevailing evidence is that their is an environmental component, along with a genetic component and a womb component.

All available evidence to date shows that you are incorrect (as provided earlier in the thread), and your examples where you have tried to establish your case (e.g., when you claimed that pedophilia was curable) have been demonstrated to be incorrect as far as modern scientific knowledge goes. Do you have any actual evidence whatsoever to back yourself up?

[Vyrokashan]

There is no evolutionary advantage to giving up the ability to procreate.

You can't counter those arguments, but you can just deny they exist like some people here.

Neither can you prove your own words.

I do not counter it; I ask you to quote when I said that there was an evolutionary advantage to giving up the ability to procreate so that I may clarify it. And seeing as how you have failed to provide that meager bit of evidence which supposedly exists within this thread, I have won this portion of the debate. Please don't waste a response without the aforementioned quote. And when you do, be so kind as to send me a notice in a PM. I'm getting tired of reading every one of your evasive arguments. So, adios, for I doubt you will try to back up your claim, which is highlighted in bold.

[firebee]

Yeah, if it is caused by the environment AKA the nurture.

And if it is? Like many things, there are indications that homosexuality is partly genetic and indications that homosexuality is partly environmental. We do not know what causes it, but there is substantial evidence that it can manifest at a young age and is thereafter highly resistant to alteration by any known method.


The varieties of autism with low functioning are believed to be caused be the environment and there is more and more evidence support this belief. The traits aren't simply inherited. Yet, the genetic predisposition influence is the highest of all known disorders. If you would have read some of my other posts you would have learned about the 3 strikes theory of the cause of autism. Genetic precondition, Environmental influence in and out of the womb, and atypical development.


Correct. The fact that a condition is maladaptive does not mean that genetics cannot play a role in its development.

In any event -- and, of course, this seems to be the thread of repeating ourselves -- a condition being the result of environmental influence does not necessarily mean that it can be altered later or, if it can be altered, that doing so will be advantageous.

And because I really love hearing myself talk -- If you believe that sexual orientation is malleable and you lack prejudice against homosexuals, how do you propose that a predominantly straight person stop worrying and learn to love the bi?


Actually I said a couple of times that my emotions influence the way I communicate, but they don't interfere with my logic.


This is hairsplitting. You are reacting emotionally when challenged on your logic.


The dominance can be reversed. A left eye dominate person can convert to being right eye dominant. Google it.


I don't need to. I am a cross-dominant target shooter. People such as myself are overwhelmingly advised to adapt to their condition and learn to shoot longarms on their eye-dominant side or (less preferably) to occlude the vision in their dominant eye so that their non-dominant eye takes over pointing. Attempting to change the pointing eye through force of will and training is not recommended because, among other reasons, the eyes can end up switching back at precisely the wrong moment. Much like homosexuality, actually.

Whether it is impossible or merely extremely difficult for a person with strong ocular dominance to reliably change their pointing eye, it is unquestionable that there are easier ways to address the condition.


Didn't read anything after that line. I am not being prejudice, period.

Your bald assertions hold less than zero weight with me, for reasons that I have already explained.

[rickster]

I would debunk 90% of the at-best fragmented science presented here in view of the overwhelming ethical assumptions many seem to make: that science is right, that science is neutral, and that scientists are not looking to science as an accomplice to support their actual bigotry. I'm not buying into any scientific theories pushed by non-homosexuals, with only their claims of neutrality to support a discipline with a murderous history. On that basis alone, it's only reasonable for all right-thinking people to demand science first disprove its historical bias towards all "undesirable" groups: that is, an assumption of innate inferiority.

Prove neutrality if you can. You cannot . Prove true value and authenticity by truly empirical research. You won't. You are not demanding that homosexual scientists participate in further research, let alone demanding homosexuals have a say in the ethics of same. Slurs along the lines of "the homosexual agenda" only serve to validate suspicion of the unlikelihood of that even being suggested. And you are not even really discussing homosexuality: you are discussing homosexuals.

You would not dare do it to Jews. You would not dare do it to blacks. Do not dare do it to homosexuals.

Try to understand one sociological truth: the day is fast coming when the "science" of homosexuality will become the science of homosexuality, and you'll have to find another group of guinea pigs to "objectively" discuss and experiment with.

[admittedheretic]

If you want to claim to be a "scientist" it might help if you bothered to actually familiarize yourself with the language that the scientists who study what you are talking about use.

Check the online psychology textbook (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), or the CDC page on the DSM (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Autistic Disorder is 299.0, 299.80 is Asperger's and "Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Including Atypical Autism)," along with Rett's Disorder. 299.10 is Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. This is how developmental disorders are classed, and Autism is consistently classed as a developmental disorder.

There is some debate over whether it is Axis I or Axis II (the original DSM-IV qualified developmental disorders as Axis II, I believe the DSM-IV-TR classes them as Axis I), but there is no debate that autism is a Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

Now, as to your nonsense about "but [development] is no root cause" it shows a base misunderstanding of what the term "developmental disorder" means, since that it is more of a reference to when it shows up then what causes it.

You can also see this article on JAMA (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) titled "Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Preschool Children," who's context states that "Prevalence rates of autism-spectrum disorders are uncertain, and speculation that their incidence is increasing continues to cause concern."

Comparing autism and autism-spectrum disorders with homosexuality is comparing apples and power saws. Very, very different things.



What is it, exactly, do you think I have tried to prove?

Your other points, e.g., regarding homosexuals and mental illness have already been addressed in this thread and are not in any way topical.



You believing it doesn't make it so, not to mention that prevailing evidence is that their is an environmental component, along with a genetic component and a womb component.

All available evidence to date shows that you are incorrect (as provided earlier in the thread), and your examples where you have tried to establish your case (e.g., when you claimed that pedophilia was curable) have been demonstrated to be incorrect as far as modern scientific knowledge goes. Do you have any actual evidence whatsoever to back yourself up?

nacht, A developmental disorder happens in the absence of genetic influence. Consider hyperlexia syndrome for example. If a child learns to read too early (around the age of 2 for instants) before they learn to talk, they are subject to having a disorder. Research has that about 90% of autistic populations have digestive problems such as being intolerant of casein (dairy) and gluten (wheat). This means the problems aren't some weird brain abnormalities, but an abnormality of the stomach which in turn effects the brain. With a bad GI tract a person may not respond at all to taking oral vitamins so they need injections into the blood stream to correct the issue. Autism is a condition that requires a certain combination of genetics, environment, and development. What this means is that you could have a child with genetic and environmental autism, but with special envelopment aids they may be able to develop typically. High function autism and other conditions aren't even in the DSM, does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. I know you think you are pretty clever sporting the "field" vocabulary, but my goal in communication is to get a point a crossed with language others understand. I'm extremely well researched in the subject and I can say in complete confidence that autism is not a developmental disorder. It is a condition in which the development is effected, but it is not a cause of any sorts.

In order to understand how the brain works we find ourselves studying how it doesn't work in some instances. Autism has provided great insights into our understanding of the mind and it has bridged gaps between many other conditions. There is a higher than normal population rate of homosexuality and asexuality in autism and many other illnesses. I don't understand why you feel this is apples to oranges. Fetal sex hormones always seem play a role in autism and so does homosexuality. Could you further explain to me why you feel this is irrelevant?

The fact of the matter is there have been pedophiles who have been behaviorally "cured." I never made any statement with respect to the percentages of pedophiles that recover. Once again my belief and I'm not alone; is that the brain is plastic and never permanently hardens. This essentially means anything is possible. There was this young girl who had to have half her brain removed and within 10 days she was walking again. Her right hemisphere started controlling functions that where from her left hemisphere. This directly disproves the idea of localization which is that there are specific areas of the brain that have certain functions. This is important stuff, but it can be explained very simply by how neurons work and I spoke plenty about that in my previous posts.


Neither can you prove your own words.

I do not counter it; I ask you to quote when I said that there was an evolutionary advantage to giving up the ability to procreate so that I may clarify it. And seeing as how you have failed to provide that meager bit of evidence which supposedly exists within this thread, I have won this portion of the debate. Please don't waste a response without the aforementioned quote. And when you do, be so kind as to send me a notice in a PM. I'm getting tired of reading every one of your evasive arguments. So, adios, for I doubt you will try to back up your claim, which is highlighted in bold.

Cya.. You won't be missed..


And if it is? Like many things, there are indications that homosexuality is partly genetic and indications that homosexuality is partly environmental. We do not know what causes it, but there is substantial evidence that it can manifest at a young age and is thereafter highly resistant to alteration by any known method.



Correct. The fact that a condition is maladaptive does not mean that genetics cannot play a role in its development.

In any event -- and, of course, this seems to be the thread of repeating ourselves -- a condition being the result of environmental influence does not necessarily mean that it can be altered later or, if it can be altered, that doing so will be advantageous.

I understand a maladaptive trait can still be passed on like sickle cell anemia, but I thinking giving up the ability to procreate is a little different story. I suppose if we wanted to get picky with words we could say homosexuals can't procreate, but bisexuals can.


And because I really love hearing myself talk -- If you believe that sexual orientation is malleable and you lack prejudice against homosexuals, how do you propose that a predominantly straight person stop worrying and learn to love the bi?


I don't understand what it is you are asking. The way you word the question suggests that being bisexual is desirable and that heteros avoid it because they worry. If what you are asking is the specific details of what therapy would be needed to convert a hetero to bisexual; you can use your imagination of various conditioning techniques.




This is hairsplitting. You are reacting emotionally when challenged on your logic.

/rolls eyes



I don't need to. I am a cross-dominant target shooter. People such as myself are overwhelmingly advised to adapt to their condition and learn to shoot longarms on their eye-dominant side or (less preferably) to occlude the vision in their dominant eye so that their non-dominant eye takes over pointing. Attempting to change the pointing eye through force of will and training is not recommended because, among other reasons, the eyes can end up switching back at precisely the wrong moment. Much like homosexuality, actually.

Whether it is impossible or merely extremely difficult for a person with strong ocular dominance to reliably change their pointing eye, it is unquestionable that there are easier ways to address the condition.

I'm aware there are consequences if the therapy goes wrong. I had looked into it because I'm left eye dominate, but right handed. Some one here made the claim that a person can't switch dominance and I simply debunked that. What is it your attempting to debunk that I said?



Your bald assertions hold less than zero weight with me, for reasons that I have already explained.

Sir, I have made many assertions here. The majority of my assertions are proven scientifically and I'm positive that I introduced some new research. Some of the assertions I made are statistically proven, but some people are skeptical. Some of my assertions have no empirical basis what so ever and I presented that as such. The kicker is there is no empirical basis to disprove my claims either. I realize this doesn't make my argument very strong, but it does mean that it should be consider objectively and just about no one in this thread and showed any interest in it. A good way to never find the truth is to never look for it.

[rickster]

Sir, I have made many assertions here. The majority of my assertions are proven scientifically and I'm positive that I introduced some new research. Some of the assertions I made are statistically proven, but some people are skeptical.

I strongly dispute that. The vast majority of your assertions have been disproven conclusively, despite being given in-good-faith benefit of the doubt, and great latitude into meta-discussion which has been dismissed as irrelevant. Your claim of having "introduced new research" is absolute drivel.

Some of my assertions have no empirical basis what so ever and I presented that as such.

None of your assertions are even remotely scientifically empirical, let alone of any sociological relevance apart from their complete lack of acknowledgment of ethical import or considerations.


The kicker is there is no empirical basis to disprove my claims either. I realize this doesn't make my argument very strong, but it does mean that it should be consider objectively and just about no one in this thread and showed any interest in it.

Wrong. The kicker is that conjecture does not establish validity of argument, or presumption of possible valid outcomes. Nobody is obligated to objectively consider anything of pure conjecture: especially if it has no direct and provable correlation to the central claims being made.


A good way to never find the truth is to never look for it.

Usage of an aphorism does not indicate you are seriously undertaking any investigation of truth whatsoever. You have demonstrated significant inability to arrive at any truth inasmuch as you have consistently relied on the hallmarks of establishing non-truth: imperfect perception, deficient information inarticulately presented, false claims of expertise and deviously denying the possibility of your own error/s.

Again, you are being asked to put up some valid science.

[Beulah]

Is this thread now verging on the comical - or is it just my conjecture. It seems like an unending game of ping pong but its really run its course no?.

I think people can change their orientation!!!!!!!

Whatcha on about Willis.

Well its complicated.

Oh btw - gay people can reproduce silly - I know a few who used surrogates within the lgbt community. Call it self help. There is also turkey basters.

[nacht]

nacht, A developmental disorder happens in the absence of genetic influence.


My definition comes from the DSM and ICD, where does your definition come from?


I'm extremely well researched in the subject and I can say in complete confidence that autism is not a developmental disorder. It is a condition in which the development is effected, but it is not a cause of any sorts.


If you are "extremely well researched," then you should be familiar with the term "Pervasive Developmental Disorders," which include autism.

It doesn't help your credibility as a "scientist" to assert that you are "extremely well researched" and make basic errors of fact.

[Conservationist]

The science has demonstrated that people can learn and unlearn to be homosexual so I always like to remind homosexuals that they can't switch back if therapy.

I don't agree. I think there's two types of homosexuals:

(a) born homosexuals
(b) abuse cases

Category A is about 1% of any population; category B varies in size with the health of the population, and may be up to 15% of the modern West.

[JustMel]

I don't agree. I think there's two types of homosexuals:

(a) born homosexuals
(b) abuse cases

Category A is about 1% of any population; category B varies in size with the health of the population, and may be up to 15% of the modern West.

Links to the information you are pulling these numbers from.

Other researchers (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).
Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

As for the Reparative Therapy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

However, claims by the Family Research Council, Charles Socarides, Joseph Nicolosi, and others of "successful" conversions through reparative therapy are filled with methodological ambiguities and questionable results (for reviews, see Haldeman, 1991, 1994; see also Haldeman's 1999 review paper is available on the web in HTML (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)). They are also ethically suspect. [Bibliographic references (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) are on a different web page]

In many of these behavior-change techniques, "success" has been defined as suppression of homoerotic response or mere display of physiological ability to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Neither outcome is the same as adopting the complex set of attractions and feelings that constitute sexual orientation.



Many interventions aimed at changing sexual orientation have succeeded only in reducing or eliminating homosexual behavior rather than in creating or increasing heterosexual attractions. They have, in effect, deprived individuals of their capacity for sexual response to others. These "therapies" have often exposed their victims to electric shocks or nausea-producing drugs while showing them pictures of same-sex nudes (such techniques appear to be less common today than in the past).



Another problem in many published reports of "successful" conversion therapies is that the participants' initial sexual orientation was never adequately assessed. Many bisexuals have been mislabeled as homosexuals with the consequence that the "successes" reported for the conversions actually have occurred among bisexuals who were highly motivated to adopt a heterosexual behavior pattern.



The extent to which people have actually changed their behavior – even within the confines of these inadequate operational definitions – often has not been systematically assessed. Instead, only self reports of patients or therapists' subjective impressions have been available. More rigorous objective assessments (e.g., behavioral indicators over an extended period of time) have been lacking (Coleman, 1982; Haldeman, 1991, 1994; Martin, 1984).1 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Some psychoanalysts claim to have conducted empirical research demonstrating that their "therapies" are able to change gay people into heterosexuals. Their studies have multiple flaws, including a lack of safeguards against bias and a lack of control groups. Rather than having patients evaluated by an independent third party who is unaware of which patients received the "reparative therapy," these studies are simply compilations of self-reports from psychoanalysts who are attempting to change their patients' sexual orientation (and who are highly motivated to report "success").

[rickster]

I don't agree. I think there's two types of homosexuals:

(a) born homosexuals
(b) abuse cases

Category A is about 1% of any population; category B varies in size with the health of the population, and may be up to 15% of the modern West.

What you think and what is fact are two different things.

I'm not a born homosexual, nor am I an abuse case. You have been proven wrong.

Now state your frame of reference for your crackpot theory.

[admittedheretic]

My definition comes from the DSM and ICD, where does your definition come from?




If you are "extremely well researched," then you should be familiar with the term "Pervasive Developmental Disorders," which include autism.

It doesn't help your credibility as a "scientist" to assert that you are "extremely well researched" and make basic errors of fact.

My definition is what it is. I understand the DSM, ICD, and other manuals define things. Do you deny anything I said? I would hope not and thus I don't understand why you press this issue.

I know all about PDD, but once again PDD is most often probably caused by genetics. Autism itself may be a condition of the stomach and not the mind; at least in certain cases. If you where to define a mental disorder as a difference of the mind then of course Autism is a mental disorder by that definition. That doesn't mean it wasn't CAUSED by the stomach. If you understood the big picture you would realize your just using a pathetic technicality to some how discredit me or my ideas.

I don't agree. I think there's two types of homosexuals:

(a) born homosexuals
(b) abuse cases

Category A is about 1% of any population; category B varies in size with the health of the population, and may be up to 15% of the modern West.

Why don't you agree? Please add some substance.

Born homosexuals to me are transsexuals which is a genetic condition. I'm not limiting transexuality to just the physical body, but I belief it is possible of a female mind to be born in a man's body and vise versa.

The rest of the homosexuals are products of the environment in which genetic conditions may or may not be required to predispose them to it in the first place. Being abused as a child is what I describe as an atypical development. JustMel seems to have thought you meant the abusers are the homosexuals instead of the homosexuals being the abused :/

[rickster]

Born homosexuals to me are transsexuals which is a genetic condition. I'm not limiting transexuality to just the physical body, but I belief it is possible of a female mind to be born in a man's body and vise versa. :/

How did you form that opinion? From a pre-1960 adult pulp novel?

Are you even aware of the vastly different homosexual and transgender psychologys?

Are you aware that homosexuals embrace their own gender in exactly the same way that heterosexuals embrace theirs?

Until you can come up with some scientific facts or pertinent psychology - or respond to the questions reasonably put to you - your convoluted ideas aren't anything which pass for more than crackpot theories.

[Urbicande]

I don't agree. I think there's two types of homosexuals:

(a) born homosexuals
(b) abuse cases

Category A is about 1% of any population; category B varies in size with the health of the population, and may be up to 15% of the modern West.

Only two categories ? to you, we can only be born gay or having been abused ?

Category B varies with the "health" of the population ???? what "health" ? does it increase in sicker population ? what kind of sickness ?

Could you define what kind of homosexuals you put in the (b) category "abuse cases" ? where do your numbers come from ?

From what Rickster said : not born homosexual and not absued ... in which category do you put him ?


How did you form that opinion? From a pre-1960 adult pulp novel?

Are you even aware of the vastly different homosexual and transgender psychologys?

Are you aware that homosexuals embrace their own gender in exactly the same way that heterosexuals embrace theirs?

Until you can come up with some scientific facts or pertinent psychology - or respond to the questions reasonably put to you - your convoluted ideas aren't anything which pass for more than crackpot theories.

I think our "friend" here is a lost case ... don't bother ... :-)

[admittedheretic]

Urbicande, It is not I who is the lost cause.

My argument is simple.

Twin studies of homosexuality rate it at about 50% which means that it isn't explained by genetics. Yet, many people here are claiming it is genetic.

If it was genetic I have a had time believing it wouldn't have been weeded out by natural selection.

I have empirical evidence that it is not genetic, but ya, I'm the crazy one! You people just can't get it through your head that I am merely being objective. I am not anti-human rights or against diversity. I embrace diversity so much that I take any issue anytime diversity is challenged such as it is when one doesn't procreate.

How about we stick to the topic of twin studies for a little bit so it can be forced through some peoples skulls that it isn't a genetic condition.

[nacht]

Urbicande, It is not I who is the lost cause.

My argument is simple.

Twin studies of homosexuality rate it at about 50% which means that it isn't explained by genetics. Yet, many people here are claiming it is genetic.


Actually people are claiming that it is partly genetic, which it is (unless you are claiming that 50% of the population is gay).

In Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation (2001) Hershberger showed a nontrivial genetic influence on homosexuality identity. Meanwhile, Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden found that for men ~0.36 (36%) of the variance was explainable by genetics, with the remainder explainable by individual-specific environment.

No one is claiming otherwise. You as a "scientist" surely should realize that very little in biology is 100% genetic or 100% environmental.

What is being claimed is that it is not entirely or consistently mutable, that it isn't a conscious "choice," etc.


If it was genetic I have a had time believing it wouldn't have been weeded out by natural selection.


I can only conclude that this comes from a poor understanding of natural selection and how homosexuality is treated in various societies.

There have been numerous cultures where homosexuality was widely accepted; but it still was not uncommon for such individuals to produce children (Ancient Egypt, Greece). In societies where it is shunned we see, again, that many such individuals would still produce children. They may or may not breed less often, but there's nothing precluding the possibility of them having children.

Further, you are completely ignoring firebee's point: that some recessive traits give certain advantages, but when combined cause problems. In the case of the sickle-cell gene a single gene has a survival value, but two can lead to death.

There is also that most traits are not strictly mendelian in nature. Current evidence suggests that homosexuality involves multiple genetic factors rather than just one or two.

Finally, assuming that there is some secondary set of traits that "activate" the homosexuality tendencies (such as stress on the mother, overpopulation, etc) then the genes to produce homosexual behavior could be widespread as a social survival mechanism.



I have empirical evidence that it is not genetic, but ya, I'm the crazy one!


Actually you have somewhat questionable empirical evidence that it has genetic and non-genetic components, which most anyone in this thread could have told you early on.



You people just can't get it through your head that I am merely being objective.


You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.



I am not anti-human rights or against diversity. I embrace diversity so much that I take any issue anytime diversity is challenged such as it is when one doesn't procreate.


Your logic train just derailed. Failure to procreate equals challenging diversity?


How about we stick to the topic of twin studies for a little bit so it can be forced through some peoples skulls that it isn't a genetic condition.

If it isn't a genetic (or, more properly, prenatal) condition, I would expect for monozygotic twins to show no more chance of sharing homosexual tendencies than any two random people in the population.

If I grab one person who is homosexual, the odds that I grab a person at random who is also homosexual once I have controlled for environmental factors is very, very low. It certainly is less than "about 50%."

Thus we can conclude that there are nontrivial prenatal and potentially genetic causes to homosexuality.

[JustMel]

Urbicande, It is not I who is the lost cause.

My argument is simple.

Twin studies of homosexuality rate it at about 50% which means that it isn't explained by genetics. Yet, many people here are claiming it is genetic.

If it was genetic I have a had time believing it wouldn't have been weeded out by natural selection.

I have empirical evidence that it is not genetic, but ya, I'm the crazy one! You people just can't get it through your head that I am merely being objective. I am not anti-human rights or against diversity. I embrace diversity so much that I take any issue anytime diversity is challenged such as it is when one doesn't procreate.

How about we stick to the topic of twin studies for a little bit so it can be forced through some peoples skulls that it isn't a genetic condition.

How about you actually post the links to the twin studies and make sure they're from reputable sources and not another crackpot theorist and someone might take you seriously. If you are merely going to continue to spout the useless drivel you have up to this point everyone has the right to discredit YOUR opinions as they have yet to be backed up with verifiable FACTS. Several of us have posted information from credible sources that shatters your opinions and you have not countered with anything other than mere opinion. We can't change your opinion and don't care to try. Our point is that you can't start a debate with an opinion and claim it is based on scientific fact and not provide the studies themselves.

I suspect you'll simply dismiss this with another of your tired "you're being emotional and I'm so above that" comments. You will never garner the respect you so obviously are seeking here if you continue trying to argue a point without valid, verifiable scientific facts. So either your intent is to cause as much drama and a flame war until someone boots you or you really don't get that none of us care one whit about your opinion without the relevant data to back it up. Did you even read the guide (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

DON’T express an opinion to us unless you are prepared to back it up with sound arguments and well pedigreed facts and evidence. Otherwise do not be surprised when we logically shred your opinion for you and hand it back to you in tatters.


DON’T be repetitive. We have absolutely no patience for that. There’s no need to cover old ground, and we heard you the first time, unless we were zoning out. And if we were zoning out it’s probably because you started repeating yourself.


We get particularly annoyed by attacks on our intelligence, competence, and integrity.

[admittedheretic]

Actually people are claiming that it is partly genetic, which it is (unless you are claiming that 50% of the population is gay).

Your constant bombardments of the obvious are insulting to me, but I do I have a defect at communication so I hope it is just a misunderstanding. I realize this will seem like I am belittling, but please don't take anything personal. I will be bolding the obvious and key points that I view differently. I know people are claiming it, but the issue is they are not proving it. I'm baffled how you thought I I was intending to convey that I believe 50% of the population is gay. I don't follow your logic what so ever.

In Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Orientation (2001) Hershberger showed a nontrivial genetic influence on homosexuality identity. Meanwhile, Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden found that for men ~0.36 (36%) of the variance was explainable by genetics, with the remainder explainable by individual-specific environment.



If it was explained by genetics might I ask how? Your inferencing something from the research that it dos not prove, but it does suggest an influence.


No one is claiming otherwise. You as a "scientist" surely should realize that very little in biology is 100% genetic or 100% environmental.


Have you been reading what I have been saying about Autism? This is very insulting.


What is being claimed is that it is not entirely or consistently mutable, that it isn't a conscious "choice," etc.


Maybe a better word than conscious would be free will.

I have not disputed that. My personal opinion (can't prove this, but nobody can prove otherwise) is that there are cases of both. I don't think anyone makes a conscious choice of sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what happens in the subconscious mind.


I can only conclude that this comes from a poor understanding of natural selection and how homosexuality is treated in various societies.

There have been numerous cultures where homosexuality was widely accepted; but it still was not uncommon for such individuals to produce children (Ancient Egypt, Greece). In societies where it is shunned we see, again, that many such individuals would still produce children. They may or may not breed less often, but there's nothing precluding the possibility of them having children.

Further, you are completely ignoring firebee's point: that some recessive traits give certain advantages, but when combined cause problems. In the case of the sickle-cell gene a single gene has a survival value, but two can lead to death.


Thank you captain obvious. I didn't ignore firebee's point. It really wasn't used to make any point, but it is a factual concept. You must realize you are playing the devil's advocate here, not me. You act like I was claiming that it without a doubt can't be genetic because natural selection would have eliminated it. I only said it suggests that it wouldn't be genetic and no rational person can deny that.

There is also that most traits are not strictly mendelian in nature. Current evidence suggests that homosexuality involves multiple genetic factors rather than just one or two.


There are NO genes identified with causality of homosexuality. Although if it where, it probably would be more than one gene. What is your point?


Finally, assuming that there is some secondary set of traits that "activate" the homosexuality tendencies (such as stress on the mother, overpopulation, etc) then the genes to produce homosexual behavior could be widespread as a social survival mechanism.


Stress on the mother is a result of environment. Overpopulation is the environment although I can't even fathom of how you think the genetics would be aware of the environment. What you are saying is that you think there are genetics that someone alter other genetics? That doesn't make any sense. What does make sense is that the environment effects our genetics. I can't believe you think my ideas are bogus when you come up with stuff like this.



Actually you have somewhat questionable empirical evidence that it has genetic and non-genetic components, which most anyone in this thread could have told you early on.


Empty claims. I'm not going to play the your wrong, no you are game. Add some substance to what you have to say next time.



You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.


What objectivity means to me is that I want to understand something how it happens without outside influence. Many people here say we shouldn't even study these things because they feel the results could lead to inhumane treatment of homosexuals. They even go as far to duping people with false proof to prevent any chance of harm. I understand there should and needs to be ethics involved with such matters with regards to society and politics, but not science! A clear example of this is the poster Nemesis in this thread. I agree with the majority of the things he says, but we have different conclusion. He admitted his conclusions are out of bias and thus not objective.



Your logic train just derailed. Failure to procreate equals challenging diversity?


Reread the sentence a couple of times if you need to. It makes sense.



If it isn't a genetic (or, more properly, prenatal) condition, I would expect for monozygotic twins to show no more chance of sharing homosexual tendencies than any two random people in the population.


Why do you lump together genetics and prenatal conditions like they are the same thing? That is a huge flaw in your thinking! Prenatal conditions are influenced by genetics AND the environment.

Identical twins share the same womb, duh! You can't control for genetics and environment in these studies. This isn't rocket science.


If I grab one person who is homosexual, the odds that I grab a person at random who is also homosexual once I have controlled for environmental factors is very, very low. It certainly is less than "about 50%."


It is highly improbably and nearly impossible for anyone to properly control environmental factors. Food effects our sex hormones here and now, but food also effects our DNA. What your grand parents eat could just be effecting you now. This is what the field of epigenics has revealed and it really is an entirely new way of looking at our environment

Here is a great video that explains it pretty straight forward.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Thus we can conclude that there are nontrivial prenatal and potentially genetic causes to homosexuality.

Or are there conditions that happen as a result of only genetics or only environment or a mix of the two? I put my faith in all three, but my antagonists flat out deny there could be a case solely caused by the environment. Do you deny this?

JustMel - You already proved you don't understand the simple mechanics of this issue so you can not deter me the slightest. If you really wanted to understand this stuff you would be googling it yourself. Comprehend that previous sentence in reverse order and it should dawn upon you that you don't really want to understand this issue.

[rickster]

Urbicande, It is not I who is the lost cause.

The overwhelming rate at which your claims are being dismissed indicates that this further claim is delusion on your part.

My argument is simple.
Twin studies of homosexuality rate it at about 50% which means that it isn't explained by genetics. Yet, many people here are claiming it is genetic.

Your argument isn't simple: it's simplistic and inherently deceitful. More-empirical twin studies evidence a plethora of habits, tendencies and behaviors which refute exclusively environmental impact. You have ignored the big picture of twin studies and instead suggest there are studies which support your biased viewpoint.

If it was genetic I have a had time believing it wouldn't have been weeded out by natural selection.

Again, that's just conjecture - firebee and nacht have both offered intelligent assertions which indicate a more plausible viewpoint. Inflammatory language like "weeded out" indicates you are looking to science as an accomplice to support your bigoted views.

I have empirical evidence that it is not genetic, but ya, I'm the crazy one! You people just can't get it through your head that I am merely being objective. I am not anti-human rights or against diversity. I embrace diversity so much that I take any issue anytime diversity is challenged such as it is when one doesn't procreate.

That's an out-and-out crock of shit. You have no empirical evidence of anything. No genetic studies supporting your ridiculous claim exist. There is significant though inconclusive evidence that homosexuality may indeed have genetic origins. Have you ever even heard of the x-Chromosome?

How about we stick to the topic of twin studies for a little bit so it can be forced through some peoples skulls that it isn't a genetic condition.

How about you put up or shut up? You have been repeatedly given the benefit of overwhelming doubt by superior thinkers and scientists. There's little likelihood that abusing reasonable debaters and nay-sayers as "thick-sculled" is the position of anybody but a crackpot wishing to shout people down with more non-science. Just accept that your basic premise is unprovable, and shows all indications of being completely wrong.

I suspect you'll simply dismiss this with another of your tired "you're being emotional and I'm so above that" comments. You will never garner the respect you so obviously are seeking here if you continue trying to argue a point without valid, verifiable scientific facts. So either your intent is to cause as much drama and a flame war until someone boots you or you really don't get that none of us care one whit about your opinion without the relevant data to back it up. Did you even read the guide (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

Crackpots in the "science" of homosexuality invariably claim their objectivity becomes default by any and all arguments they target as "emotional". Bunko "scientists of homosexuality" usually arm themselves with meta-argument which alleges that women and homosexuals think emotionally and therefore non-objectively - probably hampered by the smaller hypothalamus theory. And of course are therefore disqualified from the discussion.

Even the most conservative and empirical thinkers tend to agree that the "science" of homosexuality is tainted by researchers' bias (subconscious and otherwise) , poor random homo- and heterosexual study samples and too-small overall studies. Research is clouded by the nature / nurture debate since the sciences of social construction and biology are at loggerheads, with neither conclusively proving overall authority nor overall validity of their many theories. It's a goldmine for the zealots and nutcases who can usually fly under the radar: be they educationally-impaired or something a little more sinister.

Within the voluminous though highly contestable bulk of the "science", it has to assumed that many will resort to inflammatory attacks and statements to simply draw attention to their shabby theories which would otherwise go entirely unnoticed.

[nacht]

Your constant bombardments of the obvious are insulting to me, but I do I have a defect at communication so I hope it is just a misunderstanding. I realize this will seem like I am belittling, but please don't take anything personal. I will be bolding the obvious and key points that I view differently. I know people are claiming it, but the issue is they are not proving it. I'm baffled how you thought I I was intending to convey that I believe 50% of the population is gay. I don't follow your logic what so ever.


Simply put:

If there is zero genetic component then I would expect monozygotic twins to have the same distribution of gay tendencies as dizygotic twins, if there are no prenatal and no genetic factors, I would expect monozygotic twins to have the same distribution as the population once other variables are controlled for.

Since you seem to have trouble with English, let's use mathematics. Since you claim to be a scientist, you should have no trouble with this.

If no genetics are involved then:
P(IH) = P(H|MZH) = P(H)

Which is to say that the probability that the individual (who has a monozygotic homosexual twin) is homosexual is equal to the probability that any individual is homosexual given that they have a monozygotic twin who is homosexual. If there are no genetic or prenatal factors (handwaving slightly since you have provided actually methodologies with which to evaluate your studies with, if I knew the monozygotic vs dizygotic twin rates we could go in a little more depth here), then I would expect the above to be basically true: that the probability that an individual with a monozygotic twin is gay is equal to the probability that a random person in society is gay.

P(H) does not equal 50%, because 50% of the population is not gay.

Therefore from your own study we should suspect that something more is going on and that genetics/prenatal conditions are playing at least some nontrivial role. This was further confirmed by the Swedish study that I cited above, which indicated a fairly significant percent of the variance was attributable to genetic factors.


Have you been reading what I have been saying about Autism? This is very insulting.


Exactly how would you consider it insulting to make a factual statement that very little is 100% genetic or environmental.

Autism-spectrum disorders have a large genetic component, as do straight mendelian characteristics, but that isn't true of--say--Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD (what will break one person will barely phase another), etc.

Let's take, as an example, Schizophrenia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which is listed as having a "strong genetic component." If your identical twin has it, there is a 48% chance you will develop it. If your fraternal twin has it, there is a 17% chance you will develop it.

48%, less than half, if your identical twin has it.

It clearly has a strong genetic component, but there is more to it than that.




Thank you captain obvious. I didn't ignore firebee's point. It really wasn't used to make any point, but it is a factual concept. You must realize you are playing the devil's advocate here, not me.


Do you understand what a "Devil's Advocate" is? I assure you I am not playing one.


I only said it suggests that it wouldn't be genetic and no rational person can deny that.


Your assertions that "no rational person can deny that" are getting tiring, given the research that has been posted is actually against you.


There are NO genes identified with causality of homosexuality. Although if it where, it probably would be more than one gene. What is your point?


A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

Xq28, 8p12, 7q36, 10q26.



Stress on the mother is a result of environment. Overpopulation is the environment although I can't even fathom of how you think the genetics would be aware of the environment. What you are saying is that you think there are genetics that someone alter other genetics?


People's response to the environment is not necessarily strictly a product of the environment.


Empty claims. I'm not going to play the your wrong, no you are game. Add some substance to what you have to say next time.


Your reading comprehension is startlingly bad. I'm assuming English is not your first language?

Until you provide actual studies with actual citations and methodologies, you are going to continue to be providing "questionable empirical evidence." So long as your numbers are "around 50%" and not "around 1%" there is going to be evidence of a genetic link.



Why do you lump together genetics and prenatal conditions like they are the same thing? That is a huge flaw in your thinking! Prenatal conditions are influenced by genetics AND the environment.

Identical twins share the same womb, duh! You can't control for genetics and environment in these studies. This isn't rocket science.


It is not a flaw in my thinking, it is a function of your not providing methodologies since it won't allow us to compare identical twins and fraternal twins, along with your own reading comprehension since I make that distinction rather clearly.

It isn't rocket science, it is biostatistics.


It is highly improbably and nearly impossible for anyone to properly control environmental factors.


You can control for the major variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, religious upbringing), and make certain assumptions about the distribution of the other errors, and then check to see if the errors in your model are normally distributed. This is a fairly standard approach to the problem.

[Nemesis]

I understand there should and needs to be ethics involved with such matters with regards to society and politics, but not science! A clear example of this is the poster Nemesis in this thread. I agree with the majority of the things he says, but we have different conclusion. He admitted his conclusions are out of bias and thus not objective.


I thank you for acknowledging that we share a common ground. However, my conclusions are two-fold. My initial points were dealing with criticizing the underlying mechanisms behind your initial claims (plasticity, hormones etc.). Again, I made it a salient point to avoid any moral or ethical condemnations or judgments. If you got this impression from those specific posts dealing with plasticity etc., I apologize, but that was not my intent at all. I was simply providing sources that call the neural mechanisms of your claim into question.

However, I did indeed make a statement of an ethical stance later on. My position in terms of ethics is in regards to prescriptive science. To understand through science is one thing, to derive imperatives is another. I base my ethical position on numerous (and very scary) cases where attempts to alter orientations have had truly horrifying results for the people involved. I do not consider my ethics as a bias, but rather an ethical position backed by numerous examples of failed attempts to alter orientation. If these views were unfounded, than they would be inherently biased. However, they do have a real underpinning. In regards to your stance on ethics here, I am simply curious as to how you arrived at your position in spite of numerous failed attempts to alter orientation.

For the record, I do not condemn your views on this topic. I think you have a very healthy curiosity in the topic. The only point of contention I have with you rests in the mechanics that you claim underlie fluidity in orientation. Yes, I have a stance regarding the ethics on the topic that I will not apologize for. Even if I were to reject any ethical stance in my own research, I am still bound by national ethics boards who do hold such positions (even in regards to the rats I work with). Also, the fact that I declare a solid ethical stance does not mean I am accusing you of being "too objective".

I am happy to see that you are dropping the antagonistic tone of your more recent posts, and I hope to continue this discussion. However, I will not continue this discussion if personal criticisms continue.

[admittedheretic]

Simply put:

If there is zero genetic component then I would expect monozygotic twins to have the same distribution of gay tendencies as dizygotic twins, if there are no prenatal and no genetic factors, I would expect monozygotic twins to have the same distribution as the population once other variables are controlled for.

Since you seem to have trouble with English, let's use mathematics. Since you claim to be a scientist, you should have no trouble with this.

If no genetics are involved then:
P(IH) = P(H|MZH) = P(H)

Which is to say that the probability that the individual (who has a monozygotic homosexual twin) is homosexual is equal to the probability that any individual is homosexual given that they have a monozygotic twin who is homosexual. If there are no genetic or prenatal factors (handwaving slightly since you have provided actually methodologies with which to evaluate your studies with, if I knew the monozygotic vs dizygotic twin rates we could go in a little more depth here), then I would expect the above to be basically true: that the probability that an individual with a monozygotic twin is gay is equal to the probability that a random person in society is gay.

P(H) does not equal 50%, because 50% of the population is not gay.

Therefore from your own study we should suspect that something more is going on and that genetics/prenatal conditions are playing at least some nontrivial role. This was further confirmed by the Swedish study that I cited above, which indicated a fairly significant percent of the variance was attributable to genetic factors.

You explained how twin studies work very nicely, but you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Math minor by the way.

Going to have to refer to my previous post again.




Why do you lump together genetics and prenatal conditions like they are the same thing? That is a huge flaw in your thinking! Prenatal conditions are influenced by genetics AND the environment.

Identical twins share the same womb, duh! You can't control for genetics and environment in these studies. This isn't rocket science.






Exactly how would you consider it insulting to make a factual statement that very little is 100% genetic or environmental.

Autism-spectrum disorders have a large genetic component, as do straight mendelian characteristics, but that isn't true of--say--Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD (what will break one person will barely phase another), etc.

Let's take, as an example, Schizophrenia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which is listed as having a "strong genetic component." If your identical twin has it, there is a 48% chance you will develop it. If your fraternal twin has it, there is a 17% chance you will develop it.

48%, less than half, if your identical twin has it.

It clearly has a strong genetic component, but there is more to it than that.


It is insulting because if you had read my posts in this thread you would already know that I understand all of this. It is actually the area of focus I am most studied in.

Schizophrenia and autism have a developmental component. Again if you would read my posts I am actually very well worded. I use the term genetic disposition to describe a genetic component that actually has causal influences.

You understand how personality disorders are not genetic, but are a lot like their genetic disposition cousins. The question is, is there a homosexuality personality disorder and a genetically predisposition one? I'm arguing that there are both and I'm also open to a developmental component.





Do you understand what a "Devil's Advocate" is? I assure you I am not playing one.


You stated that simply to make a counter argument.

By the same token I could say cancer is an evolutionary advantage because it controls population.

You seem very intelligent and the fact that you would say this really puzzles me. That is why I feel you where being a devil's advocate. You stated that simply to make a counter argument.



Your assertions that "no rational person can deny that" are getting tiring, given the research that has been posted is actually against you.

So you are denying that giving up the ability or desire to reproduce is an evolution disadvantage?

...



A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):

Xq28, 8p12, 7q36, 10q26.


I'm sure that is very meaningful information, but is no proof of cause. In fact the article seems to support the idea that homosexuality may be caused by epigenetically which is the environments influence on genetics.


People's response to the environment is not necessarily strictly a product of the environment.


:blank:


Your reading comprehension is startlingly bad. I'm assuming English is not your first language?


I have always tested above average in my verbal ability and yes English is my first language. My pragmatics and semantics are differently, but I've found intelligent people have little to no trouble deciphering. My reading comprehension was maxed out on my ACT even while speed reading. You couldn't be more wrong. I understand you have to insult my communication style because you can't even keep up with my abstraction to insult it.


Until you provide actual studies with actual citations and methodologies, you are going to continue to be providing "questionable empirical evidence." So long as your numbers are "around 50%" and not "around 1%" there is going to be evidence of a genetic link.


Again I feel stupid saying this, but IDENTICAL TWINS SHARE THE SAME WOMB! And I'm not against the idea of it being genetic, but I need some proof first.




It is not a flaw in my thinking, it is a function of your not providing methodologies since it won't allow us to compare identical twins and fraternal twins, along with your own reading comprehension since I make that distinction rather clearly.

It isn't rocket science, it is biostatistics.


You've quoted me a couple of times now and replied with context that has no relation to what I said. You, like many others here, just have a thousand different ways of saying "you are wrong, but I can't explain why; I'm just arrogant."



You can control for the major variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, religious upbringing), and make certain assumptions about the distribution of the other errors, and then check to see if the errors in your model are normally distributed. This is a fairly standard approach to the problem.

I said it is impossible to control for everything.

You say: It is possible to control for some things. (Like I'm oblivious to this, you sir crack me up.)





admittedheretic added to this post, 21 minutes and 21 seconds later...

I thank you for acknowledging that we share a common ground. However, my conclusions are two-fold. My initial points were dealing with criticizing the underlying mechanisms behind your initial claims (plasticity, hormones etc.). Again, I made it a salient point to avoid any moral or ethical condemnations or judgments. If you got this impression from those specific posts dealing with plasticity etc., I apologize, but that was not my intent at all. I was simply providing sources that call the neural mechanisms of your claim into question.

You did not display any bias what so ever from my perspective while discussing plasticity and even if you would have, no apology needed.

However, I did indeed make a statement of an ethical stance later on. My position in terms of ethics is in regards to prescriptive science. To understand through science is one thing, to derive imperatives is another. I base my ethical position on numerous (and very scary) cases where attempts to alter orientations have had truly horrifying results for the people involved. I do not consider my ethics as a bias, but rather an ethical position backed by numerous examples of failed attempts to alter orientation. If these views were unfounded, than they would be inherently biased. However, they do have a real underpinning. In regards to your stance on ethics here, I am simply curious as to how you arrived at your position in spite of numerous failed attempts to alter orientation.


Here we agree to disagree. People assume my viewpoint has no apathy because it doesn't when I am in science mode. As a person I do understand apathy and I really do respect your view. The world needs people like both of us however. People like you to have a great understanding of knowledge and to put it toward good use. Then mad scientist people like me who strive to make the next fundamental breakthrough and sometimes we succeed simply because no body else looks where we do.


For the record, I do not condemn your views on this topic. I think you have a very healthy curiosity in the topic. The only point of contention I have with you rests in the mechanics that you claim underlie fluidity in orientation. Yes, I have a stance regarding the ethics on the topic that I will not apologize for. Even if I were to reject any ethical stance in my own research, I am still bound by national ethics boards who do hold such positions (even in regards to the rats I work with). Also, the fact that I declare a solid ethical stance does not mean I am accusing you of being "too objective".

I am happy to see that you are dropping the antagonistic tone of your more recent posts, and I hope to continue this discussion. However, I will not continue this discussion if personal criticisms continue.

I was very much under the impression that you had condemned my views and I'm glad that was a misunderstanding. You did accuse me of being too objective which I hate being accused of. I know there are others here who share your point of view, but they don't have the integrity to express it. I applaud you for that.

Are you so blind to the fact that I am constantly a victim of personal criticism in this thread? Just because people put it elegantly shouldn't make it any more right or wrong than when I do it. I posted plenty of factual science only to have others accuse it of being pseudo science. And these people ironically accuse me of having a comprehension issue. The only time people seem to add any substance is when they have perceived the opposite of what I had said. Do you understand what I'm getting it? It is very frustrating and this is an area I'm trying to improve upon. I have chosen to ignore people which saddens me as I never wish to be ignored. If they want to engage with me they can stick to specifics because otherwise I'm not playing their ego games.

[rickster]

Are you so blind to the fact that I am constantly a victim of personal criticism in this thread?

Please. Nobody is personally attacking you. Your views on homosexuals and your "science of homosexuality" lack credibility, but nevertheless exhibit the stench of questionable ethics. Your statements are criticized based on their content which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Your bias has been amply established, as has your willingness to subtly abuse all who have refuted you and your credibility.


Just because people put it elegantly shouldn't make it any more right or wrong than when I do it. I posted plenty of factual science only to have others accuse it of being pseudo science. And these people ironically accuse me of having a comprehension issue.

Scientific discussion requires a standard of articulacy which you lack. You have a comprehension issue only inasmuch as you demonstrate a consistent and willful desire to not address the many holes in your theories. You are unable to present them within an appropriate framework. Your poor presentation doesn't imply a lack of underpinning ignorance, nor should anybody be expected to assume it.

The only time people seem to add any substance is when they have perceived the opposite of what I had said. Do you understand what I'm getting it? It is very frustrating and this is an area I'm trying to improve upon.

The fact that you cannot communicate "what you really mean" is your problem. You are discussing a subject of which you have little real knowledge, and which you refuse to postulate within an ethical framework. Your play-science is reprehensible inasmuch as you are offering up one crackpot theory after another with an expectation of being taken seriously by virtue of your lack of real knowledge.

You have initiated this debate and assumed "better" understanding is due to you for the reason your intellectual shortcomings are the product of others' incorrect perceptions.

I have chosen to ignore people which saddens me as I never wish to be ignored. If they want to engage with me they can stick to specifics because otherwise I'm not playing their ego games.

You aren't in any position to condescend to anyone: you should be saddened by your choice to ignore people because it's just another one of the many devious devices you have used to dodge any real accountability for your shabby "science".

You have chosen to ignore people who have called you on your rubbish, and demanded that you stick to specifics and establish some credibility. Whether or not you wish to be ignored - and you quite obviously don't - further supports ample evidence of ego games outweighing your actual contributions.

[TravelnTrain]

I found this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in Wikipedia very helpful.

[Bre]

While being mammals, we deffinately have our differences than animals in many vast ways. Love is scientifically proven, unlike other species the male does not have a bone in the penis so love starts in the limbic system and brain. Sex can play a huge role in this world of attraction. All theses studies for homosexuality using those infected with the HIV virus is not fair game or accurate study.Yes I will get scorned by some for this, but unnatural.The more I learn I see alternative lifestyles to be some small predispositions and mainly societal or environmental pressures. *shrugs*

[Firebrand]

I read something in a medical journal from a major hospital/medical collage where they had proven that the neural pathways in the brain in homosexual are extremely similar to that of a drug addict, or IE - chemical addiction.

[nacht]

I read something in a medical journal from a major hospital/medical collage where they had proven that the neural pathways in the brain in homosexual are extremely similar to that of a drug addict, or IE - chemical addiction.

Unless you provide citations, this statement has zero value.

[paleoeco]

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Authors: Andrea Camperio-Ciani, Francesca Corna, and Claudio Capiluppi

Abstract:

The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.

Link to full article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Bre]

proven that the neural pathways in the brain in homosexual are extremely similar to that of a drug addict, or IE - chemical addiction. I've read things like that before, it's not much of a suprise.

[Firebrand]

Unless you provide citations, this statement has zero value.

Typical of you. In physical copy of Albany Medical Center newsletter, dated Oct 30, 2007 : "Fourth Annual Program Seeks Greater Understanding of Addiction"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[nacht]

Typical of you. In physical copy of Albany Medical Center newsletter, dated Oct 30, 2007 : "Fourth Annual Program Seeks Greater Understanding of Addiction"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Try again, that link provides no information whatsoever on the topic beyond saying that one of the topics will be "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender addiction," which is not the same thing.

[paleoeco]

I read something in a medical journal from a major hospital/medical collage where they had proven that the neural pathways in the brain in homosexual are extremely similar to that of a drug addict, or IE - chemical addiction.

Typical of you. In physical copy of Albany Medical Center newsletter, dated Oct 30, 2007 : "Fourth Annual Program Seeks Greater Understanding of Addiction"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sheesh...talk about twisting something to support your belief.

1) This is a press release about an conference on addiction. This is not in a medical journal, and there is no scientific research being discussed in the article/press release.

2) The only mention of gay/lesbian people in the press release is "Topics presented at this year's conference will include geriatric addiction; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender addiction; smoking as a prelude to developing other addictions; addiction medications; language and treatment associated with addiction treatment; and the neuroscience of addiction, among others."

Now, since you obviously read into this something that isn't there, let me explain it. As part of this conference on addiction, there will be a topic about addiction among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

There is nothing in the press release that equates homosexual behavior with chemical addiction.

[restlessjeff]

hmmmm on my right hand, my ring finger is longer. Not sure what that indicates. Please do NOT confuse being HOMOSEXUAL with LIVING A HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE. They are 2 different things. I believe human beings are born Homosexual or Bisexual or Heterosexual. There is no "choice" involved in this orientation. Your LIFESTYLE is how you act upon your orientation. One can be true to themselves or choose to deny their true feelings. I believe that a true Homosexual Male can live a "Heterosexual lifestyle." i.e. be married to a woman and not have sex with men, but , underneath, he is still attracted to men and not women. I am afraid that most heterosexuals do not undestand that Gay is not something you DO, it is something you ARE. I can chose to "behave" any way that I want, but, at my core, I can never be attracted to women. I believe, as did Kindsey, that the great majority of human beings are Bisexual and this clouds the issue even further.....................

[admittedheretic]

Homosexuals can be addicted to just about anything, just like everyone else. This includes being addicted to sexual behaviors. There is a higher population of addicts amongst homosexuals than of heteros, but this doesn't mean there is a biological component. Addiction (dopamine imbalance) could be a possible influence on the cause of homosexuality, but it could also just be a behavior further down stream.

Let us learn about what this dopamine stuff is about..everyone knows it acts as our reward system, but how does it influence our behavior?

Dopamine is an important neuromodulator in animals and its roles in mammalian sexual behavior are extensively studied. Drosophila as a useful model system is widely used in many fields of biological studies. It has been reported that dopamine reduction can affect female receptivity in Drosophila and leave male-female courtship behavior unaffected. Here, we used genetic and pharmacological approaches to decrease the dopamine level in dopaminergic cells in Drosophila, and investigated the consequence of this manipulation on male homosexual courtship behavior. We find that reduction of dopamine level can induce Drosophila male-male courtship behavior, and that this behavior is mainly due to the increased male attractiveness or decreased aversiveness towards other males, but not to their enhanced propensity to court other males. Chemical signal input probably plays a crucial role in the male-male courtship induced by the courtees with reduction of dopamine. Our finding provides insight into the relationship between the dopamine reduction and male-male courtship behavior, and hints dopamine level is important for controlling Drosophila courtship behavior.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Firebrand9 didn't properly support his argument, but I was amused at how quickly he was burnt at the stake. The majority of scientific evidence at least strongly suggest homosexuality is not a genetic condition. I still think much is to be learned by arguing against this, but let us not forget who's side of the court the ball is in.

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Authors: Andrea Camperio-Ciani, Francesca Corna, and Claudio Capiluppi

Abstract:

The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.

Link to full article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

This is because the amount of sexual hormones reduces from the first-born and onward. First-borns have been correlated with higher testosterone as well as the higher non-verbal IQ and autism. A physical marker of ones female:male hormones is the ratio between ones index:ring finger. During the first trimester female hormones make the index finger grow on the right hand while, male hormones make the ring finger grow. When studies have been regarding homosexuality they found homosexuals with all varieties of finger ratios. This doesn't mean testosterone isn't a major component of homosexuality, but it does suggest that it isn't a cause of homosexuality.

[paleoeco]

Homosexuals can be addicted to just about anything, just like everyone else. This includes being addicted to sexual behaviors. There is a higher population of addicts amongst homosexuals than of heteros, but this doesn't mean there is a biological component. Addiction (dopamine imbalance) could be a possible influence on the cause of homosexuality, but it could also just be a behavior further down stream.

Let us learn about what this dopamine stuff is about..everyone knows it acts as our reward system, but how does it influence our behavior?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Firebrand9 didn't properly support his argument, but I was amused at how quickly he was burnt at the stake. The majority of scientific evidence at least strongly suggest homosexuality is not a genetic condition. I still think much is to be learned by arguing against this, but let us not forget who's side of the court the ball is in.

Here you go again confusing cause and effect. Just like you did with the mental illness issue. Because of negative societal attitudes towards gays and lesbians, they tend to have a higher incidence of mental health issues (this has been covered in many posts prior to this one). Here you do the same thing. Just because there may be addictions in the gay/lesbian population, it does not mean that the "addiction" is the cause. In reading the link presented by Firebrand, there was not a single shred of scientific evidence to support his claim, yet you think we incorrectly shot his argument down. In fact, Firebrand's argument wasn't even supported by the link he provided.



This is because the amount of sexual hormones reduces from the first-born and onward. First-borns have been correlated with higher testosterone as well as the higher non-verbal IQ and autism. A physical marker of ones female:male hormones is the ratio between ones index:ring finger. During the first trimester female hormones make the index finger grow on the right hand while, male hormones make the ring finger grow. When studies have been regarding homosexuality they found homosexuals with all varieties of finger ratios. This doesn't mean testosterone isn't a major component of homosexuality, but it does suggest that it isn't a cause of homosexuality.

Again, you make a claim (that homosexuality is a learned behavior and people are not "born" homosexual), and then when we present a scientific refutation, you claim you didn't say that.

The point of the article is that there is clear genetic and pre-natal actions at work which determine homosexuality in humans, in direct contradiction to your claims that it's a learned behavior and can be changed.

Furthermore, the article you present deals with fruit flies (I'm going to ignore the laughable irony of that particular animal model choice). When it comes to issues of sexual orientation and identity (which, by the way, fruit flies haven't been shown to have either), I'm not sure how the fruit fly can be an accurate model. What the article does say is that by changing dopamine levels they can change behavior. But, as other posters have noted: behavior, orientation, and identity are all very different.

And one last thought: just because we can change the sexual behavior of a fruit fly by changing dopamine levels does not indicate a that domapine levels are the cause of the behaviors.

[nacht]

The majority of scientific evidence at least strongly suggest homosexuality is not a genetic condition.


This is getting to the point of ridiculousness.

From this thread:

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "the prevalence of homosexuals in the maternal line, suggesting possible genetic factors in the X-chromosome."

A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "This study reports results from the first full genome scan for male sexual orientation."

Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "...the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior"

Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum): "Familial factors, which are at least partly genetic, influence sexual orientation."

Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "Linkage between the Xq28 markers and sexual orientation was detected for the gay male families."

Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): "Our findings support a role for the X chromosome in regulating sexual orientation in a subgroup of gay men."

New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual orientation in men: female fecundity increase in the maternal line. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. anel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum): "...thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males."

The majority of scientific evidence strongly demonstrates a genetic component, albeit non-Mendelian in nature.

[admittedheretic]

Here you go again confusing cause and effect. Just like you did with the mental illness issue. Because of negative societal attitudes towards gays and lesbians, they tend to have a higher incidence of mental health issues (this has been covered in many posts prior to this one). Here you do the same thing. Just because there may be addictions in the gay/lesbian population, it does not mean that the "addiction" is the cause. In reading the link presented by Firebrand, there was not a single shred of scientific evidence to support his claim, yet you think we incorrectly shot his argument down. In fact, Firebrand's argument wasn't even supported by the link he provided.

I'm not mixing up any cause and effect sir. When I say addiction, I don't necessarily mean illegal addiction or even an unhealthy addiction. I never said this "addiction" is a cause of any sorts and actually I hinted against that notion. You haven't provided any links proving your argument in that post and did you not read that I acknowledged he didn't support his argument?




Again, you make a claim (that homosexuality is a learned behavior and people are not "born" homosexual), and then when we present a scientific refutation, you claim you didn't say that.


That is a dramatic oversimplification of what I have been saying and is a twisted representation of what I do claim.


The point of the article is that there is clear genetic and pre-natal actions at work which determine homosexuality in humans, in direct contradiction to your claims that it's a learned behavior and can be changed.


There is no proof of genetic causation.


Furthermore, the article you present deals with fruit flies (I'm going to ignore the laughable irony of that particular animal model choice). When it comes to issues of sexual orientation and identity (which, by the way, fruit flies haven't been shown to have either), I'm not sure how the fruit fly can be an accurate model. What the article does say is that by changing dopamine levels they can change behavior. But, as other posters have noted: behavior, orientation, and identity are all very different.

And one last thought: just because we can change the sexual behavior of a fruit fly by changing dopamine levels does not indicate a that domapine levels are the cause of the behaviors.

Personifying a fruit life of course leads to conflicting models between insect and human behavior. Again, nobody claimed they caused anything.





admittedheretic added to this post, 4 minutes and 11 seconds later...


The majority of scientific evidence strongly demonstrates a genetic component, albeit non-Mendelian in nature.

Genetics influences behavior and predispose to developmental differences.

It isn't genetics, it is epigenetics.

[ATCGs]

Epigenetics refers to heritable, but non sequenced-based traits. It does not refer to traits that are heritable in a non-mendelian pattern.

It is possible that homosexuality relies on epigenetic modifications - in fact, it wouldn't surprise me, however, as nacht points out, there is substantial evidence that homosexuality has roots in genetic causes.

[JustMel]

JustMel - You already proved you don't understand the simple mechanics of this issue so you can not deter me the slightest. If you really wanted to understand this stuff you would be googling it yourself. Comprehend that previous sentence in reverse order and it should dawn upon you that you don't really want to understand this issue.

I understand the subject a lot more than you do at this point. You make a claim and have yet to post the relevant links to credible science to back them up. It is you who doesn't understand how to debate on this forum.

My intent is not to deter you. I could careless if you continue to beat your head into the brick walls myself and other members are throwing up in front of your illogical, emotional arguments. In fact I'm enjoying this carnival sideshow.

The actual "issue" is that you have stated opinions and then expect others to find YOUR data on their own when it is your responsibility to provide that data---from credible sources--- to prove your opinions are fact and not just opinions.

I don't think you came here to learn anything or to teach anyone anything. I suspect you're simply here to build strawmen and cause drama because all you seem capable of doing at this point is constructing said strawmen and trying to back them up with personal attacks that do NOT attack the actual science the rest of us have provided but instead the "emotions" you presume are behind the postings.

[admittedheretic]

Epigenetics refers to heritable, but non sequenced-based traits. It does not refer to traits that are heritable in a non-mendelian pattern.

It is possible that homosexuality relies on epigenetic modifications - in fact, it wouldn't surprise me, however, as nacht points out, there is substantial evidence that homosexuality has roots in genetic causes.

The twin studies research flat out disproves genetic cause.

[ATCGs]

Actually, as nacht pointed out... many posts ago, it really doesn't.

Though I understand why it is easier for you to claim it does.

[admittedheretic]

Actually, it does. A twin study for homosexuality is no different than a test for any other condition. The 50% correlation might possibly be explained entirely by environmental factors since the twins share the same womb. I don't think that would be the case as there are some genetic dispositions that influence our behavior.

[rickster]

The twin studies research flat out disproves genetic cause.

Actually, it does. A twin study for homosexuality is no different than a test for any other condition. The 50% correlation might possibly be explained entirely by environmental factors since the twins share the same womb. I don't think that would be the case as there are some genetic dispositions that influence our behavior.

When are you going to give up with that crap?

There are no empirical twin studies which disprove genetic cause. There is no empirical science of homosexuality which indicates anything apart from what has clearly been established: both genetic and environmental causes are a probability.

Recycling the same rubbish won't make it come true - especially when it's already been satisfactorily refuted. Repeating the same unsubstantiated drivel is unlikely to change the lack of credibility you've already established. Your conjecture is bordering on the obsessive....with absolutely nothing at all to support it.

[admittedheretic]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[JustMel]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I skimmed some of your "science" and none of the groups studied numbered more than 100 people. Several were from groups less than 50. All were adults. There was no following from birth or early childhood through puberty or adulthood. For this to be acceptable there would have to be a larger pool of subjects to study from birth/early childhood to determine when they actually started to feel attraction and if they were attracted to their own sex or both sexes, etc.

If they pulled their subjects from an area that is more heavily saturated with homosexual/gay people then they'd have higher rates of homosexuality. Whereas had they pulled subjects from an area that is primarily heterosexual it could swing the other way.

For anyone here to accept your twin studies they will have to do better than what I've seen.

Furthermore, simply posting a link to a google search is NOT defending your position. Your job is to post links to relevant facts in the individual links that support your position.

[admittedheretic]

Post some links that you feel backup your argument and I'll point out a bunch of possible short comings. You don't think people conducting these studies know these things? Anyway, the same conclusion would be drawn if the percentage turned out to be 20% as well as 70% so that should cover the error rate. If it was purely genetic the numbers would be higher (100% if all genes found) like conditions where we have actually found the associated genes.

This isn't some huge misconception like you make it out to be. It however does seem to be a problem for those who can only think linearly.

I found a youtube video that expresses the same thing I am trying to convey.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Comments on the video?

[JustMel]

Post some links that you feel backup your argument and I'll point out a bunch of possible short comings. You don't think people conducting these studies know these things? Anyway, the same conclusion would be drawn if the percentage turned out to be 20% as well as 70% so that should cover the error rate. If it was purely genetic the numbers would be higher (100% if all genes found) like conditions where we have actually found the associated genes.

This isn't some huge misconception like you make it out to be. It however does seem to be a problem for those who can only think linearly.

I found a youtube video that expresses the same thing I am trying to convey.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Comments on the video?

I posted links to my relevant data several pages back. You chose to ignore it then. You can go back through all this drivel and find them yourself and try to pick them apart.

[admittedheretic]

I didn't ignore the links you posted. There was nothing in them that proves anything I say untrue.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Genes and Sexual Orientation

The evidence suggests that genetic influence plays a role (Whitam & others, 1993).

One research team studied the twin brothers of homosexual men. Among their identical twin brothers, 52 percent were homosexual, as were 22 percent of fraternal twin brothers (Bailey & Pillard, 1991, 1995).

In a follow-up study of homosexual women, a similar 48 percent of their identical twins were homosexual, as were 16 percent of their fraternal twins (Bailey & others, 1993).

With half the identical twin pairs differing, we know that genes aren't the whole story. Moreover, a new study using a diverse sample of Australian twins found somewhat lower rates of sexual similarity--although, again, identical twins were more likely than fraternal twins to share homosexual feelings (Bailey & others, 1997).

Seems it was creditable enough to post in a link YOU posted..

[JustMel]

I didn't ignore the links you posted. There was nothing in them that proves anything I say untrue.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Seems it was creditable enough to post in a link YOU posted..

Not the whole story is far different than not genetic at all. Furthermore, if it's that common in identical twins---twins that share the same womb--- then that speaks to genetics far more than environmental or prenatal.

[admittedheretic]

Not the whole story is far different than not genetic at all.




You are being misled by the simplified language used in the media you are reading. This tends to be common so that is why my understanding is based from the source of the information.

Anything that is behavior can be influenced by genetics. Genetics influences our personality, but it does not cause it. The kicker is that our genes don't code for individual behaviors, but they do influence them.

What is the biologically root cause? Sexual hormone theories in prenatal environments are the best theories we have, but it ultimately fails to address all homosexuals.

I've never denied that there is no genetic or biological component, but you treat me like such!


Furthermore, if it's that common in identical twins---twins that share the same womb--- then that speaks to genetics far more than environmental or prenatal.

We went over this a dozen times, but once again.. In genetic conditions like say Down's syndrome, when one identical twin has it, so does the other one hundred percent of the time. Therefore if homosexuality was CAUSED by genetics the test would have theoretically been 100% and not 50%. This suggests at most the genetic component is 50%, but it is likely to be lower because the twins shared a womb. Diet amongst other things effects sexual hormones in a person so it seems possible and probable that some of that 50% chunk could be attributed to that alone.

This is what happens in autism. Genetics don't CAUSE autism, but they do allow one to be vulnerable to it.

[JustMel]

This is what happens in autism. Genetics don't CAUSE autism, but they do allow one to be vulnerable to it.

A vast proportion of autism is misdiagnosed but autism is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is there is no proof that homosexuality is environmental or caused by diet. Stop downing and trying to change something just because it makes you uncomfortable. You're uncomfortable with homosexuality--as proven by your own posts in this thread--- so you want to find a reason to say it's reversible. It is not a condition that can be treated. It is a fact of who you are just like your eye color. You're born gay, bi or heterosexual. It's hardwired as proven by the scans of the brains on homosexuals vs. heterosexuals.

Intelligence is not genetic either or otherwise intelligent people wouldn't reproduce idiots, it is hardwired from birth though. You're either intelligent or you're not. The level of intelligence can be influenced by environmental sources after birth. You're either gay, bi or heterosexual or you're not. You're either male or you're not. You're either female or you're not. There are rare instances of someone being born genetically male with female sex organs and vice versa but the numbers are minute. Instances of homosexuality are not measurable as minute.

[Firebrand]

Sheesh...talk about twisting something to support your belief.

1) This is a press release about an conference on addiction. This is not in a medical journal, and there is no scientific research being discussed in the article/press release.

2) The only mention of gay/lesbian people in the press release is "Topics presented at this year's conference will include geriatric addiction; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender addiction; smoking as a prelude to developing other addictions; addiction medications; language and treatment associated with addiction treatment; and the neuroscience of addiction, among others."

Now, since you obviously read into this something that isn't there, let me explain it. As part of this conference on addiction, there will be a topic about addiction among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

There is nothing in the press release that equates homosexual behavior with chemical addiction.

Then why would they mention it?

[nacht]

Then why would they mention it?

...because in a conference on addiction, it wouldn't be overly unusual to talk about addiction of specific subgroups.

[Firebrand]

This is getting to the point of ridiculousness.
The majority of scientific evidence strongly demonstrates a genetic component, albeit non-Mendelian in nature.

The scientific evidence you provide. You realize, of course, that due to the non-politically correct nature of trying to prove this any direction (that being genetic, environmental, upbringing, outer space, whatever), will always be subject to people's hesitation in taking a strong stance in said direction. This is why all the links you provide don't back you properly. Can you come to any conclusions of your own without needing an army of links behind it?





Firebrand9 added to this post, 17 minutes and 56 seconds later...

Evidence :
(Disclaimer : Noone is going to straight-out admit the slant of my argument).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Key factors in the development of homosexuals were "paternal attachment, introversion, and neurotic characteristics."[39] Other researchers have also provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men.[40] Whether this phenomenon is a cause of homosexuality, or whether parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child, is unclear.[41][42] However, most people believe nature and nurture both play complex roles in the development of homosexuality.[43]"

So arguements regarding genetics have some backing. The traits described above environmentally typically lead to all manner of psychological disorders including borderline personality and codependence, both of which have aspects of addictive behavior (push-pull relationships).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"However, there is data underscoring the view that some types of homosexuality are the result of problems in psychological development. Even though homosexuals may have differing backgrounds, many also have similar trends and patterns in their histories. For example in Singapore, of my homosexually oriented clients in 1991, 83% of the men and almost 70% of the women reported being victims of sexual abuse or molest, before the age of 12. Additionally, well over 90% reported the sense of being neglected or unloved in childhood especially by the parent of the same sex. 40% reported physical abuse."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Teicher’s study confirms that environmental factors change the physical characteristics of the brain. On the other hand, physical changes to the brain have lasting effects. Homosexuality is similar to an addiction. However, rarely does a homosexual choose that lifestyle."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Another factor in suicide attempts is the compulsive or addictive element in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989), with addiction itself leading to feelings of depression because the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some (as many as 50% of young homosexual men today), who take no precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) who have considerable addictive problems"

Perhaps a better way to phrase my argument would be to say that homosexuality and some psychological disorder's causes environmentally are often the same, and have some parallels to addiction and the psychology of addiction.

[nacht]

The scientific evidence you provide. You realize, of course, that due to the non-politically correct nature of trying to prove this any direction (that being genetic, environmental, upbringing, outer space, whatever), will always be subject to people's hesitation in taking a strong stance in said direction. This is why all the links you provide don't back you properly. Can you come to any conclusions of your own without needing an army of links behind it?


Are you insulting me for actually providing evidence when you can't provide any and using facts and research to come to my conclusions?


Evidence :


This should be entertaining.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Key factors in the development of homosexuals were "paternal attachment, introversion, and neurotic characteristics."[39] Other researchers have also provided evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than non-gay men.[40] Whether this phenomenon is a cause of homosexuality, or whether parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child, is unclear.[41][42] However, most people believe nature and nurture both play complex roles in the development of homosexuality.[43]"


Did you really just cite a wiki to me as a valid piece of evidence?

Actually, no, you selectively quoted a wiki to me as a valid piece of evidence.

From the exact same section of the same wiki:

"The current medical view of sexual orientation is that in combination with genetic and hormonal influences, it is determined in part by environmental influences[37]."


So arguements regarding genetics have some backing. The traits described above environmentally typically lead to all manner of psychological disorders including borderline personality and codependence, both of which have aspects of addictive behavior (push-pull relationships).


There is no particular mystery in that homosexuals show a higher incidence of mental disorders than the general population, as has been explained in some painstaking detail earlier in the thread (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I am glad that the wiki led you to conclude that the "arguements [sic] regarding genetics have some backing," which matches what I have been repeatedly saying throughout this thread.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hint: A random professor's home webpage, especially when that professor is in the department of mathematics and computer science, isn't exactly a great reference. The article was written by a "Sinclair Rogers" of whom there is very little information out there about beyond this article, no references on pubmed that I can find, and also starts out with "For over a decade I have worked in the specialized and somewhat controversial field of helping those desiring to overcome the control of homosexuality."

See previous posts for problems with reparative therapies and for why this might not precisely be a reliable source.


"However, there is data underscoring the view that some types of homosexuality are the result of problems in psychological development. Even though homosexuals may have differing backgrounds, many also have similar trends and patterns in their histories. For example in Singapore, of my homosexually oriented clients in 1991, 83% of the men and almost 70% of the women reported being victims of sexual abuse or molest, before the age of 12. Additionally, well over 90% reported the sense of being neglected or unloved in childhood especially by the parent of the same sex. 40% reported physical abuse."


Selection bias is a frightening thing. Let's instead look at the much more reliable statements of the American Psychiatric Association, who are privy to a great deal more data than "of my homosexuality oriented clients" in Singapore: "Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Another hint: Angelfire websites are not good for finding information that you use to convince others.

It is also from NARTH (see above about reparative therapies), which while such doesn't immediately disqualify it, should add a healthy layer of suspicion.


"Teicher’s study confirms that environmental factors change the physical characteristics of the brain. On the other hand, physical changes to the brain have lasting effects. Homosexuality is similar to an addiction. However, rarely does a homosexual choose that lifestyle."


This article is committing a serious correlation-is-not-causation fallacy with Teicher's work. Abuse causes variations in the hypothalamus, as does sexual orientation, that doesn't mean they are linked.

The assertion that "Homosexuality is similar to an addiction" appears to be completely unsubstantiated in the article.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Another NARTH article? Seriously?


"Another factor in suicide attempts is the compulsive or addictive element in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989), with addiction itself leading to feelings of depression because the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some (as many as 50% of young homosexual men today), who take no precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) who have considerable addictive problems"


As indicated several times before: Considering the heteronormative assumptions and pressures of society, it is not particularly surprising that homosexuals suffer higher incidences of addiction and certain mental illnesses, including but not limited to depression.



Perhaps a better way to phrase my argument would be to say that homosexuality and some psychological disorder's causes environmentally are often the same, and have some parallels to addiction and the psychology of addiction.

This assertion isn't even substantiated by your own links.



Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

[admittedheretic]

A vast proportion of autism is misdiagnosed but autism is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is there is no proof that homosexuality is environmental or caused by diet. Stop downing and trying to change something just because it makes you uncomfortable. You're uncomfortable with homosexuality--as proven by your own posts in this thread--- so you want to find a reason to say it's reversible. It is not a condition that can be treated. It is a fact of who you are just like your eye color. You're born gay, bi or heterosexual. It's hardwired as proven by the scans of the brains on homosexuals vs. heterosexuals.

Autism is indeed a giant umbrella diagnosis.

There is proof.

Diet and enviousness effect sexual hormone levels. This is common sense.

And sexual hormone levels influence homosexuality.

Again, it is not genetic as proven by the twin studies research. You are so arrogant to deny this.


Intelligence is not genetic either or otherwise intelligent people wouldn't reproduce idiots, it is hardwired from birth though. You're either intelligent or you're not. The level of intelligence can be influenced by environmental sources after birth. You're either gay, bi or heterosexual or you're not. You're either male or you're not. You're either female or you're not[. There are rare instances of someone being born genetically male with female sex organs and vice versa but the numbers are minute. Instances of homosexuality are not measurable as minute.

Intelligence is genetically influenced. This is commonly held knowledge so I'll ask you to provide a link proving otherwise.

Then why do so people ever change?

I should remind everyone that you admitted to not understanding the majority of stuff discussed here so could you please stop repeating it is not genetic without citations.

[rickster]

I should remind everyone that you admitted to not understanding the majority of stuff discussed here so could you please stop repeating it is not genetic without citations.

No. Everyone here should remind you that the burden of proof is on you to clearly prove and cite your crackpot theories. You have made one unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim after another, and it's a joke to turn around and expect anybody to give any more citations than they already have.

Your conjecture and claims have thus far been thoroughly debunked - not misunderstood.

[Urbicande]

You are being misled by the simplified language used in the media you are reading. This tends to be common so that is why my understanding is based from the source of the information.

Look who is talking... you are googling keywords and posting links to youtube videos ... You are calling "that" real non-biased information, the source of information ?????

Please tell me you do that on purpose !! this would at least be reassuring ...

Everybody is trying to draw 100% sure conclusions from statistical studies. This is ridiculous.



Firebrand9 added to this post, 17 minutes and 56 seconds later...

Evidence :
(Disclaimer : Noone is going to straight-out admit the slant of my argument).


Thanks very much to Nacht for having responded to such citations.
Nothing to add. Please use your mind and critics when citing sources.

In any scientif study, you must be able to easily find the "Who, What, When, How, Why, Were" ...
If one of this question misses an answer or has a debattable answer, there is generally no use in citing, you will be attacked on the missing element. It is worth doing your homework upstream before citing.


and have some parallels to addiction and the psychology of addiction.

Yes, indeed, homosexuality is an addiction ... as much as heterosexuals are addicted to women... this is ridiculous.



And sexual hormone levels influence homosexuality.


Please where does that come from again ????
From your common sense as well ?

Beware of common sense. Remember that 80% people are stupid or illiterate or read people magazines, so don't ask them for common sense. (the figure of 80% is based on my own statistical study of course ;-) ).

Again : "Who, what, when, where, how, and why"

I am a patent attorney, and when examiners try to use common sense or widely accepted knowledge, we always as them to provide support for such a widely accepted knowledge ...

"Common sense" should be banned from any discussion.

Please do the same here.




I should remind everyone that you admitted to not understanding the majority of stuff discussed here so could you please stop repeating it is not genetic without citations.


We should also remind you that you acknowledged having "only" a BSc ... which is, if I am correct with the US system, the first steps of scientific studies ... so I guess there are several people objectively more qualified than you.

So please, stop posing as a Science Prima Donna and infering that nobody understands because they don't agree with you ... since you have done barely anything but trying to have "arguments form Authority" while neither you nor your citations have authority.

As said Rickster ... You are the claimant, you have to prove.

But I would add that before proving something, you should first have a point to prove ... and as the thread goes further, I am not sure you have one.

[admittedheretic]

Look who is talking... you are googling keywords and posting links to youtube videos ... You are calling "that" real non-biased information, the source of information ?????
Please tell me you do that on purpose !! this would at least be reassuring ...


Empty statements as usual... what did I post was biased and how was it biased? Please add some substance with your accusations.


Everybody is trying to draw 100% sure conclusions from statistical studies. This is ridiculous.


That is not what is happening. I believe my opponents truly believe that their point has been proved while I argue my belief hasn't been proved, but hasn't been disproved either. I've posted undisputed evidence to the rational that homosexuality is not caused by genetics. Even if it where genetic it would also have to be environmentally caused and the people who oppose me don't even want to discuss this. Many of them argue the biology of sexual hormones in the prenatal environment like it disproves my ideas when actually it strengthens them.



Yes, indeed, homosexuality is an addiction ... as much as heterosexuals are addicted to women... this is ridiculous.

Maybe next time you could quote more than a third of a sentence because I'm not even sure what I'm replying to.

The facts.

There are higher rates of addiction in homosexual populations. Yes some of might be a result of culture, but there is more to it than that.

Did you see the research I posted about dopamine?

There is a link between homosexuality and addiction. You just are just under the false notion that it insinuates a bunch of things it does not.







We should also remind you that you acknowledged having "only" a BSc ... which is, if I am correct with the US system, the first steps of scientific studies ... so I guess there are several people objectively more qualified than you.

The qualified people have the same understanding I do and that is that nobody understands. Nothing I have said is the crack pot idea some make it out to be. It is far from a stretch by any means.


So please, stop posing as a Science Prima Donna and infering that nobody understands because they don't agree with you ... since you have done barely anything but trying to have "arguments form Authority" while neither you nor your citations have authority.


I don't post something If I don't understand it. If nobody can understand it then I don't think their argument holds as much water as mine. Some people here are arguing against how twin studies work and it is just arrogance. There is no cited research information in this thread that I have discredited or ignored in my logic.

Would you care to actually explain what it is about my ideas that you disagree with? Something with some details rather than just another witty, but generic poke at my intelligence post.


As said Rickster ... You are the claimant, you have to prove.

But I would add that before proving something, you should first have a point to prove ... and as the thread goes further, I am not sure you have one.

I have no point to prove. I'm curious objectively.

[Urbicande]

Empty statements as usual... what did I post was biased and how was it biased? Please add some substance with your accusations.

I was just mocking to the fact that you blame people for reading simplified language used in the media and you claim relying on the sources then you cite google links and youtube video. Please.

Actually, it shows that despite the repetive requests to provide links for the twins studies, you did not have the source and had to provide a bunch of results from google.

I've posted undisputed evidence to the rational that homosexuality is not caused by genetics.

Actually, I think the purpose of many reactions here is to dispute these "evidence" ... just have to read.


Even if it where genetic it would also have to be environmentally caused ...

I agree with you on that. Even if it has genetics factors, I also believe it sure has environmental factors.
And actually, none of the cited documents or studies allow for people to rule out one cause or another.
However, discussing the ratio of environmental factors over genetic factors is impossible.


Maybe next time you could quote more than a third of a sentence because I'm not even sure what I'm replying to.

Actually, my mistake. Wrong, copy/paste : it was a quote from a post of Firebrand9. Top of the page.
I apologize.


Did you see the research I posted about dopamine?

Yes I did, and share the response of Paleoco. Except, I have to acknowledge that in your post you covered for Addiction being a behavior further down stream.

I take good notice that you didn't react on my rambling about "who, what ..." ... I guess you agree ... so then ?


The qualified people have the same understanding I do

Let's have fun ... : Where does such an assertion come from ? yourself ? source ?
Who are the qualified people ?

and that is that nobody understands.

Tell me why we would just believe that the qualified people have the same understanding because you say so, and a lot of people cite documents showing that several qualified people disagree ...


Some people here are arguing against how twin studies work and it is just arrogance.

It is no arrogance at all. It is paramount, because the conclusions depends on how such a study work. Population measured, parameters tested, cross checking, ... jumping and repeat the conclusions without being critical is useless.

[paleoeco]

Practitioners Should Avoid Telling Clients They Can Change from Gay to Straight

The American Psychological Association adopted a resolution Wednesday stating that mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.

The "Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts" also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and instead seek psychotherapy, social support and educational services "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."

The approval, by APA's governing Council of Representatives, came at APA's annual convention, during which a task force presented a report that in part examined the efficacy of so-called "reparative therapy," or sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).

Go to the full press release here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) or to the full report here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[rickster]

Practitioners Should Avoid Telling Clients They Can Change from Gay to Straight

Now that's some impressive science: it certainly puts things into perspective and by virtue of its comprehensiveness it eliminates a vast majority of the crackpottery often advanced as "science" - a good deal of which has been advanced here. It's no surprise that it has been adopted inasmuch as it meets best-practices benchmarks, and calls for more of same.

My prediction is that it's a more important advance than is apparent. Psychologists have been hampered by a lack of ethical standards in overall treatment of homosexuality, and open to influences which have impacted on their ability to provide effective treatment. Psychology is at the front line of homosexual treatment in practice, and this will definitely draw the line in the sand by defining what psychological approaches constitute flawed treatment "options".

Apart from hopefully providing effective mental health treatment and therapy for homosexuals, it should also answer many questions for parents. Hopefully parents do check diplomas on walls before they allow treatment for their children, and hopefully they're aware of what professional standards a practitioner must adhere to. Hopefully they will disallow "help" from many organizations - especially religious - who are unwilling to meet the now-clarified standards of appropriate therapy and counseling.

[Firebrand]

Are you insulting me for actually providing evidence when you can't provide any and using facts and research to come to my conclusions?


I find it amusing that you correlate larger organizations with "more accurate".

[Prunesquallor]

I find it amusing that you correlate larger organizations with "more accurate".

It's called "information literacy."
Knowing good sources from bad.
Helpful.
Sadly, also a rare quality.

[admittedheretic]

A truly competent person analyzes the information for what it is and not where it came from.

[Prunesquallor]

A truly competent person analyzes the information for what it is and not where it came from.

Only if they're stupid.
Since, you know, misinformation exists.
The source and its biases and/or incompetence is therefore useful information in analysing a claim.

[nacht]

I find it amusing that you correlate larger organizations with "more accurate".

Not especially, as even a cursory reading of my other posts will indicate, but I do consider the APA more trustworthy--and their grounds of evidence more solid--than NARTH, and consider the APA substantially more trustworthy than random links to angelfire websites.

Especially when it's statements are corroborated by study after study after study, conducted by widely disparate groups all over the globe.

A truly competent person analyzes the information for what it is and not where it came from.

A truly competent person understands both the source and content of the information are important, as are the number of people who review it who have a specialization other than your own.

A peer reviewed journal automatically ranks higher in a trust than a website posting, the reasons for this should be obvious. Similarly, if NARTH chooses to publish in academically well respected journals I'll be happy to examine their methodology. Random website postings by people affiliated with them and who have no scientific record beyond their posts with NARTH, on the other hand, do not cut it. The APA's analysis and conclusions of the evidence however, given that they are the body that sets the standards for the practice of psychology in the US, carries somewhat more weight.

This, of course, goes double if we can't see the methodology, since without the methodology it makes it exceedingly difficult to critique results one way or the other.

[Prunesquallor]

What is more dangerious than misinformation is you allow your personal bais to cloud real information.

Hence, being alert for the biases of one's sources so one doesn't get warped info and take it as real.

[admittedheretic]

Digit ratio (2D : 4D) moderates the impact of sexual cues on men's decisions in ultimatum games

Three experimental studies demonstrate that ‘sex-related cues’ impact human decision-making in ultimatum games. In the ultimatum game, two individuals divide a sum of money. The proposer offers a portion of the money to the other player, the responder. If the responder accepts the offer, the money is distributed in agreement with the proposer's offer. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player receives anything. Our studies show that exposure to pictures of sexy women or lingerie increases the likelihood of accepting unfair offers. Digit ratios of responders are reliably associated with their behaviour: males with lower digit ratios are more likely to reject an unfair split in neutral contexts, but more likely to accept unfair offers in sex-related contexts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Synamon]

Did you post this in the wrong thread? It's a study on heterosexual male students. What does that have to do with homosexuality?

[admittedheretic]

Did you post this in the wrong thread? It's a study on heterosexual male students. What does that have to do with homosexuality?

There have been people here who are denying that the digit ratio means anything at all.

Some deny that it could have any influence on homosexual behavior what so ever which I must assume you do.

If you are willing to admit that testosterone has an influence on homosexuality (pre or post natal) than you are implicitly saying that the digit ratio has an influence on sexuality.

That link is some evidence of how the 2D:4D influences our cognitive functions with respect to sexuality and decision making. I guess I don't understand why you feel this has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Maybe you could elaborate.

[nacht]

There have been people here who are denying that the digit ratio means anything at all.

Name one.

Nemesis's comment (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on it was that "The digit theory you are pointing out is actually called the 2d:4d digit ratio and it is reasonably well supported." This is the opposite of what you claim, that there are people here claiming that it doesn't mean anything at all.

Vyrokashan said (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) "There is a very loose correlation between homosexuality and digit ratio. It just is not reliable enough to predict someone's sexuality." Which is not denying that "digit ratio means anything at all," it is a statement of fact that it doesn't correlate strongly enough to be a universal predictor.

That's been the whole sum of the comments on digit ratio in this thread.

[Synamon]

That link is some evidence of how the 2D:4D influences our cognitive functions with respect to sexuality and decision making. I guess I don't understand why you feel this has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Maybe you could elaborate.

The study implies that men exposed to lower testosterone make better decisions, right? If we carry that further, the weak correlation of digit ratio and exposure to lower testosterone in homosexual men would mean they make better decisions. Ergo the decision to be gay is a good one.* Was that the point you wanted to make? Weren't you advocating therapy to change their sexual orientation earlier in the thread? Doesn't this contradict your stance?

Or did you just want to link an irrelevant study on your pet theory of digit ratios as a red herring (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?



*(yes, I'm aware that this giant leap of reasoning is a fallacy and only presented it as an example of why we can't credibly draw conclusions from unrelated studies)

[admittedheretic]

Name one.

Nemesis's comment (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on it was that "The digit theory you are pointing out is actually called the 2d:4d digit ratio and it is reasonably well supported." This is the opposite of what you claim, that there are people here claiming that it doesn't mean anything at all.

Vyrokashan said (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) "There is a very loose correlation between homosexuality and digit ratio. It just is not reliable enough to predict someone's sexuality." Which is not denying that "digit ratio means anything at all," it is a statement of fact that it doesn't correlate strongly enough to be a universal predictor.

That's been the whole sum of the comments on digit ratio in this thread.

My very first post acknowledged what Vyrokashan had said. I am actually not trying to prove that the digit ratio is a predictor for homosexuality, but rather suggesting that sexual hormones are not the cause of homosexuality, but do indeed influence it.

The study implies that men exposed to lower testosterone make better decisions, right? If we carry that further, the weak correlation of digit ratio and exposure to lower testosterone in homosexual men would mean they make better decisions. Ergo the decision to be gay is a good one.* Was that the point you wanted to make? Weren't you advocating therapy to change their sexual orientation earlier in the thread? Doesn't this contradict your stance?

Or did you just want to link an irrelevant study on your pet theory of digit ratios as a red herring (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

There are homosexuals with high levels of testosterone. I said that in my first post. I am not advocating anytherapy, but only suggesting that it is possible.

There is a higher prevalence of sexual orientation deviance in autism which is usually the case in individuals with high testosterone. There is also a higher prevalence in conditions with lower testosterone like schizophrenia and bipolar.

Genetics influences homosexuality, but does not cause it.
Pre-Natal environment influences homosexuality, but it does not cause it.
Post natal hormones influences homosexuality, but does not cause.
Dopamine influences homosexuality, but does not cause it.
Psychotherapy dose not universally reverse homosexuality.

My position is that there may be many different causes of particular cases that would result in one becoming homosexual rather than just one universal cause. Some particular causes might be the result of sexual abuse during development which is completely different than "born gay."