Homosexuality will die in 20 years

[Evalis]

Either that, or it it indeed a choice of people to be homosexual and has nothing to do with being 'born with it'.

The thesis is a result of observation of the past 20 years of homosexuality increasing rather than decreasing. One would normally expect that once out of the closet, men and women alike would stop having sexual encounters with the opposite sex that found themselves to be gay. Yet the numbers increase.. one then might assume that this is due to respondants to the government survey on their homosexuality being increasing more truthful as acceptance of their sexuality is demonstrated.. Currently there are laws stating that you cannot descriminate employment based on sexuality. This is in essence the breaking point.

Which we have now come to... so.. first off, since homosexuality is supposed to occur at the time one becomes sexually aware we should have much more respondants indicating that it occurs during this time frame.. This is atypical of course (and unsurprising to my thesis). Furthermore while my personal experience is not all-encompassing, I have noticed that all of the gay people I know happen to come from wealthy families.. which is exactly the way it occured in roman times as well. (The rich people could afford to experiment).

Now.. in the next 20 years.. if homosexuality DOES indeed remove itself from the earth due to this lack of a new generation, then my thesis is wrong. Though I highly expect the reverse, thus demonstrating that this is nothing more than a choice.

The clock is ticking.

[ya lyublyu tebya]

Homosexuality will die in 20 years

Now.. in the next 20 years.. if homosexuality DOES indeed remove itself from the earth due to this lack of a new generation, then my thesis is wrong.

...What? You just contradicted yourself.

[Amphorian]

Do you mean the population of homo sapiens is increasing while homosexuality is becoming more accepted, so more homosexuals are coming out of the closet? And if so how could the population increase if there is less interaction in the hertrosexual realm?

Well, lets not forget bisexuality is on the rise too (coming out and being reported), and a certain amount of the populace is naturally homosexual (around 4% indicated by studies). U.S. Cenus reported 1.5% of the population is reported as purely homosexual here in America, while advocating groups cite the number around 10%. The Cenus believes that 10% may indicate homosexual like encounters (experimenting or bisexuality/pansexuality), but not the actual population. More neutrul sources believe homosexuality is 3-5% of the population.

So obviously more people aren't becoming homosexual, just merely coming out of the closet. However, that number is still small percentage wise. The numbers aren't likely to grow, only the experimenting and bisexual/pansexual numbers.

Not to mention, the greatest population growth isn't in America, but countries like China and India (which house about 2/3 of the human populace). Also, some higher advanced countries have reported such a decrease in births, that the populace pyramid for their country has been flipped upside down. (More older then younger) However, these populace numbers in such countries aren't produced because homosexuality appears to be on the rise, it's because more young people choose to have children later in life or not at all.

So no, homosexuality isn't going go away in 20 years. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind.

[jcb]

you are wrong - we are actually all going to be homosexual in five years.

all of us. and its all because of queer eye for the straight guy.

[Zsych]

Homosexuality even exists in animals where nothing is likely to force the homosexual animals to breed. Also, considering the sheer number of sexual fetishes people can and do develop (clown fetish???), I'd say its very unlikely that homosexuality is going to automatically disappear. The gigantic mess that is the human mind can decide to feel emotions in any number of situations, often for no easily recognizable reason. (Like some people being permanently afraid of driving again after an accident - not a brilliant reaction to the situation - it just does what it does)

[Mikk]

I don't know what to feel about this post. Should I get angry or laugh my brains out?

[Apathy]

Assume that homosexuality is partly genetic, with alot of genes responsible.

What if certain genes that cause homosexuality in excess also give people other evolutionary advantages, like increased creativity/fertility/sexuality?
That way the genes stay in the genepool and even increase in frequency if society rewards said characteristics more.

[cannotseethe]

Either that, or it it indeed a choice of people to be homosexual and has nothing to do with being 'born with it'.

The thesis...

You haven't stated a thesis. Why would homosexuality disappear? Surely you're not going to invoke the fallacy that homosexuals don't breed, and therefore will die off.

[Zsych]

He's obviously suggesting that there are two possibilities:
1. Homosexuality is genetic and thus the genes not proliferating should remove it from humanity.
2. Homosexuality is a learned behavior.

He's biased towards the second.

I'm also biased towards the second, just not with it actually being a conscious choice.

[Valiyn]

Genetic doesn't mean born with it. Genetic means it has the information to develop somewhere in your genes. Puberty is a good example of this. We have the information of hormones in our genes, not the mutations to our baseline genetic form the hormones do to us. We're not born with the traits, yet they develop because the hormones are encoded in our genes to cause x and y mutations after birth. Technically your not born gay or straight, but you are born in a way that a given cause of change (i.e. hormones) will alter you in this way. So it's impossible to die out because it's something of an abstract gene that doesn't really exist. It's alot of factors we see acting as one factor - like Moore's law is for computers.

[cannotseethe]

He's obviously suggesting that there are two possibilities:
1. Homosexuality is genetic and thus the genes not proliferating should remove it from humanity.

Except it's fallacious to argue that the genes implicated in the development of homosexual behavior don't proliferate. I'm asking the OP to clarify whether he subscribes to that fallacy or not.

[tooboku]

Cool theory but I don't think it has enough backing to it.

To date, there is no evidence that homosexuality is the result of anything they find in DNA. They may one day but psychology has come closer to explaining this than anything else. Homosexuality therefore, according to our best information, is the result of a choice; conscious or subconscious due to mental conditioning.

However, for argument's sake, say that it was genetic. There have been many homosexuals in the past who have engaged in coitis resulting in reproduction. You wouldn't even know who they were. One of them could have even be an ancestor of yours. In that case, that genetic mutation for homosexuality carries through to the next generation and it hides in your DNA waiting for it's next victim. It won't go away that quickly, if at all.

In either case, I hope it doesn't go away and we should be thankful that they're around. The world is pretty damn over populated as it is and the more people we can convince not to breed, the better. Gay couples even have another one up as even though in vetro is an option, they're prefered method of having offspring is still adoption which is good for everyone.

[Zsych]

Article on genetically identical twins that grew up to be gay and straight (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

So I restate - subconscious level choice.
(Well, I don't like being that definite, there may be some genetic biases that increase the probability of being gay)

[reb]

Evalis, here is the kernel of a thesis, if you want to pursue it:

'man has previously had communes or groups who practiced abstinence. this, in extreme cases, has led to the group not reproducing at an adequate rate, and thereby, disappearing.

in this present time, the overpopulation of the planet has led to deep, but not fully understood, limitations of the birth rate in some places. it can be postulated that this is a genetic response to overpopulation and the problems it brings. in some cases, mothers throw their infants into trash cans or kill them. in some cases, the father or a close dominant male kills the infant. this behaviour has been observed in apes, as well. some humans have turned to homosexuality, which limits birth. these behaviours are a response innate to the genetic code to limit overpopulation. moralists among us decry this trend, but the behaviours are unstoppable, because they are locked in the human psyche, and are not subject to so called 'rational' thought or surface applied moral law.'

flesh it out if you want to.

[cannotseethe]

To date, there is no evidence that homosexuality is the result of anything they find in DNA.

Incorrect.

This is incorrect on its face, as just about every behavior exhibited by people is impacted by genes. However, it is also empirically incorrect, as there are studies that suggest there is a genetic component involved in the development of homosexual behavior.


Homosexuality therefore, according to our best information, is the result of a choice

Nope. Lots of people parrot this line, but what is stated above is incorrect. The verdict is still out on just how strongly genetics impacts homosexual behavior, but the existing evidence is suggestive that there is a genetic component to it.


There have been many homosexuals in the past who have engaged in coitis resulting in reproduction.

Yes. A surprisingly large fraction of self-described homosexuals have had heterosexual sex at least once in their lives. Homosexuality is a spectrum, not an on/off switch. People are complicated etc.

[Mikk]

Homosexuality therefore, according to our best information, is the result of a choice; conscious or subconscious due to mental conditioning.

Are you saying that if I choose right now to be gay, I become attracted to men? Or should I bombard my subconscious with lots of positive gay images and convince myself that I'm gay?

[cannotseethe]

Article on genetically identical twins that grew up to be gay and straight (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

So I restate - subconscious level choice.

Article with examples of genetically identical twins that grew up with different eye colors (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

So I restate -- genetic at some level.

[TheLastMohican]

Either that, or it it indeed a choice of people to be homosexual and has nothing to do with being 'born with it'.

So according to you, homosexuality is either:


genetically passed on from homosexual parent(s)
a conscious choice

...with no other possible causes. Do I understand you correctly?

[ClydeB]

If homosexuality is either genetic or some environmental influence on fetal development. Someone will eventually figure out how to test for it. Then you will have a new term in the dictionary. Sex-preference-selective abortions.

I'm sure there are lots of people in the world that would not want a child that has "the gayness". And would do the same that some cultures are doing now with female fetuses. Toss em and keep trying for what they want.

[Zsych]

You could as well say that a foot fetish, is genetic, or only being attracted by obese people, or necrophilia are natural genetic dispositions.

[larkin]

You haven't stated a thesis. Why would homosexuality disappear? Surely you're not going to invoke the fallacy that homosexuals don't breed, and therefore will die off.

That's exactly what's being invoked, an argument that's so patently stupid that we're all stupider for having read it. The OP posits that all homosexuals now know they're homosexuals from here on out, and will never ever have sex with the straights again, and have never heard of the wonders of science. And thus their genes won't be passed on. Because if you're not out on a gay pride float, you probably aren't carrying.

He's obviously suggesting that there are two possibilities:
1. Homosexuality is genetic and thus the genes not proliferating should remove it from humanity.
2. Homosexuality is a learned behavior.

He's biased towards the second.

I'm also biased towards the second, just not with it actually being a conscious choice.

Silly dichotomy premised on a confusion between orientation and self-identification.

[Evalis]

It could be a 'subconcious' choice.. but a choice none the less. The thesis is that through lack of procreation, the gay 'commune' will die off, and if it does then I was wrong about it being a choice. If it doesn't die off then I was right about it being a choice. And before you go about arguing the notion that serogate mothers can carry offspring you may wish to research into the costs of doing so. It can easily be upwards of $50,000. Which goes to indicate that if there are all kinds of gay folk procreating out there then they were part of the wealthy. Which at least partially supports my thesis.

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

For reference

[larkin]

It could be a 'subconcious' choice.. but a choice none the less. The thesis is that through lack of procreation, the gay 'commune' will die off, and if it does then I was wrong about it being a choice. If it doesn't die off then I was right about it being a choice. And before you go about arguing the notion that serogate mothers can carry offspring you may wish to research into the costs of doing so. It can easily be upwards of $50,000. Which goes to indicate that if there are all kinds of gay folk procreating out there then were were part of the wealthy. Which at least partially supports my thesis.

About that thesis - are you honestly suggesting that poor people don't also have gay sex, or have same-sex fantasies, even if they don't publicly identify as homosexual?

This goes back to the confusion between orientation and self-identification: wealth buys freedom from some social restrictions, so wealthy people probably are more likely to identify as being homosexual. That certainly doesn't mean that poor people aren't sometimes attracted to the same sex. Sometimes they even have sex with them! Sorry to upset the anecdotal apple cart.

[cannotseethe]

It could be a 'subconcious' choice.. but a choice none the less. The thesis is that through lack of procreation, the gay 'commune' will die off, and if it does then I was wrong about it being a choice.

Why didn't homosexuality disappear long ago, then? What is so extra special about right now that a behavior that has persisted at roughly the same rate through all of recorded human history is suddenly going to disappear?

You entirely ignore the simple fact that the genes implicated in homosexual behavior have many channels through which to persist. Straight people may carry them, for instance. Your argument is grounded in a simplistic fallacy.

[Evalis]

Why didn't homosexuality disappear long ago, then? What is so extra special about right now that a behavior that has persisted at roughly the same rate through all of recorded human history is suddenly going to disappear?



Because it wasn't acceptable to be homosexual.. you went and had sex with opposite partners anyway.. thus transmitting the gene. Granted in 20 years the gay population won't die -completely- but the lack of procreation should seriously dwindle the number of emerging gay population.. I simply suspect the reverse will be the case, thus indicating it was choice and has nothing to do with transmitted genes.

[cannotseethe]

Because it wasn't acceptable to be homosexual

The first recorded appearance of a deep emotional bond between adult men in ancient Greek culture was in the Iliad (800 BC).

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


Granted in 20 years the gay population won't die -completely- but the lack of procreation should seriously dwindle the number of emerging gay population.

Really. Can you please show us the calculation you did to conclude that the gene(s) involved in homosexual behavior will be significantly selected out of the human population within 20 years? It'd help to cite the evolutionary biology principles you used to perform this calculation (I'm assuming you're using something like the Hardy-Weinberg principle).

[Evalis]

This goes back to the confusion between orientation and self-identification: wealth buys freedom from some social restrictions, so wealthy people probably are more likely to identify as being homosexual. That certainly doesn't mean that poor people aren't sometimes attracted to the same sex. Sometimes they even have sex with them! Sorry to upset the anecdotal apple cart.

No apple carts have been upset with this post! As I indicated already my personal experiences are not all-encompassing.. it simply appears that those that have wealth have the luxury of experimentation and thus sudden 'realization' that they are gay. When the reality is they previous got a 'hard on' or 'wet' or what have you during interactions with the opposite sex.. they simply decided that the same sex was easier to associate with on a sexual or cognitive level (or both).

[cannotseethe]

No apple carts have been upset with this post! As I indicated already my personal experiences are not all-encompassing.. it simply appears that those that have wealth have the luxury of experimentation and thus sudden 'realization' that they are gay.

I think you're missing the point. The wealthy have the luxury of being less bound by conservative or bigoted social norms, and thus may feel more free to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation. It wouldn't be surprising to see a higher incidence of self-reported homosexuality among the wealthy, then (I wouldn't know though, to be honest). The sexual orientation itself, as a more or less in-built feature of a person, remains whether that person openly discusses it or not, however. That's why we have phrases like "in the closet."

[Evalis]

Really. Can you please show us the calculation you did to conclude that the gene(s) involved in homosexual behavior will be significantly selected out of the human population within 20 years? It'd help to cite the evolutionary biology principles you used to perform this calculation (I'm assuming you're using something like the Hardy-Weinberg principle).


Generations tend to span 20 year time frames. Granted this could be slightly skewed by people in their 30's or 40's still having children, or the opposite way by kids at 16 having kids.. but the premise remains that since this previous generation should be comfortable enough with their sexuality as to not feel the need to have sex with the opposite gender. So.. no sex = no procreation = gene causing this effect to be severely limited = 'fewer' emergents of homosexual disposition.

[cannotseethe]

Generations tend to span 20 year time frames. Granted this could be slightly skewed by people in their 30's or 40's still having children, or the opposite way by kids at 16 having kids.. but the premise remains that since this previous generation should be comfortable enough with their sexuality as to not feel the need to have sex with the opposite gender. So.. no sex = no procreation = gene causing this effect to be severely limited = 'fewer' emergents of homosexual disposition.

This is not a calculation. It could be 2,000 years for all you know, even if your incorrect assumptions are taken as true for the sake of argument. How about actually using an established theory, which can predict such things fairly well? You may find doing so to be enlightening.

[Evalis]

I think you're missing the point. The wealthy have the luxury of being less bound by conservative or bigoted social norms, and thus may feel more free to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation. It wouldn't be surprising to see a higher incidence of self-reported homosexuality among the wealthy, then (I wouldn't know though, to be honest). The sexual orientation itself, as a more or less in-built feature of a person, remains whether that person openly discusses it or not, however. That's why we have phrases like "in the closet."

Erm.. no I see the point. And it is valid.. this is currently a thesis.. and the notion of the wealthy being more prone to declare that they are gay is merely one part of it. It falls together much nicer though if it is demonstrated that homosexuality is a choice.

[shaunmikex]

Really? There's been a recent spawn of "the gay". I doubt the "disease" will ever be cured :(.

I still love gay men myself.

[Evalis]

This is not a calculation. It could be 2,000 years for all you know, even if your incorrect assumptions are taken as true for the sake of argument. How about actually using an established theory, which can predict such things fairly well? You may find doing so to be enlightening.

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

Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing man. I'm talking about the next generation of people. Like.. gen x, gen y, gen guppy.. etc.

[Synchronicity]

The OP's thesis rests on the assumption (among others) that only homosexuals can produce homosexual offspring. This is not the case.

[larkin]

they simply decided that the same sex was easier to associate with on a sexual or cognitive level (or both).

So that's how it works! I had no idea. So all of those people who say they experienced sexual attraction to the same sex from an early age are just wrong. When they were five, they decided to themselves - I'm going the gay way from here on out.

Hate to ask the cliched question, but when did you decide you were straight?

When the reality is they previous got a 'hard on' or 'wet' or what have you during interactions with the opposite sex..

Hard to argue with all that personal experience, so contrary to what many gay people have actually reported.

[Cooper]

Perhaps I am seeing this in 'too simple' of a manner.....

A) Man and woman have sex, make baby.

B) Baby grows up, is gay for whatever reason.

C) Now adult has sex with same sex, no baby.

D) Somewhere else on earth, man and woman have sex, make baby.

E) This baby grows up and has sex with opposite sex, make baby.

F) Repeat over and over and over and over.........some babies gay, some babies straight

How does this translate to homosexuality 'dieing off'?

[Aronnax]

The OP doesn't understand how recessive gene dominance works or how multiple genes, only when a specific combination is present, produce specific characteristics.

[cannotseethe]

It falls together much nicer though if it is demonstrated that homosexuality is a choice.

Yes, because the way the world actually works always conforms to what falls together nicely in your head.


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

Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing man. I'm talking about the next generation of people. Like.. gen x, gen y, gen guppy.. etc.

You don't seem to recognize that claiming a trait that has persisted at a roughly 7% level for quite some time will suddenly disappear from a population of > 6 billion individuals within one generation is preposterous unless that trait is immediately fatal, which homosexuality surely is not. It'd take a giant-asteroid-hitting-the-Earth-and-killing-almost-everyone-sized catastrophe for something like that to happen. You would see that if you actually used an established evolutionary biology principle to compute what kind of selective pressure it would take for that to happen, instead of just pulling numbers out of your ass. One commonly-used principle to do exactly that sort of calculation is the Hardy-Weinberg principle (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Give it a shot.

[SShack]

To the OP: Good lord, what you grasp about genetics and heredity couldn't fill a soda bottle cap. Please print out your first post and show it to a science teacher -- any science teacher. I feel ... embarrassed to have read this on here.

[sms444]

It could be a 'subconcious' choice.. but a choice none the less.


Others have already done a good job demonstrating the multitude of fallacies in this "thesis" of yours, but on the point of choice:

Subconscious choices (meaning below our level of awareness) are not actual choices in that most people do NOT have control over them. So to say that someone chooses homosexually subconsciously is nearly the same as saying they are homosexual for genetic reasons. Neither is an actual choice in any sense, rather something that is not be decided upon by one's conscious mind.

[Evalis]

So that's how it works! I had no idea. So all of those people who say they experienced sexual attraction to the same sex from an early age are just wrong. When they were five, they decided to themselves - I'm going the gay way from here on out.

Hate to ask the cliched question, but when did you decide you were straight?



Hard to argue with all that personal experience, so contrary to what many gay people have actually reported.


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

Average coming out of the closet age is 20.. average age of having sex is 15.. which is probably -after- already engaging in sexual relations with females. The age of awareness is supposedly 10.. but given that anyone conducting the survey would be 18 this would only be listed 'after the fact' and is subject to some critism. I should however note that whoever told you that they knew they were gay at five is blowing smoke out of their ass - no one is sexually aware at that age. And the fact that they told you that should be reason enough to suspect that they are not gay for any reasons that imply genetics.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 10:04 AM ----------

The OP doesn't understand how recessive gene dominance works or how multiple genes, only when a specific combination is present, produce specific characteristics.

I already answered this in post #25, but let me try again for fear that you shall insult my intellect again..

The people that carry the supposed 'gene' for being gay are offering themselves up to die for their cause through lack of procreation. Thus the gene itself will die. Now that doesn't mean that I don't understand that if such a gene existed, someone, somewhere must have first had it that was straight in order for it to appear, but the logic remains that since there are now fewer gay men borking straight (or gay) females, then there should be fewer gay people in the next generation - significantly fewer.

If it increases then my thesis is correct, and it is a choice. Subconcious choices are a result of what you believe by the way.. so it's still a choice even if it's subconcious.. It's like being afraid of spiders.. you can 'cure' your fear.

[JustMel]

Wait. Overall absurdity of this entire thread aside the question begs to be asked.....

If heterosexual partner + heterosexual partner = gay offspring then how the hell do you surmise that gay partner + gay partner = no gay offspring? You've in no way indicated that the first equation will die out therefore there will be more or the same number of gay people.

And if you're wrong about it being a choice, which I find idiotic because who really chooses to be persecuted and discriminated against intentionally other than a masochist and I don't think we're turning out more masochists than usual, would mean that people could technically "choose" more often rather than less.

I suspect that instead of dying out, as it's actually becoming more acceptable, we're moving to a time where heterosexuality is the minority and more people having same sex experiences and relationships and poly relationships.

They can adopt children. They can use their own eggs/sperm to have a surrogate and half biological child that can either carry the gene or since the parents of the child would surely teach tolerance the child(ren) will be more likely to accept their own gay children than some heterosexual parents do. Like I said, you're going to see more homosexuality and bi sexual relationships than heterosexual in 20 years.

[Eruditass]

Genes alone are not responsible for homosexuality.

[Evalis]

then how the hell do you surmise that gay partner + gay partner = no gay offspring?


LMAO .. how exactly do you propose that they have a baby if they are the same sex as one another?

[larkin]

Average coming out of the closet age is 20.. average age of having sex is 15.. which is probably -after- already engaging in sexual relations with females. The age of awareness is supposedly 10.. but given that anyone conducting the survey would be 18 this would only be listed 'after the fact' and is subject to some critism. I should however note that whoever told you that they knew they were gay at five is blowing smoke out of their ass - no one is sexually aware at that age. And the fact that they told you that should be reason enough to suspect that they are not gay for any reasons that imply genetics.

Sexuality isn't only about sex, it's also about attraction. That happens on a lot of different levels.

And averages are only that - average. There are people who have other experiences. Once again you are put in the awkward position of having to deny the truth of people's own reporting about their sexuality and sexual behavior to fit your own thesis.

Who the fuck are you, honestly, to tell anyone else that their experience of their own sexuality is right or wrong, factually correct or incorrect?

[Miryr]

Homosexuality has always existed and will always exist. It won't disappear even if the governments of the world start enforcing laws were gays get killed.

[JustMel]

They can adopt children. They can use their own eggs/sperm to have a surrogate and half biological child that can either carry the gene or since the parents of the child would surely teach tolerance the child(ren) will be more likely to accept their own gay children than some heterosexual parents do. Like I said, you're going to see more homosexuality and bi sexual relationships than heterosexual in 20 years.

LMAO .. how exactly do you propose that they have a baby if they are the same sex as one another?


asked and answered.

[admittedheretic]

Homosexuality isn't going to go away any time soon in a practical sense. It could potentially go away and it is ignorant to deny that it. It isn't caused by genes, but if it where, those genes could some day be removed from the genome. With our greater understanding we will effectively learn how we can prevent such maladaptive behavior with regard to best serving our species holistically.

I'm not even sure what the OP was trying to say. Is the title satire?

Incorrect.

This is incorrect on its face, as just about every behavior exhibited by people is impacted by genes. However, it is also empirically incorrect, as there are studies that suggest there is a genetic component involved in the development of homosexual behavior.

You sir are the one who is incorrect.

The claim you are responding to is that no genes are the result (casual factor) of homosexuality and that is a factual statement.

Genetic influence is not geneticist causality.

What Zsych said "You could as well say that a foot fetish, is genetic, or only being attracted by obese people, or necrophilia are natural genetic dispositions" is a valid counter argument for your claim.

What Valiyn said about genetic influence is closer to the truth then what you have said.

[JustMel]

The article can be found in it's entirety complete with links to the actual study can be found here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Emphasis is mine.

The team led by Dr Niklas Långström at Karolinska Institutet conducted the first truly population-based survey of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Studies of identical twins and non-identical, or fraternal, twins are often used to untangle the genetic and environmental factors responsible for a trait. While identical twins share all of their genes and their entire environment, fraternal twins share only half of their genes and their entire environment. Therefore, greater similarity in a trait between identical twins compared to fraternal twins shows that genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait.
This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour (that is, that some men have no same sex partners, and some have one or more) is accounted for by genetics.
Rahman explains: "Overall, genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway."
For women, genetics explained roughly 18 per cent of the variation in same-sex behaviour, non-shared environment roughly 64 per cent and shared factors, or the family environment, explained 16 per cent.


35% is not a number that can be denied.

[TheLastMohican]

The thesis is that through lack of procreation, the gay 'commune' will die off, and if it does then I was wrong about it being a choice. If it doesn't die off then I was right about it being a choice.

No, you just have a very poor understanding of genetics. Your reply to Aronnax only showed that you were missing the point. Try to understand this: Genes can be passed on even by those who do not express them.

[cannotseethe]

You sir are the one who is incorrect.

The statement I made is that genes influence the appearance of homosexual behaviors in adults, not that they cause them the way that gravity causes stuff to fall. No one credibly claims that genes cause anything in that latter sense. A dead person does nothing, after all, yet has genes. A person with a gene linked to obesity who grows up in a famine-stricken region will not become obese. Etc.

Further, I was responding to the assertion that there is no evidence linking homosexual behavior to genetics. JustMel posted a study providing exactly that kind of evidence, but there are lots of them. In any case, it's obvious that the claim that no such evidence exists is false.


Genetic influence is not geneticist causality.

If by "geneticist" you mean a professional geneticist, then the only notion of causality in which they trade is genetic influence. I sense that you're using a notion of causality that no one else does.

[Evalis]

asked and answered.

You do realize that I already contested the notion of surrogate mothers and their exhorbant costs right? You're looking at at least 20k to get the mother to agree to this.. and effectively disrupts the number of homosexuals that are capable of doing so.

I'm completely baffled as to why you would post that 35% of cases are genetically predisposed, when that leaves 65% of the other cases as non-genetically predisposed.. which is what I'm trying to prove here. Think about it logically though.. they used twins.. even if it was 50/50 that wouldn't show anything.. It just meant that one decided to go the other way while the twin didn't. They would have had to be seperated at brith or, it would need to be greater than 50% to demonstrate anything. But yeah.. Food for thought.

[cannotseethe]

I'm completely baffled as to why you would post that 35% of cases are genetically predisposed, when that leaves 65% of the other cases as non-genetically predisposed.

That's not what those numbers mean. I didn't read that study's methodology carefully, but usually numbers like that report the percentage of the variance explained by the variable in question, using a method like ANOVA. Roughly, a complete theory of homosexuality would explain 100% of the variance in homosexual behavior with a small, measurable set of variables. What they're saying here is that genetics explains 35% of the variance and environmental factors explain 64% (for males). Meaning, genetics is a significant part of the explanation. If homosexuality were entirely learned, you would not expect the influence of genetics to be 35%.

From the article JustMel linked, a quote from the author of the study:

This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality"

I.e., it's complicated, and is not one or the other alone.

[Antares]

Homosexuality isn't going to go away any time soon in a practical sense. It could potentially go away and it is ignorant to deny that it. It isn't caused by genes, but if it where, those genes could some day be removed from the genome. With our greater understanding we will effectively learn how we can prevent such maladaptive behavior with regard to best serving our species holistically.

Every reputable source seems to indicate that it is.

Further more, did you have to use "maladaptive"? Nothing in what homosexuals do suggest that they are maladaptive, and the only people they can't adapt to are those who can't wrap their heads around the fact that homosexual lifestyle is entirely healthy and moral. And as for serving our species holistically, what good would rooting out homosexuality accomplish?

[Cooper]

It may have been brought up already, if it has, my bad.....

There is no imaginary barrier, wall, of even an anti-gay spray that stops a gay man from having sex with a lesbian, and if I remember my biology correctly, all it takes is one egg and one sperm to make a baby. Somehow I don't think the egg and sperm are interviewing each other to see what their sexual orientation is, which means gay people can have children with each other. So there goes the idea of a die out.....

[Mikk]

I'm not gay anymore, wasn't that fun. Now I choose to be straight again.

Gonna try on the gayspray next week and see if it's any better.

[Zsych]

If lets say 65% of people become gay from environmental factors, then since its not exactly something you should hugely want, it is as likely as not to be a subconscious level choice.

I use this example often, but its like the placebo effect curing people. If the placebo works, then that person's subconscious mind chose to fix the illness... which is another way of saying that the person's mind was (for whatever stupid reason made sense to it), choosing to be or remain sick.

Being sick or suffering is a good way to get attention and be excused stuff. As an approach to dealing with some of life's problems - not one that could not be said to work or make sense within certain contexts.

[JustMel]

You do realize that I already contested the notion of surrogate mothers and their exhorbant costs right? You're looking at at least 20k to get the mother to agree to this.. and effectively disrupts the number of homosexuals that are capable of doing so.

I'm completely baffled as to why you would post that 35% of cases are genetically predisposed, when that leaves 65% of the other cases as non-genetically predisposed.. which is what I'm trying to prove here. Think about it logically though.. they used twins.. even if it was 50/50 that wouldn't show anything.. It just meant that one decided to go the other way while the twin didn't. They would have had to be seperated at brith or, it would need to be greater than 50% to demonstrate anything. But yeah.. Food for thought.


So nice to know you have all the facts about surrogates. No, they don't all charge that amount. In fact your lack of knowledge about homosexuality and surrogates speaks volumes all on their own.

---------- Post added 03-24-2010 at 05:10 PM ----------

If lets say 65% of people become gay from environmental factors, then since its not exactly something you should hugely want, it is as likely as not to be a subconscious level choice.



Environmental includes changes in hormones and temperature during pregnancy. Thus identical twins developing along different "pathways" as explained in the article. Kind of hard to regulate that.

[sms444]

I use this example often, but its like the placebo effect curing people. If the placebo works, then that person's subconscious mind chose to fix the illness...

If your body/subconscious mind chooses to fix something (or make you gay) without you having a say about it, that is NOT choice by any definition I can find!

[JTG]

It's still not acceptable to be homosexual in a lot of areas. I've known guys who i was sure were gay... grow up, get married, and have kids. I see it more often in very conservative, heavily christian areas/social groups, but i'm sure it happens in other areas too. People will lie to themselves and lead lives they think they should lead, even if it's not necessarily making them happy.

Some people have a sense of duty about life that supersedes personal desire, or perhaps they have never questioned their sexuality and so have never realized that they don't really feel anything for the opposite sex, instead just dating them because it's "how things work" in their eyes.

Cannotseethe hit another good nail when he said homosexuality is a spectrum, not a switch. Most people aren't 100% straight or gay, and those who claim to be are often either maladjusted or being dishonest for the sake of appearances.

(Cooper brought up another good point in his own way :p I do know lesbian couples who have decided to have a child. One elected to go become impregnated, and they just took it more or less naturally from there. If homosexuality is hereditary, then it will surely continue as long as we allow lesbians to keep giving birth.)

[mormeguil]

There is one thing that most people doest not seem to understand. As much as we would like too genes are not that simple. It's not a simple:

You have genre V so you get caracteristic V.

The effect of one gene is affected by every other gene.
the effect of one gene is affected by environement.
The effect of the environement on one gene will also affect another gene.


Everything is inter-connected, nothing is as clear cut as we would like to. That 65% DOES NOT MEAN 65% OF PEOPLE.

It means that if someone is homosexual 35% of the reasons as to why he is homosexual is probably genetics. For those wondering, thats a lot. Honestly it's a very hight part of the explanation. Still, it's not the only factor. We still have 65% that we have no idea about.

[Evalis]

If your body/subconscious mind chooses to fix something (or make you gay) without you having a say about it, that is NOT choice by any definition I can find!

You are forgetting that the subconcious mind chooses things for you that your concious mind wishes. Thus if you believe that you are gay.. then you will be. It's just like.. dream interpretation. You can choose to believe that those homosexual dreams make you homosexual, but perhaps they don't.

And the study did not indicate that the only environmental factors were different hormone exposures during confinement in the womb. It indicated that it included personal environmental factors. It then went on to say that it spoke with those individuals to determine thier level of interaction with the same same and opposite sex. While it does not specify what questions were asked or how the study was conducted one could presume it went the following way:

Subject A: Experiences different hormonal factors as subject B, possesses different parental figures, experiences different environmental factors (schooling, level of intimate encounters, etc). If both subject A and B are gay then genes are responsible for causing them to be gay. Obviously it would go on from here.. with the same environmental factors resulting in the same gayness would demonstrate neither. Or if it was different environmental factors and it resulted in different levels of homosexuality than it was environmental. You can see how 50/50 wouldn't determine anything at all here. Indeed.. it demonstrates more that it is neither 'nature nor nuture' that have any effect at all.. it is simply a choice.

In any case, it's entirely pointless to argue whether or not it's genetic in nature, considering this thesis covers that case: All the gay people kill themselves. It would be necessary to demonstrate that ONLY straight people carry the gene that causes gayness to have this thesis refuted. And fyi.. Here is ANOTHER link demonstrating the exhorbant fees of a surrogate mother. Feel free to call them or continue to refute the evidence.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 9c13fc6c66fb3d

[admittedheretic]

The statement I made is that genes influence the appearance of homosexual behaviors in adults, not that they cause them the way that gravity causes stuff to fall.

And what did anyone say to warrant that statement? Nothing, nice straw man.

Also, nobody current knows why gravity causes anything to fall. Not the best choice for a figure of speech.

No one credibly claims that genes cause anything in that latter sense. A dead person does nothing, after all, yet has genes. A person with a gene linked to obesity who grows up in a famine-stricken region will not become obese. Etc.

A mutation of the FMR1 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) gene causes fragile x syndrome. I'd say that is pretty damn deterministic. There are many genetic conditions we have discovered. What you have said makes flies in the face of that.


Further, I was responding to the assertion that there is no evidence linking homosexual behavior to genetics. JustMel posted a study providing exactly that kind of evidence, but there are lots of them. In any case, it's obvious that the claim that no such evidence exists is false.

There is absolutely zero no evidence that genetics is a causal factor for homosexuality. Such studies only suggest a genetic influence which really isn't a surprise at all. Certain genes that effect dopamine levels in the brain make one more likely to become homosexual or many other various behaviors such as drug addiction and criminal activity. That is what the research has shown and that is all I'm saying.

Educate yourself about twin studies and how they are used to measure the genetic influence of a particular condition. This is really all the proof that is needed to conclude that homosexuality is not genetic. There have been studies with cherry picked studies that have shown numbers that would suggest causality for at least some the population studied, but those studies purpose was to help find the actual genes. Hence when they selected the group of individuals they did. They looked for the genes where the data pointed them and they found nothing.



If by "geneticist" you mean a professional geneticist, then the only notion of causality in which they trade is genetic influence. I sense that you're using a notion of causality that no one else does.

Just meant to say genetic. Impulsive spell check fails me again.

I'm using the proper notion of causality. If you decide to educate yourself about how genetics works with regard to behavior you'll find that was a silly accusation.

Every reputable source seems to indicate that it is.

Not true. If that was the case do you think there would really be any argument? Your obviously already in full blown denial if that is how you think.


Further more, did you have to use "maladaptive"? Nothing in what homosexuals do suggest that they are maladaptive, and the only people they can't adapt to are those who can't wrap their heads around the fact that homosexual lifestyle is entirely healthy and moral. And as for serving our species holistically, what good would rooting out homosexuality accomplish?

The hallmark of maladaptive is behavior that leads to less reproduction. The only you can really disagree with this is if you dismiss evolutionary theory.

Rooting it out would persevere millions of years of evolution and contribute to the diversity of our species. Every human being is unique and because of such I think we hold tremendous value as individuals. In the grand scale of things homosexuality is a disease that causes the extinction of what could be a future species that populates the universe.

[SShack]

Considering this thesis covers that case: All the gay people kill themselves.

This "thesis" doesn't even make sense -- and isn't even a thesis. Is anybody who doesn't breed killing himself or herself? This is profoundly illogical. Heterosexuals are not reincarnated in their children. If you're trying to use this "thesis" (or whatever the hell it it is) as a collective reference, homosexuality is not a race. It cannot "die off." Gay people aren't "killing themselves" by not breeding.

It's very clear that you've also already made your mind up, which is pretty much the death of any actual scientific query you're trying to posit. You've made your conclusion first, and you're just looking for anybody or anything that will back you up.

[Antares]

Not true. If that was the case do you think there would really be any argument? Your obviously already in full blown denial if that is how you think.

The hallmark of maladaptive is behavior that leads to less reproduction. The only you can really disagree with this is if you dismiss evolutionary theory.

Rooting it out would persevere millions of years of evolution and contribute to the diversity of our species. Every human being is unique and because of such I think we hold tremendous value as individuals. In the grand scale of things homosexuality is a disease that causes the extinction of what could be a future species that populates the universe.

Scans see 'gay brain differences'
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Research suggests that people are born gay, and homosexuality pervades the animal kingdom. If you're going to split hairs about cause and influence, then good for you. Homosexuality, genetically caused or not (but certainly influenced), has not been demonstrated to be a conscious choice.

In fact, only a small percentage of the population identify themselves as homosexual. Straight people have always been the majority. In fact, if you have ever studied Population Momentum, the world is due to shoot through the roof in terms population. 9.1 billion of us by this planet by 2050. It is a trend that even (as you claim) homosexuality cannot cure, quite unfortunately. If that's still not diverse enough for you, with the majority of the people being straight and fucking like they always do, you must have some ridiculously high standards.

World population to reach 9.1 billion in 2050, UN projects
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
What about people who choose to be single? Should their "maladaptive behavior" be rooted out as well? Should we take away their freedom to not reproduce? Perhaps you should form a police state to monitor these "subversive" behavior.

Bold: So what is homosexuality? Are people born homosexual, or do they catch the gay germ? How would you go about rooting it out? Assuming genocide and eugenics are out of the question, that is.

[Anhedonic Lake]

This is indeed a strange thread,twenty years?. It's been around since the Spartans and long before. The trinity of desert dogmas severely discouraged it and pushed it underground.

[Synamon]

All of you are wrong. Homosexuality is a contagious disease which threatens to wipe out the entire human race. It is not spread by genes and you don't decide to be gay, it is infectious and spread by word of mouth. In 20 years we will all be gay. We are DOOMED.

[Storm]

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

Average coming out of the closet age is 20.. average age of having sex is 15.. which is probably -after- already engaging in sexual relations with females. The age of awareness is supposedly 10.. but given that anyone conducting the survey would be 18 this would only be listed 'after the fact' and is subject to some critism.

This isn't how statistics work. The average age of coming out of closet is 20, this does NOT mean that the person has had sex at 15. Nor does it mean that the average person coming out of the closet at age 20 has had sex at age 15. It could be that for the sub-population of gays, the average age of sex is 25, who knows? We can't say because we don't have the data. And, just to make the point a little clearer, average does NOT mean ALL people. There are people who had sex earlier than 15, and later than 15. People who came out of the closet earlier than20, and later than 20. Look around the board, I bet the average age for becoming sexually active isn't 15.

Now, EVEN IF a gay person were to have sex before coming out of the closet, this does NOT in any way imply that they were attracted to the opposite sex. It could be that, due to a desire to fit in or change themselves, they went ahead and had sex with a member of the opposite sex. Yes, it is possible to have sex with people you aren't attracted to - just close your eyes and pretend. Nothing says "not gay" like a knocked up girlfriend.

I also would like to know where you get the idea that only people 18 and older are allowed to participate in surveys as to sexuality. Teenagers are polled all the time as to their sexuality.

[nacht]

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

Average coming out of the closet age is 20.. average age of having sex is 15.. which is probably -after- already engaging in sexual relations with females. The age of awareness is supposedly 10.. but given that anyone conducting the survey would be 18 this would only be listed 'after the fact' and is subject to some critism. I should however note that whoever told you that they knew they were gay at five is blowing smoke out of their ass - no one is sexually aware at that age. And the fact that they told you that should be reason enough to suspect that they are not gay for any reasons that imply genetics.

First, let's point out that you misquoted your own citation, which states:


Recent studies have placed the average age of coming out within the mid- to late-teens, with some precocious youth coming out even earlier


So #1: mid-to-late teens, not 20.

Second, the actual average age of the first sexual intercourse in the US is 16.9 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (Iceland is 15.6, the global average is 17.3). Not 15.

Now, let's expand on what Storm said: This is an abuse of statistics. She has already pointed out the most glaring errors (what is true for the population as a whole is not true for subpopulations and merely having a sexual experience with a member of the opposite sex does not mean that you are attracted to them sexually), but you have completely neglected the possibility that they have had sex with someone of the same sex before they come out.

[Thrasymachus]

The hallmark of maladaptive is behavior that leads to less reproduction. The only you can really disagree with this is if you dismiss evolutionary theory.



Rooting it out would persevere millions of years of evolution and contribute to the diversity of our species.
Every human being is unique and because of such I think we hold tremendous value as individuals.
In the grand scale of things homosexuality is a disease that causes the extinction of what could be a future species that populates the universe.

emphasis mine

Homosexuality is the exact opposite of a disease, it is the blessing of the entire family.

In fact I propose that any childless adult in a family in which there are other breeders will invest more in their nieces and nephews naturally and subconsciously in order to pass on their genes. And that this interaction is better for the child.



In any case, it's entirely pointless to argue whether or not it's genetic in nature, considering this thesis covers that case: All the gay people kill themselves.

It would be necessary to demonstrate that ONLY straight people carry the gene that causes gayness to have this thesis refuted.

It would only be necessary to demonstrate that genetics is communal rather than individual to make your "thesis" sounds even more like hot air.

I remember hearing about a study that showed that sisters of gay siblings were more fertile than the daughters of their aunts. Simple things like that could easily refute your tirade in the OP.

[admittedheretic]

Scans see 'gay brain differences'
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Not proof of any genetic causlity. Homosexuals behave differently than typical people so it should be no surprise to you that their brain activity is different.


Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) No proof there either.


Research suggests that people are born gay, and homosexuality pervades the animal kingdom. If you're going to split hairs about cause and influence, then good for you. Homosexuality, genetically caused or not (but certainly influenced), has not been demonstrated to be a conscious choice.

That research does not suggest one is born gay? When will you realize your just making this all up? Please tell me specifically where in those articles do you think it says homosexuality is genetically caused and I'll help set you straight.

Consider if homosexuality is not genetically caused (hypothetically if you must.) Where else would the instructions for homosexual behavior come from? Is it not genetic, but caused when a child is the womb? That is the only path your logic should be able to take you and scientist have already studied that and concluded it does not create causality either. That only leaves one other place for the cause, the environment. I have never claimed it is a conscious choice such as ones favorite color or breed of dog. It however is caused by something we have control over.


In fact, only a small percentage of the population identify themselves as homosexual. Straight people have always been the majority. In fact, if you have ever studied Population Momentum, the world is due to shoot through the roof in terms population. 9.1 billion of us by this planet by 2050. It is a trend that even (as you claim) homosexuality cannot cure, quite unfortunately. If that's still not diverse enough for you, with the majority of the people being straight and fucking like they always do, you must have some ridiculously high standards.

World population to reach 9.1 billion in 2050, UN projects (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
I'm well aware of how our population is increasing exponentially. I've studied the math down and dirty at an university. Where I'm from, there are more cows than people. There is plenty of wasted space everywhere I look where people could be living. Sure, if we keep our present fucked up culture we are going to have to control our population eventually. That time is far off into the future. Homosexuality could be cured if we educated everyone on how to prevent it and that would also assume every would act on it appropriately. I think the gift of life is special and we should give it to as many entities as possible while maintaining free will.


What about people who choose to be single? Should their "maladaptive behavior" be rooted out as well? Should we take away their freedom to not reproduce? Perhaps you should form a police state to monitor these "subversive" behavior.You just don't get it. People who don't reproduce effectively root themselves out through the process of evolution. That is not a valid counter argument because I do not think we should force anyone to not be homosexual either. I don't think we should force individuals with "personality disorders" to change either. I have the utmost respect for the autonomy of a person, but there is no such thing as true free will amongst the human race.


Bold: So what is homosexuality? Are people born homosexual, or do they catch the gay germ? How would you go about rooting it out? Assuming genocide and eugenics are out of the question, that is.Why don't you tell me what you think homosexuality means. I have no doubt we would agree on that at least.

There is no literal gay germ. It is a developmental disorder. I would root it out by educating the public of what causes homosexuality and the best way to make a cultural change is through the children because adults are dense.

Genocide is out of the question. Eugenics is irrelevant because it is not genetic. Even if it where I wouldn't say eugenics would be out of the question.


emphasis mine

Homosexuality is the exact opposite of a disease, it is the blessing of the entire family.

In fact I propose that any childless adult in a family in which there are other breeders will invest more in their nieces and nephews naturally and subconsciously in order to pass on their genes. And that this interaction is better for the child.



It would only be necessary to demonstrate that genetics is communal rather than individual to make your "thesis" sounds even more like hot air.

I remember hearing about a study that showed that sisters of gay siblings were more fertile than the daughters of their aunts. Simple things like that could easily refute your tirade in the OP.

You haven't mentioned anything I'm unaware of. Those influences though possible are not probable causes for any gay genes because if it was genetic, we would be hinted in that direction through certain tests. Simple as that. I have never doubted that homosexual can not positive contribute something to families, society, the human race. I don't know why you think I would. I'm no bigot.

[sms444]

I have never claimed it is a conscious choice such as ones favorite color or breed of dog. It however is caused by something we have control over.


You just claimed that one's favorite color is a conscious choice?

I'll let others handle the genetic claims as I'm no expert in those areas, but I'd like to keep focusing on the "choice" aspect.

If a person has control over their sexuality, it means they could choose to be straight or gay according to you. So we can do a very simple experiment to find out if this is true.

If you are a straight male, could you decide one day that you would like to be sexually attracted to other men instead of women and *snap* have it become true? If the answer is no, then you are NOT in control of your sexuality!

[Gamgee]

It would be amazing if those people who claim gay is a choice prove it. I mean it is a choice right? What do you have to fear? Go be gay for a year, and come back to the straight side. Tell us of your experience.

It's a choice right? So go make that choice to help further your evidence. Since it is a choice you shouldn't have any actual fear of being gay, you can just come back to being straight.

Also don't "force" being gay, become gay. Then come back to the straight side and tell us about it. Don't go through the motions and hate it the whole time. Enjoy being gay, and then come back and enjoy being straight.

Choice is awesome!

I love these threads, so funny.

[JTG]

First, let's point out that you misquoted your own citation, which states:

So #1: mid-to-late teens, not 20.

Second, the actual average age of the first sexual intercourse in the US is 16.9 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (Iceland is 15.6, the global average is 17.3). Not 15.

In addition to these points, it should be noted that "in the closet" means "not openly gay" instead of "having sex with the opposite sex to hide gayness"

I mean it does happen. People do end up having heterosexual intercourse who wouldn't otherwise, just because it's "normal" to be straight. Still, i think for a guy in his late teens who's beginning to think about coming out of the closet, the vagina bullet is an easy enough one to dodge. Hell, a lot of guys graduate as virgins from high school who are trying to have sex with women.

I don't think "in the closet" gays end up with wives (or husbands, as the case may be) and children. I think "in denial" gays do, though.

I disagree with the premise of the OP though. It's erroneous and narrow-minded to assume that homosexuality is purely inherited from a "gay gene" and thus will become extinct as soon as it's socially acceptable enough that gays all come out of the closet and stop reproducing. There are a lot of factors involved in homosexuality, and even among "straight" or "gay" people, there's still a wide spectrum of attraction depending on the individual's level of security and esteem. It's just not something you can categorize easily, like eye color.

[Elfrun]

All of you are wrong. Homosexuality is a contagious disease which threatens to wipe out the entire human race. It is not spread by genes and you don't decide to be gay, it is infectious and spread by word of mouth. In 20 years we will all be gay. We are DOOMED.

It's true! I seen it happen! I lament when my heterosexual friends catch teh gayness cause it means I can't hang with them anymore for fear that I'll catch it too :(

Although if I am wrong in my contagious disease beliefs I guess one up side to this thesis is any gay living in an area where homosexuality is acceptable and wants their species to survive can simply move to another part of the world where they could be killed for their sexuality and therefore ensure that they remain closeted and are able to spawn gay children. Solutions people, I gots them!

[admittedheretic]

You just claimed that one's favorite color is a conscious choice?

I'll let others handle the genetic claims as I'm no expert in those areas, but I'd like to keep focusing on the "choice" aspect.

If a person has control over their sexuality, it means they could choose to be straight or gay according to you. So we can do a very simple experiment to find out if this is true.

If you are a straight male, could you decide one day that you would like to be sexually attracted to other men instead of women and *snap* have it become true? If the answer is no, then you are NOT in control of your sexuality!

Ones favorite color is a choice.

It doesn't take an expert to asses whether or not a behavior is genetic. Twin studies are really simple to understand.

Please quote me where I said the things you claim I said so I can aid you with your reading comprehension problem.

People have control over their environment. Not absolute control with everything that is our environment, but we do have control over all of the things that cause homosexuality.

The argument is nature versus nurture and like most behavior the reality is there are influences from nature and nurture. You seem to think this is a debate about nature versus nurture versus choice. I don't know what to say because what you have said makes no logical sense.

Ethics prevents us from doing experiments that would prove a person can change their sexual orientation. There is no hard evidence proving we can not and there is much in favor that change is possible. One can't change their favorite color over night, but over a longer period of time they can change and with modern technology we can objectively observe this in the human brain. With functional MRI scanners we can empiral show that homosexuals brains are orientated to their same sex and vise-versa with heterosexuals. It would be easy to prove my claim, but again the ethics forbids it. I could hardly be any more of a heterosexual man myself, but if I was conditioned in such a way I know I could change my attraction to males though it would take a long time and possibly would involve drugging. Regardless if one can or can not change we can still effectiely prevent from anyone ever choosing homosexuality to begin with, so change would never be needed.

Do you deny that some people change their orientation during their life? You think it is entirely set in stone?

[Antares]

Not proof of any genetic causlity. Homosexuals behave differently than typical people so it should be no surprise to you that their brain activity is different.

No proof there either.

A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb.

People are born gay. Unless you're telling me they can control what goes on inside their mothers' womb as well, in that case I commend their superhuman powers.

That research does not suggest one is born gay? When will you realize your just making this all up? Please tell me specifically where in those articles do you think it says homosexuality is genetically caused and I'll help set you straight.

Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.


^What part of that don't you understand? You'll agree with the article on the part that says there are brain differences, but not the above? Did you even read the article? Fun cherrypicking!

Until you can produce studies that suggest homosexuality is not a predetermined condition, I wonder where you must be pulling this stuff from.

Consider if homosexuality is not genetically caused (hypothetically if you must.) Where else would the instructions for homosexual behavior come from? Is it not genetic, but caused when a child is the womb? That is the only path your logic should be able to take you and scientist have already studied that and concluded it does not create causality either. That only leaves one other place for the cause, the environment. I have never claimed it is a conscious choice such as ones favorite color or breed of dog. It however is caused by something we have control over.

Environment? What kind of environment? Don't leave your thesis undefined. Come on. Work with me here. Specifics, specifics. If it's purely environment, then why are there multiple sexual orientations among children of the same family?

Birth Order May Affect Homosexuality
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Homosexuality was more common among men who shared their birth mother with older brothers, even if they hadn't been raised with those brothers, the study shows.

To be sure of that, Bogaert checked the data from 234 participants who came from nonbiological or 'blended" families. The results held.

"Only biological older brothers, and not any other sibling characteristic, including nonbiological older brothers, predicted men's sexual orientation, regardless of the amount of time reared with these siblings," writes Bogaert.

Bogaert's findings don't prove that birth order determines sexual orientation. However, Bogaert writes that the study supports the idea that sexual orientation starts before birth.

Long story short, no, I'm not going to change my mind and say I'm making this up. You haven't cited a thing from any reputable source whatsoever. Show me the evidence, then we'll talk.

I'm well aware of how our population is increasing exponentially. I've studied the math down and dirty at an university. Where I'm from, there are more cows than people. There is plenty of wasted space everywhere I look where people could be living. Sure, if we keep our present fucked up culture we are going to have to control our population eventually. That time is far off into the future. Homosexuality could be cured if we educated everyone on how to prevent it and that would also assume every would act on it appropriately. I think the gift of life is special and we should give it to as many entities as possible while maintaining free will.

Funny that you should accuse me of being human-centric in the E.T. thread when you think any land not used by humans is wasted. Because when cows, animals and grass live on land, it's "wasted".

Is it where you're living, or have you never seen what the rest of the world is like with population density? Have you been out of the country? Have you been where I live? The city I'm in has 20 million people, or 7% of the population of your entire country. What "fucked up" culture? Other than the fact that apparently we should fuck like there's no tomorrow to give the "gift of life" to as many sperm and egg pairs as possible (and apparently according to you, they're "entities". You're speaking like they have a soul, and they're just waiting for their sperm buddies to join them so they can become your circular argument; "they're entities, so we should fuck, so as many as possible become entities")? Yeah, because if nothing else, that's going to make sure the world gets to 9.1 billion a lot faster.

You just don't get it. People who don't reproduce effectively root themselves out through the process of evolution. That is not a valid counter argument because I do not think we should force anyone to not be homosexual either. I don't think we should force individuals with "personality disorders" to change either. I have the utmost respect for the autonomy of a person, but there is no such thing as true free will amongst the human race.

Root themselves out? If you have the utmost respect for the autonomy of a person, which is including homosexuals, by the way, you wouldn't try to interfere with their culture. But of course, "there is no true free will".

Why don't you tell me what you think homosexuality means. I have no doubt we would agree on that at least.

There is no literal gay germ. It is a developmental disorder. I would root it out by educating the public of what causes homosexuality and the best way to make a cultural change is through the children because adults are dense.

So what on Earth causes homosexuality? I don't see how you can hope to discuss anything without first defining what exactly are you referring to. Oh, and while you do that, some reputable sources would be nice. And why don't you give me a formula of how to raise gays? I want to try that the next time my dog has puppies.

Genocide is out of the question. Eugenics is irrelevant because it is not genetic. Even if it where I wouldn't say eugenics would be out of the question.

So according to you, if homosexuality is definitely genetic, we should kill them. Alright. I get it now.

But in the event that your typing was simply wrong, please tell me you meant to say would.

[Architectonic]

It is misleading to call it choice (which implies some sort of conscious choice), when it is really just something that occurs as a result of environmental conditioning (life experiences).

With changing societal norms, homosexuality will likely become more common.

Assume that homosexuality is partly genetic, with alot of genes responsible.

Unfortunately, the more genes you include, the less predictive it is likely to become. I'm willing to bet that you will get some people with a complete set of "genetic markers for homosexuality", yet they don't display homosexual behaviour at all. (and those later in life will have had a typical family etc)

But if it was due a simple genetic picture (or early developmental issue - ie in the womb), then this would lead to pharmaceutical or surgical solutions. Eg. take this drug and no longer be gay.
If you wish to maintain their right to practise such behaviour, then choice suddenly becomes the most important factor.

35% is not a number that can be denied.

It can certainly be questioned. These sorts of studies are not quite as rigorous as say, a double blind placebo controlled test. The fact is that it could be due to a self fulfilling prophecy. Eg those who believe that homosexuality is genetic are more likely to make that choice if their genetically identical twin has already made that choice.

I predict that the genetic factors will only predict for more generic personality factors - akin to things like degree of openness or 'F' in MBTI.

Research suggests that people are born gay, and homosexuality pervades the animal kingdom.

The only way that research strongly suggests that people (or animals) are born gay is if they test their genes (blindly - ie don't reveal results) at birth and then see how they develop. If the prediction turns out to be true a statistically strong amount of times, then this research will validate the hypothesis. Otherwise, it's still speculative.

If you attempt to do such correlations at adult hood, there are various biases that can distort the results.

[Antares]

The only way that research strongly suggests that people (or animals) are born gay is if they test their genes (blindly - ie don't reveal results) at birth and then see how they develop. If the prediction turns out to be true a statistically strong amount of times, then this research will validate the hypothesis. Otherwise, it's still speculative.

If you attempt to do such correlations at adult hood, there are various biases that can distort the results.

Born gay does not necessarily mean it has to be genetically influenced. Another hypothesis, as I have written before, is prenatal environment and birth order.

As such, you did not specify what would cause children to be gay, if it was due to environmental issues. That makes your claims somewhat unfalsifiable. Also, please cite some studies that would support the opposite of the theses proposed above, that it is neither due to prenatal environment nor genetics.

[Undead Bonzi]

Topic title = Basic math fail.

Average lifespan is around 70 years in developed nations. There are homosexuals in their 20's right now. They will not be dead in 20 years thus the title is wrong. Theory also discounts closeted individuals who marry and have children to appear normal. If the cause is genetic it won't die out because of these individuals, especially if the trait is recessive (which we can infer that it is if two straight parents can have a gay child).

If the trait is social rather than genetic then it still won't die out as the factors and pressures creating homosexuality won't dissapear in two decades because they have apprently been around for as long as recorded history.

OP theory also ignores lesbians and invitro fertilization.

The end

[Architectonic]

edit - (clarifying that this is a reply to Anatares' recent comment)

Sorry, my comments were meant to be more specific.

I meant to say, the only way you will prove beyond reasonable it is genetic is if you do such an experiment.

PS, I am not denying the theoretical possibility (so your second comment doesn't really apply), I am simply stating that current research does not strongly suggest it is primarily genetic.

My opinion also happens to be that is is not primarily genetic.

[Antares]

edit - (clarifying that this is a reply to Anatares' recent comment)

Sorry, my comments were meant to be more specific.

I meant to say, the only way you will prove beyond reasonable it is genetic is if you do such an experiment.

Which is why it disappoints me that there isn't research like this done. But either way, it's extremely hard to study a large sample population like that, given how small a population gays are.

[Architectonic]

Which is why it disappoints me that there isn't research like this done. But either way, it's extremely hard to study a large sample population like that, given how small a population gays are.

I'd be convinced even if they demonstrated this just with these so-called homosexual animals (with a reasonable sample size).

[Antares]

I'd be convinced even if they demonstrated this with these so-called homosexual animals.

What Twin Studies Tell us about Homosexuality

Scientists have studied twins to try and learn if being gay is biologically determined. Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that there is a genetic influence on sexual orientation. If being gay were strictly genetic, then in identical twins, there would be a 100% concordance rate for sexual orientation. But one study in 1995 found a 52% correlation for male identical twins and 22% for male fraternal twins. A study on females came up with similar results. If one identical twin was a lesbian, in 48% of cases, the other twin was also a lesbian. For fraternal twins, the concordance was 16%. (source Simon LeVay)
These studies show that people with the same genetic make up (identical twins) are more likely to share sexual orientation than those with different genetic make up (fraternal twins.) Genetics alone cannot cause sexual orientation, but they do play a part.

If you buy this, it's pretty hard to say genes don't play a part. Unless you're saying they all knew about the claim that homosexuality is genetic, and they had that in mind when they were influenced into being homosexual, and that they're using their twin's homosexuality as a justification, assuming they wouldn't choose homosexuality if their twins were not homosexual. That makes the assumption that homosexuality is inherently wrong.

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

[admittedheretic]

People are born gay. Unless you're telling me they can control what goes on inside their mothers' womb as well, in that case I commend their superhuman powers.

I understood your bullshit the first time, no need to repeat it.

Again you have made a claim without proving evidence. Yawn.


^What part of that don't you understand? You'll agree with the article on the part that says there are brain differences, but not the above? Did you even read the article? Fun cherrypicking!LMAO. All the proof you have is a single doctor saying he BELIEVES something? Good grief.


Until you can produce studies that suggest homosexuality is not a predetermined condition, I wonder where you must be pulling this stuff from.There are too many study to list that suggest homosexual is a product of the environment. I've offered many articles in other threads before and I'm not going to waste my time. I'm already leading you to water and you won't drink.

Prove to me how one's favorite color is not a predetermined condition. Please don't skip over this challenge.


Environment? What kind of environment? Don't leave your thesis undefined. Come on. Work with me here. Specifics, specifics. If it's purely environment, then why are their multiple sexual orientations among children of the same family? And if it is environment, do you think the child really would have control over how they're raised?I haven't left anything undefined. If it's not purely environment it must be something else. The only other thing it could be is genetic and it isn't. Our environments are complex and just because children are raised in the same family doesn't mean they have the same experiences. Your question serves no purpose.

Children have some control, but not much relative to adults. Did I ever said a child or an adult for that matter chooses sexuality like they choose what store to shop at? No, you just keep claiming I said things that I have not.


Birth Order May Affect Homosexuality
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)Old news. Birth order effects hormones which influence sexuality, but do not cause anything.


Long story short, no, I'm not going to change my mind and say I'm making this up. You haven't cited a thing from any reputable source whatsoever. Show me the evidence, then we'll talk.Go to google, Search "homosexuality twin studies" and have a ball. If your too intellectually lazy to do this I don't think me linking you to the studies will help.



Funny that you should accuse me of being human-centric in the E.T. thread when you think any land not used by humans is wasted. Because when cows, animals and grass live on land, it's "wasted".I don't see how that is relevant to anything we are currently discussing, but I never said any such things.


Is it where you're living, or have you never seen what the rest of the world is like with population density? Have you been out of the country? Have you been where I live? The city I'm in has 20 million people, or 7% of the population of your entire country. What "fucked up" culture? Other than the fact that apparently we should fuck like there's no tomorrow to give the "gift of life" to as many sperm and egg pairs as possible (and apparently according to you, they're "entities". You're speaking like they have a soul, and they're just waiting for their sperm buddies to join them so they can become your circular argument; "they're entities, so we should fuck, so as many as possible become entities")? Yeah, because if nothing else, that's going to make sure the world gets to 9.1 billion a lot faster.A few years ago I volunteered a week of my time building houses and teaching children in Juarez, Mexico; one of the worse places in the world with regard to what your getting at. I slept in the middle of a city amongst those that live in cardboard houses next to the garbage dump. I say much suffering, but I also saw many smiles and happiness. The people there are not killing themselves by the masses. They want to live life. If they don't think life is worth living they will stop having children themselves.

I don't follow the other stuff you where attempting to say.



Root themselves out? If you have the utmost respect for the autonomy of a person, which is including homosexuals, by the way, you wouldn't try to interfere with their culture. But of course, "there is no true free will".You must not understand how evolution works if you disagree with what I said.

Are doctors who help people with pervasive developmental disorders interfering with their culture and violating their autonomy as well? Oh, and I don't interfere with their culture. There is no true free will, what is your point?


So what on Earth causes homosexuality? I don't see how you can hope to discuss anything without first defining what exactly are you referring to. Oh, and while you do that, some reputable sources would be nice. And why don't you give me a formula of how to raise gays? I want to try that the next time my dog has puppies.



So according to you, if homosexuality is definitely genetic, we should kill them. Alright. I get it now.LOL Did you not read where I said genocide (killing) is out of the question.


But in the event that your typing was simply wrong, please tell me you meant to say would.No mistake in what I typed.

[Architectonic]

Unless you're saying they all knew about the claim that homosexuality is genetic, and they had that in mind when they were influenced into being homosexual, and that they're using their twin's homosexuality as a justification, assuming they wouldn't choose homosexuality if their twins were not homosexual. That makes the assumption that homosexuality is inherently wrong.

No, the influences can be much more subtle than that. Actually, the environmental differences themselves are much more subtle - identical twins are even more likely to have shared experiences than non identical twins. This in itself could account for the results. To truly control for the environment, you need the identical twins to be brought up almost entirely isolated from one another, combined with a reasonable sample size.

Secondly I don't see how your last sentence follows from my statement.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Not absolute control with everything that is our environment, but we do have control over all of the things that cause homosexuality.


I'd be interested in knowing what you believes cause homosexuality,that which we have controll of.

[admittedheretic]

Nobody cares what I think. I'm simply stating the objective facts of where the causality comes from. I try not to have any belifs because I know human sexuality is very complex and the reality of our psyche is often counter intuitive and yet painfully obvious at times. No matter what claim I would make it, it would be taken as offensive by so many. It would instantly ruin what small shot I have at at freeing them from their dense state of mind. I'm only interested in this subject because I have an obsessive interest in all things taboo. It is taboo to say many of the things I do even though they are objective facts. If the truth won't work something is wrong.

[humancapacity]

I realize that some of you have been considering the possible prenatal and environmental effects as, if the causes were genetic, as pointed out, homosexuality would likely be reduced each generation.

However, I've read an study that tenitively concluded that there are some genes that can be more efeminate and also increase a male's chance of being chosen as a mate, in humans (personally I kind of believe this as I seem to be attracted to most gay men I meet, however, I do not know if other women share this experience). These traits, if you have a few, make you more attractive to females, if you have a lot, the study says, they make you a homosexual. It seems pretty reasonable to me, although to be honest I would like to see at least another study. In the meantime it's worth contemplating about, although, it does not explain lesbians. Either way, this theory coupled with lesbian invitro-fertilization could spell that homosexuality will not dissapear, but increase.

[Shauru]

THIS applies directly to the OP's "Thesis"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for the rest of the arguments. *Glares at Heretic*
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[mormeguil]

Nobody cares what I think. I'm simply stating the objective facts of where the causality comes from. I try not to have any belifs because I know human sexuality is very complex and the reality of our psyche is often counter intuitive and yet painfully obvious at times. No matter what claim I would make it, it would be taken as offensive by so many. It would instantly ruin what small shot I have at at freeing them from their dense state of mind. I'm only interested in this subject because I have an obsessive interest in all things taboo. It is taboo to say many of the things I do even though they are objective facts. If the truth won't work something is wrong.

So... you just like to make people angry to "free them from a dense mind" and don't want to really further the discussion.

Anyway, why the hell would anyone want to remove homosexuality from anywhere. It does not cause any problem, it's impossible for the entire population to turn homosexual. Honestly there is simply no good reason for anyone to want homosexuality to die in 20 years.

So, OP, if you truly believe all homosexual will disseaper in 20 years (I do hope I would live over 40, but if you are correct I will not) tell us what is the next step to save them !

[sms444]

The argument is nature versus nurture and like most behavior the reality is there are influences from nature and nurture. You seem to think this is a debate about nature versus nurture versus choice. I don't know what to say because what you have said makes no logical sense.


Consider that it may be your lack of understanding, not my lack of logic, that is confusing you. My claim, simply stated, is that free choice is limited by BOTH nature and nurture.

Nature and nurture take away our ability to have a choice in many instances. I am in agreement with the posters who claim that sexuality appears to be one of those choices that is taken out of our hands by either nature or nurture.

That to me (and to all definitions of the word) implies that there is no choice in the matter. Could this still be unclear?

[admittedheretic]

Consider that it may be your lack of understanding, not my lack of logic, that is confusing you. My claim, simply stated, is that free choice is limited by BOTH nature and nurture.

Considering I called bullshit on what you accused me of and you couldn't find any quotes where I said the things you say I did, I would think it is you with the lack of understanding. I realize you just wanted to state your claim, but how does it fit in with what I said?


Nature and nurture take away our ability to have a choice in many instances. I am in agreement with the posters who claim that sexuality appears to be one of those choices that is taken out of our hands by either nature or nurture.

Nature and nurture are an inherent part of the human condition. I don't know what great insight you think you've found when all behavior is rooted in nature and nurture.

Could you give another example of a choice that is out of our hands? Is it just sexuality? No other aspects of the human brain effectively becomes permanently fixed so why sexuality?

I'm in agreement with the credible scientists. You feel free to to reinforce yourself with the notion that others agree with you even when neither of you understand the issue.


That to me (and to all definitions of the word) implies that there is no choice in the matter. Could this still be unclear?

Again, it isn't Nature versus Nurture versus Choice. Homosexuality is not genetic therefore it is Environmental caused. That is what people mean when they say it is a learned behavior. They are not saying it is a choice that can change over night. Stop misrepresenting the argument. In effect in you are saying homosexuality in no way is influenced from the environment and that contradicts what you previously have acknowledged.

You just couldn't be more wrong.

[sms444]

Considering I called bullshit on what you accused me of and you couldn't find any quotes where I said the things you say I did, I would think it is you with the lack of understanding.


The statement you are referring to must be when I said "If a person has control over their sexuality, it means they could choose to be straight or gay according to you."

You responded by saying:

I know I could change my attraction to males though it would take a long time and possibly would involve drugging.


So not only did you respond to my statement, but you affirmed that it IS indeed what you believe to be true.


I realize you just wanted to state your claim, but how does it fit in with what I said?


I stated my claim because you were the one accusing me of positions I do not hold.

Namely, that:


You seem to think this is a debate about nature versus nurture versus choice.


I stated that I think choice is the slave to the results of the nature vs nurture argument, NOT another (vs) part of it. Rephrased once more for extreme clarity. Choice only comes into effect after nature vs nurture have already battled it out. Choice is NOT part of that battle, just part of the result.


Could you give another example of a choice that is out of our hands? Is it just sexuality? No other aspects of the human brain effectively becomes permanently fixed so why sexuality?


Note that I've never said that any of these (including sexuality) are permanently fixed, just that they are innate preferences.

And yes, I could give hundreds of other examples, but I think you and I disagree on those in a manner that cannot be reconciled within this thread. I would include favorite flavor and favorite color, for starters. I don't know about you, but I didn't choose either of those when I was a kid - I discovered them. I innately liked one flavor more than all the others - there was no choice about it. I could NEVER choose watermelon as my favorite flavor no matter how much I might want to because I simply have an innate dislike of it.


Homosexuality is not genetic therefore it is Environmental caused. That is what people mean when they say it is a learned behavior.


My entire argument against your claim centers around this statement:
It doesn't matter if homosexuality is caused by genetics or by the environment because we cannot control either of those as a child.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I will put some words in your mouth now, but half in your favor - your primary claim, rephrased more clearly, is:

If homosexuality is indeed caused solely by environmental factors, then specific measures may exist that parents/teachers/society could use to eliminate the environmental cause of homosexuality, therefore eliminating homosexuality in future generations.

For this to be true, we would have to:
1. Discover and eliminate all of the environmental factors that cause homosexuality
2. Find scientific proof that homosexuality is NOT genetically caused at all

As I don't think either of those points can be satisfied, it is most likely best that we just agree to disagree on this topic. While I respect your right to express your opinions, I doubt we will see eye to eye on this issue.

[admittedheretic]

The statement you are referring to must be when I said "If a person has control over their sexuality, it means they could choose to be straight or gay according to you."

You responded by saying:



I know I could change my attraction to males though it would take a long time and possibly would involve drugging.


So not only did you respond to my statement, but you affirmed that it IS indeed what you believe to be true.

I effectively said I could be changed through conditioning, which is not synonymous with choice. The conditioning could be done against my free will (my choice) and it could still cause change.

Through conditioning I can learn to roller skate, but I can't just choose to know how to roller skate.

All you have done is create a straw man argument over semantics.



I stated my claim because you were the one accusing me of positions I do not hold.

Namely, that:


I'm still lost how your claim was at all was relevant to what I said to begin with.


I stated that I think choice is the slave to the results of the nature vs nurture argument, NOT another (vs) part of it. Rephrased once more for extreme clarity. Choice only comes into effect after nature vs nurture have already battled it out. Choice is NOT part of that battle, just part of the result.

That is pyschoblabble. It doesn't make any sense. Clear as mud.


Note that I've never said that any of these (including sexuality) are permanently fixed, just that they are innate preferences.

So what was your point with asking me if I believed things are fixed or not?

Innate preference. So what you are saying is ones orientation is formed before birth, but it can change it later? If it was innate it would be in the genome, but it isn't. How about some supporting evidence for your claim?


And yes, I could give hundreds of other examples, but I think you and I disagree on those in a manner that cannot be reconciled within this thread. I would include favorite flavor and favorite color, for starters. I don't know about you, but I didn't choose either of those when I was a kid - I discovered them. I innately liked one flavor more than all the others - there was no choice about it. I could NEVER choose watermelon as my favorite flavor no matter how much I might want to because I simply have an innate dislike of it

LOL.

You are effectively saying our favorite flavors and colors are encoded in our DNA which is blasphemous. How about some proof these claims? Sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for it.


My entire argument against your claim centers around this statement:
It doesn't matter if homosexuality is caused by genetics or by the environment because we cannot control either of those as a child.

It does matter. It is foolish to say it does not.

We've already went over this before, but a child does have some control over their environment although it is not much relative to an adult. Children do not raise themselves which makes what you have said illogical. Adults have a great deal of control with the influences that result in a child's development of sexuality. Adults make *gasp* choices about their enviorment which indirectly effect the child's developmental trajectory.


I will put some words in your mouth now, but half in your favor - your primary claim, rephrased more clearly, is:

If homosexuality is indeed caused solely by environmental factors, then specific measures may exist that parents/teachers/society could use to eliminate the environmental cause of homosexuality, therefore eliminating homosexuality in future generations.

My claim that homosexuality is environmentally caused has no bearing on how society perceives and treats homosexuality. The claim is an objective fact.


For this to be true, we would have to:
1. Discover and eliminate all of the environmental factors that cause homosexuality
2. Find scientific proof that homosexuality is NOT genetically caused at all

As I don't think either of those points can be satisfied, it is most likely best that we just agree to disagree on this topic. While I respect your right to express your opinions, I doubt we will see eye to eye on this issue.

The first point probably can never entirely be satisfied in a practical sense, but we don't not treat cancer patients because we don't have a cure for it. Theoretically there is no reason why every factor could not be found and homosexuality could be completely eliminated

Your second point has already been satisfied.

[sms444]

The first point probably can never entirely be satisfied in a practical sense, but we don't not treat cancer patients because we don't have a cure for it. Theoretically there is no reason why every factor could not be found and homosexuality could be completely eliminated

Your second point has already been satisfied.

We treat cancer because it is proven to kill the majority of people who are diagnosed with it. I don't think that analogy even comes close to homosexuality.

My second point hasn't been even close to satisfied! Other forum members on this very page of discussion have linked studies proving that homosexuality is at least partially genetic. You have simply dismissed them as false without any proof of your own, which doesn't make for very intellectual discussion.

The way I see it, one of these two statements sums up discussion between you and I:

1. My arguments are for the most part illogical or otherwise untrue, and I am unable to objectively see this.
2. My arguments are for the most part logical and true, yet you are unable to comprehend them.

I'm not sure which is true - perhaps it is a combination of both. Either way, it means we won't be getting any further discussing this with each other. I would value the input of other intelligent posters who might develop either of our positions further or comment on things we might've missed or misconstrued.

I would, however, still like to see the links to some scientific studies showing that homosexuality has been proven to be completely absent from our genetics.

[admittedheretic]

We treat cancer because it is proven to kill the majority of people who are diagnosed with it. I don't think that analogy even comes close to homosexuality.

What about people who don't value human life? They wouldn't treat cancer because they don't care if people are killed. Like myself, I assume you value human life so it might be hard for you to understand why some people wouldn't treat cancer, but that is only if you can't think outside of your own belief system.

If people want to eliminate homosexuality. should they not even bother to try unless they know every last possible detail of what explains it? And if they have reason to believe they will never completely solve the puzzle should they just give up and not even try? The analogy makes perfect sense with reagrd to that.


My second point hasn't been even close to satisfied! Other forum members on this very page of discussion have linked studies proving that homosexuality is at least partially genetic. You have simply dismissed them as false without any proof of your own, which doesn't make for very intellectual discussion.

Google "twin studies." Learn how they work and what they do. Then go find as many studies as you can. There will be conflicting studies, but it'll be painfully obvious which ones offer more consistent results with respect to their methodology of selecting subjects.

Homosexuality is partially influenced by genetics. It is not partially caused by genetics.

I have never dismissed that there are such influences. Shocker, another false accusation.

I've beat this horse a few times to know that people won't consider evidence even when you put it right in-front of their face. All you have to do is go google to see for yourself. That is if you really want to know. Unless your an expert in the subject which you obviously are not, I don't see why you wouldn't want to test your current beliefs if your pursuit is absolute truth like mine is.


I would, however, still like to see the links to some scientific studies showing that homosexuality has been proven to be completely absent from our genetics.

I will gladly link you to a study if you will first describe to me what sort of studies would conclude a behavior is or is not genetically caused. I've already thrown you a few bones with regard to that.

Step one is for you to admit it is possible that a behavior is influenced by genetics, but is not caused by it.

[sms444]

If people want to eliminate homosexuality. should they not even bother to try unless they know every last possible detail of what explains it? And if they have reason to believe they will never completely solve the puzzle should they just give up and not even try? The analogy makes perfect sense with reagrd to that.


Ok, I can't give this thread up especially since I didn't say that! What I said is that you can try to "cure" homosexuality, but you would fail to eliminate it completely unless you are able to find all of the environmental causes for it. If you miss or cannot figure out some causes, it will not ever be eliminated.

However, since homosexuality (unlike cancer) causes no harm to anyone (except for children who have not even been conceived), there is no impetus to figure out how to eliminate it.


Google "twin studies." Learn how they work and what they do. Then go find as many studies as you can. There will be conflicting studies, but it'll be painfully obvious which ones offer more consistent results with respect to their methodology of selecting subjects.
......
Step one is for you to admit it is possible that a behavior is influenced by genetics, but is not caused by it.


That is about as intellectually lazy as you can possibly be! Rather than submit your own proof to your own theory, tell every person reading this thread that they must do it themselves? AND that when they do it will be "painfully obvious" that you are correct? If it's so obvious, AND you already know these sources exist, you should be able to enlighten us with a link or two.

I'm not sure I can fully tackle your cause/influence idea, but if you mean that someone can have some genetic or environmental predisposition (influence) towards being gay, but not actually become gay, then I do agree on that point. For some people, however, or the influence may be too strong to simply ignore.

EDIT: I found a great study, it was one of the top google results that you claimed would prove your point -

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

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers,"

Sounds like genetics played no part there!

Gregory Carey, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Colorado, called the work very important. "I'm not terribly surprised at the conclusions," he said. "I think they're very well founded. Some of the earlier evidence suggested there was genetic effect, but the studies were not well done. This is something that really sort of clinches it."

So a conclusion that could be reached is that: influence LEADS to cause about 50% of the time, which is difficult to ignore when the homosexual influence is genetically strong enough.

[Feral]

Damn, wish I checked this board more often!

I'm not going to bother reading through all of it, I already know what it says.

So I'll just respond to the Op.

Homosexuality won't be any more dead in the next 20 years than it has for the past thousands of years.
What likely WILL be dead will be this way of thinking, at least for the most part, and that IS pretty easily proven.

[JustMel]

The facts are that some people will be homophobic forever. They'll continue to believe that homosexuality is a "disease" like cancer. When the rest of the population realizes that it's not a disease nor a mental disorder. It's simply a genetic happening as proven by multiple studies by reputable scientists and schools. Some people believe that it can be cured but again it's not a disease. Diseases are curable. Conditioning someone to have a Pavlovian response because polite society and homophobes don't like the fact of sexual orientation is not fixing something, it's proving that people can be trained like animals. Circus peanuts anyone?

Get over the homophobia and deal with it. Get over the bullshit religious crap that it's not natural and realize homosexuality predates religion. Homosexual people will be here from now until the earth collapses in on itself.

[cannotseethe]

What I said is that you can try to "cure" homosexuality, but you would fail to eliminate it completely unless you are able to find all of the environmental causes for it. If you miss or cannot figure out some causes, it will not ever be eliminated.

Eh. I think with brutal enough methods you could "cure" someone of their homosexuality, Manchurian Candidate style, no matter how it comes about. The question is why do that.

This is a different angle to the issue, one I find astonishing. How could you justify the careful study of all environmental and genetic factors that impact the development of homosexual behavior, and then the systematic manipulation of people's genes and environments to eliminate a behavior that causes no harm to anyone? Why not cure diabetes or cancer if you're that committed to helping people?

Unless, of course, helping people isn't the primary motivator.

[Evalis]

Nothing says "not gay" like a knocked up girlfriend.



I wonder how many people are suddenly 'not gay' after knocking someone up? Did they choose this because they just happened to impregnate someone? I would deign to believe so. And look someone believes me about it too!

Seriously though, I couldn't give a rats ass whether or not someone is gay. It in no way affects me. What I'm trying to get at is that this is all just a farce for attention. I mean seriously.. what straight person parades around downtown to declare they enjoy sex with the opposite sex. Heck in canada, being gay improves your job prospects because you are part of a protected group. Reasons other than merely enjoying sex with the same gender present themselves here. This isn't even touching on the idea that it's easier to get laid as a homosexual and in interacting with someone who typically has the same interests.

Erm.. samoa is not a good example.. plus that survey didn't specify that all of their respondants came from samoa - which would cause a huge disruption in the results simply based on cultural differences. Ironically of course, this article is more in contrast with heretics arguments than mine, since it 'demonstrates' there is an actual purpose for homosexuality.

But I digress.. in actuality it is not necessary to prove that the gay gene lies soley in straight people to refute this thesis.. it is only necessary to prove that it has no bearing on sexuality. This however is extremely unlikely.. it is far far more likely that homosexual couples are indeed carrying this gene (if it exists).

And um.. 50% of GAY TWINS?! That just goes to show that genetics is irrelevant. They would need to be seperated at birth for that to mean anything. I mean seriously, how much pressure is it for you to decide to be gay when your gay twin shows you how much fun having sex can be? I mean obviously you must be gay too if he's gay.. unless.. you for some reason can CHOOSE otherwise.

[Marcus Septim]

Homo's are 5-10% off the population at all times,no more no less,natural birth control
If you think about it,the 10'th% of 6,8 billion worldwide is quite a number
You sound like those christian phycos thak lock homosexualls for reabillitions,nobody cared before if you where one ^^

[admittedheretic]

Ok, I can't give this thread up especially since I didn't say that! What I said is that you can try to "cure" homosexuality, but you would fail to eliminate it completely unless you are able to find all of the environmental causes for it. If you miss or cannot figure out some causes, it will not ever be eliminated.

No shit? Stating the obvious a.k.a. sensing.

You said we can't agree because of what you have said... why? Here is where you said it..

For this to be true, we would have to:
1. Discover and eliminate all of the environmental factors that cause homosexuality
2. Find scientific proof that homosexuality is NOT genetically caused at all

As I don't think either of those points can be satisfied, it is most likely best that we just agree to disagree on this topic. While I respect your right to express your opinions, I doubt we will see eye to eye on this issue.:huh:



However, since homosexuality (unlike cancer) causes no harm to anyone (except for children who have not even been conceived), there is no impetus to figure out how to eliminate it.I know you struggle with putting yourself in other peoples shoes, but in some belief systems it is harmful and thus there is incentive to remove it.


That is about as intellectually lazy as you can possibly be! Rather than submit your own proof to your own theory, tell every person reading this thread that they must do it themselves? AND that when they do it will be "painfully obvious" that you are correct? If it's so obvious, AND you already know these sources exist, you should be able to enlighten us with a link or two.None of these our my theories. One or two studies prove nothing. Ironic you should call me intellectually lazy. Your the one asking me to spoon feed it to you.


I'm not sure I can fully tackle your cause/influence idea, but if you mean that someone can have some genetic or environmental predisposition (influence) towards being gay, but not actually become gay, then I do agree on that point. For some people, however, or the influence may be too strong to simply ignore.What is it you are confused about?

The influences are better termed risk factors than predispositions. That is the proper notion whether it bothers you or not.

Now you are saying there are two different causes of homosexuality. One cause is entirely genetic and there other is just a genetic predisposition. Before you said that anyone can change their orientation, but it is just fixed from birth. That contradicts what you have just said about "being too strong to signore" which means causes. What is with the flip flopping? I hope you realize your position isn't as firm as you where previously led to believe.


EDIT: I found a great study, it was one of the top google results that you claimed would prove your point -

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

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers,"

Sounds like genetics played no part there!

Gregory Carey, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Colorado, called the work very important. "I'm not terribly surprised at the conclusions," he said. "I think they're very well founded. Some of the earlier evidence suggested there was genetic effect, but the studies were not well done. This is something that really sort of clinches it."


When the article says "genetic basis," that does not mean it is genetically caused.

From the article..

The study examined 56 identical twins, 54 fraternal twins and 57 adoptive brothers recruited through advertisements in gay-interest publications
Dr. Bailey estimated that the degree of the genetic contribution to homosexuality could range from 30 percent to more than 70 percent, depending on varying assumptions about the prevalence of homosexuality and how well the sample represents twins in the general population. Are you not aware that if a trait is caused by genetics the rate would be 100%? Because of margins of error taken into account most studies of genetic conditions aren't 100% but are usually above 90%.

That is just one study. Go look for more. See if you can find some that you think "are not good studies."

Clustering homosexuals together and finding influences they have in common is not insightful in anyway. The same could be done with many forms of behavior.


So a conclusion that could be reached is that: influence LEADS to cause about 50% of the time, which is difficult to ignore when the homosexual influence is genetically strong enough.The word cause wasn't even in that article.

Also it is important to note identical twins share a womb with each other and share environmental factors that explain some of where that correlation is being noticed from.

Reading headlines isn't properly evaluating evidence.

[JustMel]

Just because something is genetic doesn't mean it will have an affect on 100% of the people the same way. You can carry the gene for breast cancer but 100% of those that carry the gene will actually have breast cancer.

Spouting that 100% means it happens in 100% of cases is fallacy and a gross misunderstanding of genetics and genetic markers.

What it means is that everyone that carries the gene for homosexuality has the potential to be homosexual not that they will actually become homosexual. Just like carrying the gene for breast cancer doesn't mean you will actually have a breast cancer diagnosis but that you have a higher probability under the right circumstances be they environmental or whatever.

[admittedheretic]

Just because something is genetic doesn't mean it will have an affect on 100% of the people the same way. You can carry the gene for breast cancer but 100% of those that carry the gene will actually have breast cancer.

I think you've misspoken. Didn't you mean to say something to the effect that one can carry the genes of breast cancer, but not actually develop breast cancer? Of course that is true, though it is a minor occurrence. Men pass along genes that are risk factors for breast cancer too. What actually causes the cancer is a mutation of the genes


Spouting that 100% means it happens in 100% of cases is fallacy and a gross misunderstanding of genetics and genetic markers.

No it isn't. This is a blasphemous claim. It is you who does not understand how genetics works.

Autism has long been speculated to be genetic and there are several studies that show 100% correlation amongst the twins studied.



What it means is that everyone that carries the gene for homosexuality has the potential risk factor to be homosexual not that they will actually become homosexual.

And why won't they necessarily become homosexuality, because the environment has the final and really only say.


ust like carrying the gene for breast cancer doesn't mean you will actually have a breast cancer diagnosis but that you have a higher probability under the right circumstances be they environmental or whatever.

Exactly, it means you have a risk factor.

What do you mean by "environmental or whatever?" What else is there to consider besides environment?

In other words, genetics does not cause homosexuality or breast cancer.

[JTG]

For the sake of the discussion, i think it's important to differentiate between preference and choice. I don't think any kind of preference is a choice. I'm an INTJ not because i choose to be, but because my cognitive/behavioral preferences fall into line a certain way.

I could choose to socialize all the time, but that would not make me extraverted... it would just make me unhappy. I am wired to prefer solitude a great deal more than socialization. I can still enjoy socializing, but the preference is toward the other end of the spectrum normally.

It's just the same for sex.

A person who prefers same sex relations could certainly choose not to indulge such behaviors, but they would lead a less fulfilled life in the end. They don't have the preference out of choice, though whether they choose to act on their preference is totally up to them.


To put it back into MBTI terms, it's not a question of whether it's genetic, but rather a question of to what extent it's genetic. Certainly i have certain genes that make me lean in one direction or another. Maybe certain areas of my brain are more highly developed (logical) than other (emotional) areas, or perhaps as a young child i was under certain circumstances that caused me to use one area more than another, thus strengthening connections there and leading to a future preference?

Who knows how much each factor has an influence over the final result? However it works out though, i am INTJ because of my preferences. Homosexuals are homosexuals because of theirs.

[JustMel]

I think you've misspoken. Didn't you mean to say something to the effect that one can carry the genes of breast cancer, but not actually develop breast cancer? Of course that is true, though it is a minor occurrence. Men pass along genes that are risk factors for breast cancer too. What actually causes the cancer is a mutation of the genes



No it isn't. This is a blasphemous claim. It is you who does not understand how genetics works.

Autism has long been speculated to be genetic and there are several studies that show 100% correlation amongst the twins studied.




And why won't they necessarily become homosexuality, because the environment has the final and really only say.



Exactly, it means you have a risk factor.

What do you mean by "environmental or whatever?" What else is there to consider besides environment?

In other words, genetics does not cause homosexuality or breast cancer.

Do you have a degree in biology? Do you have a degree in genetics? We both know the answer is no. Neither do I but I have seen and consulted with geneticists for issues relating to my seizures. I know what they believe to be the "cause" of homosexuality. You do not. Therefore, neither of us is exactly right though I'm probably closer than you.

[JTG]

Autism has long been speculated to be genetic and there are several studies that show 100% correlation amongst the twins studied.

Mel's argument wasn't the equivalent of "not all autistic children carry autism genes" so much as "not all people who carry autistic genes are autistic"

In other words, non-autistic parents can have autistic children. That's not to mention the fact that disorders like autism and down's syndrome are very highly genetically influenced, while things such as cancer are genetically influenced, but also can be very environmentally influenced as well.

Like i said, with homosexuality, it's not so much a question of whether it's genetic as it is a question of to what extent it's genetic.

[admittedheretic]

I could choose to socialize all the time, but that would not make me extraverted... it would just make me unhappy. I am wired to prefer solitude a great deal more than socialization. I can still enjoy socializing, but the preference is toward the other end of the spectrum normally.

Socialization and extroversion are not the same thing, but that is beside the point. If your one is using a cognitive function all the time then by definition that is what one's preference is. You can't fake it all the time. Your argument is illogical.


To put it back into MBTI terms, it's not a question of whether it's genetic, but rather a question of to what extent it's genetic. Certainly i have certain genes that make me lean in one direction or another. Maybe certain areas of my brain are more highly developed (logical) than other (emotional) areas, or perhaps as a young child i was under certain circumstances that caused me to use one area more than another, thus strengthening connections there and leading to a future preference?

It is not genetically caused. I have never said there aren't very real genetic influences like you have mentioned.


Who knows how much each factor has an influence over the final result? However it works out though, i am INTJ because of my preferences. Homosexuals are homosexuals because of theirs.

So, you where born INTJ? Yes or no.

All you have said is "people are, who they are." Circular logic. People react to what influences them, you bet.

Do you have a degree in biology? Do you have a degree in genetics? We both know the answer is no. Neither do I but I have seen and consulted with geneticists for issues relating to my seizures. I know what they believe to be the "cause" of homosexuality. You do not. Therefore, neither of us is exactly right though I'm probably closer than you.

No degree is necessary to understand how a twin study works.

You realize you base the entirety of your arguements around your personal experiences right?

You, Antares, and sms444 have all done the same thing. You all can't bring a logical argument to the table so you just cry out for backup. Rather than risk being wrong you each validate your beliefs through others who share your position. It was once thought the Earth was the center of our universe and people where burned at the stake for saying otherwise. I understand and admire what I believe to be the underlying incentive which is to spread acceptance and fair treatment to homosexuals, but I don't think that can be done hiding the truth.

If you guys believe that you can substitute science for politics then I can respect that, but do not claim you are not obstructing the truth.


Mel's argument wasn't the equivalent of "not all autistic children carry autism genes" so much as "not all people who carry autistic genes are autistic"

In other words, non-autistic parents can have autistic children. That's not to mention the fact that disorders like autism and down's syndrome are very highly genetically influenced, while things such as cancer are genetically influenced, but also can be very environmentally influenced as well.


If a certain gene is associated with autism, a person who has it expressed is always considered autistic though they might not even meet a clinical diagnosis. The point a person with autistic traits (and genes) is just a normal person with a few quirks and where someone is clinically autism is an arbitrary and subjective decision. There are good reasons why we've made a discrimination between the two so please refrain from stating the obvious.

Autism is a broad diagnosis for many different conditions with various causes

Non-autistic parents who have autistic children are technically autistic parents to a lesser degree.

[sms444]

You, Antares, and sms444 have all done the same thing. You all can't bring a logical argument to the table so you just cry out for backup. Rather than risk being wrong you each validate your beliefs through others who share your position.

We have all espoused logical arguments, in the hopes that you might understand even one of them. That is why we are all posting here, not out of some fictional sense of validation that we get from trying to argue with someone who cannot understand/accept anything we say. In fact, if you look through this thread, you will see that far more people than just the 3 of us have espoused logically sound arguments that you have disregarded. Those same people have also posted scientific studies to back up their points. For reasons that I doubt anyone reading this can understand, you still think that for you don't need to do the same. I suppose most of them were smart enough to realize by this point that it is a better use of their time to argue with a brick wall.


Non-autistic parents who have autistic children are technically autistic parents to a lesser degree.

This is simply, outright wrong. No psychologist or doctor in the world would agree with this.

[Antares]

You, Antares, and sms444 have all done the same thing. You all can't bring a logical argument to the table so you just cry out for backup. Rather than risk being wrong you each validate your beliefs through others who share your position. It was once thought the Earth was the center of our universe and people where burned at the stake for saying otherwise. I understand and admire what I believe to be the underlying incentive which is to spread acceptance and fair treatment to homosexuals, but I don't think that can be done hiding the truth.


Twin studies reveal nothing more, nothing less, than genetic influence; clearly, all such studies indicate that people are born gay, whether by prenatal environment or otherwise. If you want us to capitulate to your belief that we can eliminate homosexuality by reeducation of the masses, then do for god's sake cite an article that demonstrates this is possible. Or otherwise forgo the thought of being taken seriously by proclaiming the ignorance of your opponents. I would like to see where I cried out for backup, if you think having more people against than for your position means we type each other desperate PMs to come to this thread and debate you. This isn't about my crying for backup, or the lack of it. This is a bloody debate, and not about my supposed ignorance.

Eh. I think with brutal enough methods you could "cure" someone of their homosexuality, Manchurian Candidate style, no matter how it comes about. The question is why do that.

This is a different angle to the issue, one I find astonishing. How could you justify the careful study of all environmental and genetic factors that impact the development of homosexual behavior, and then the systematic manipulation of people's genes and environments to eliminate a behavior that causes no harm to anyone? Why not cure diabetes or cancer if you're that committed to helping people?

Unless, of course, helping people isn't the primary motivator.

It is about helping people; correct me if I'm wrong. AH thinks helping people (eg. mankind) entails ensuring that homosexuality does not hinder the birth every possible being that could have been born if everyone is heterosexual. To give to all potential egg/sperm combination that could have resulted the "gift of life".

[JTG]

Socialization and extroversion are not the same thing, but that is beside the point.It kind of is the point. The point i was trying to make is you can have a preference, but still exhibit a contradictory behavior for the sake of appearances. I used to party a lot, and to anybody who knew me then, i'm sure i appeared as an extravert. It doesn't mean i was extraverted. I was living a lie. I was very unhappy during that period, and i always felt so drained from all the socializing, but i lived and behaved as an extravert. I am and have always been an introvert, so even though i can choose to act a certain way, my internal preference for solitude doesn't change.

Similarly, with homosexuality, you can't look at somebody and tell, unless they're broadcasting it.

If a certain gene is associated with autism, a person who has it expressed is always considered autistic though they might not even meet a clinical diagnosis.

Yes, but that's somebody who has it expressed. To say that everybody who has expressed autism has genes for autism is not far-fetched. To say that everybody who has genes for autism has expressed autistic tendencies is far-fetched.

If there is a "homosexual gene" and if everybody who is homosexual has that gene, then it does not also stand to reason that everybody who has the gene is a homosexual, for the same reason that somebody with genes for autism can be non-autistic. To say otherwise is to say that every autistic person came from autistic parents, or that every homosexual came from homosexual parents.

[whitey]

Article on genetically identical twins that grew up to be gay and straight (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

So I restate - subconscious level choice.
(Well, I don't like being that definite, there may be some genetic biases that increase the probability of being gay)

It's less of a choice and more a result of conditioning in the environment. These debates are fucking pointless. People want to debate what's causing a behavior and they all ignore the behavioral literature that I've cited on 2 or 3 threads at this point, which is just a subset of a much larger literature. They'd rather cling to op-eds and genetic correlation research rather than experimental demonstrations of control over behavior responses. It's actually quite a disappointing display.

When you look at twin studies, you have to keep in mind that what ever age the participants happen to be at when they answer a questionnaire, is the same number of years that they have had a reinforcement history which has led to the current behavioral repertoire. Which includes ALL sexual behavior. In less than a month of conditioning sessions males who once got boners to male stimuli will cease to do so, and will instead begin producing boners to female stimuli.

"Oh but let's just ignore that, it doesn't fit with what I want to believe."

:dunce:

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 09:57 PM ----------

Ok, I can't give this thread up especially since I didn't say that! What I said is that you can try to "cure" homosexuality, but you would fail to eliminate it completely unless you are able to find all of the environmental causes for it. If you miss or cannot figure out some causes, it will not ever be eliminated.


Actually you're incorrect. You do not need to identify 100% of the stimuli for a given class. If you target the most salient (most frequently encountered-ie: Male faces, Males, Nude males, etc.) then the other members of that stimulus class will acquire what ever is associated as a consequence with these salient stimuli. Humans would be fucked if they didn't have the versatility to rapidly associate stimuli within a given class together with specific consequences.

Homosexuality will probably always be around, as the mechanisms which shape behavior haven't change across simple organisms all the way up to complex organisms. Just like rape will always be around. Now, if you want to see the homosexuality rates increase, just increase the positive associations with being gay, and spread that crap all over the media and in the schools. Then you'll see the upcoming brainwashed masses engaging in more homosexual behavior. Monkey see monkey do.

[admittedheretic]

We have all espoused logical arguments, in the hopes that you might understand even one of them. That is why we are all posting here, not out of some fictional sense of validation that we get from trying to argue with someone who cannot understand/accept anything we say. In fact, if you look through this thread, you will see that far more people than just the 3 of us have espoused logically sound arguments that you have disregarded. Those same people have also posted scientific studies to back up their points. For reasons that I doubt anyone reading this can understand, you still think that for you don't need to do the same. I suppose most of them were smart enough to realize by this point that it is a better use of their time to argue with a brick wall.

Ad hominem.

People are posting scientific studies and concluding things the studies do not claim. I'm not the one with an issue with understanding.

You've done ran into the brick wall of rational logic my friend. Sorry you can't handle it.


This is simply, outright wrong. No psychologist or doctor in the world would agree with this.:rolleyes: How do you know this?

Twin studies reveal nothing more, nothing less, than genetic influence; clearly, all such studies indicate that people are born gay, whether by prenatal environment or otherwise.

Wrong.

If a twin study reveals 100% correlation, provided the twins are adopted at birth and prenatal environmental factors ruled out, it can be concluded a behavior is 100% caused by genetics.

Clearly? Didn't you post a study with 35% correlation? In what sense is that clear? You must think 35% of that study are the genetic homosexual and the 65% are the prenatal environmental caused homosexual. Too bad there is no proof orientation is formed in uetro for your belief.

Repeating your lies over and over will not make them true.



If you want us to capitulate to your belief that we can eliminate homosexuality by reeducation of the masses, then do for god's sake cite an article that demonstrates this is possible. Or otherwise forgo the thought of being taken seriously by proclaiming the ignorance of your opponents.Why wouldn't it be possible? Genetic or not, still possible.

I've done more than proclaim my opponents position is that of ignorance, I've proved it.



I would like to see where I cried out for backup, if you think having more people against than for your position means we type each other desperate PMs to come to this thread and debate you. This isn't about my crying for backup, or the lack of it. This is a bloody debate, and not about my supposed ignorance.The pillar of your argument was focused around withholding the status quo. You didn't so much as cry out for backup at the end like the others have, but it was an inherent aspect for your entire position.


It kind of is the point. The point i was trying to make is you can have a preference, but still exhibit a contradictory behavior for the sake of appearances. I used to party a lot, and to anybody who knew me then, i'm sure i appeared as an extravert. It doesn't mean i was extraverted. I was living a lie. I was very unhappy during that period, and i always felt so drained from all the socializing, but i lived and behaved as an extravert. I am and have always been an introvert, so even though i can choose to act a certain way, my internal preference for solitude doesn't change.

What you are saying is, you didn't always party. Ergo your arguement is still illogical.


To say that everybody who has genes for autism has expressed autistic tendencies is far-fetched.No it isn't. One might just have a single gene or cluster of genes associated with a single autistic behavioral attribute. The child with Kranner's autism (what most people think of autism as) is trigger by the environment and manifests with the time of onset in development. There are also conditions similar to autism that don't involve the genetic part, but the end results are similar.


If there is a "homosexual gene" and if everybody who is homosexual has that gene, then it does not also stand to reason that everybody who has the gene is a homosexual, for the same reason that somebody with genes for autism can be non-autistic. To say otherwise is to say that every autistic person came from autistic parents, or that every homosexual came from homosexual parents.Hypothetical if homosexually where genetically caused like autism, then what you have said otherwise is in fact correct. Children are products of the genetic make up of their parents, duh. That is all you have said.

If a gene or group of genes does not cause homosexuality in every instance, it is only an influence. There would be one loop hole for this argument and that would be it could be proposed that there are different types of homosexuals. This isn't rocket science.

[Gamgee]

Your kind of assuming gay people want to be "cured" as well.

That would infringe upon human rights if it was the intention a single person thought they knew what was best for someone or dare I say everyone of a certain group. A whole other sticky mess.

Considering someone being gay has probably not have had any adverse effects on anything one has to wonder why you are arguing this. There are plenty of things that actually need to be fixed and cured. I don't think a persons sexual orientation is one of those. They didn't pick who they were, but many may have made peace with it or even have embraced it. Sure, there will be the outliers who wish to be "cured", but it would certainly not get rid of homosexuality. This is assuming it is genetic.

It only gets worse with your theory. Assuming they do have this choice, and can make the choice to be gay it would get messy. Because then your not curing anything because nothing is wrong with them. They choose to be that way. It would be much like me deciding to go cure all the moronic homophobes and fix them up proper because they choose to not agree with me. Or perhaps I don't like people who eat peanut butter, let's go cure them so they don't like peanut butter.

I hope you are at least aware of this yes?

[admittedheretic]

Your kind of assuming gay people want to be "cured" as well.

From my perspective I don't care what any particular group of people wants. I care about what is good for the human race in general.

I don't think a cure should be forced upon anyone.


That would infringe upon human rights if it was the intention a single person thought they knew what was best for someone or dare I say everyone of a certain group. A whole other sticky mess.

That would be true, but there is objective truth in this world. To dismiss the notion that homosexuality is maladaptive is to dismiss evolutionary theory.


Considering someone being gay has probably not have had any adverse effects on anything one has to wonder why you are arguing this. There are plenty of things that actually need to be fixed and cured. I don't think a persons gender is one of those. They didn't pick who they were, but many may have made peace with it or even have embraced it. Sure, there will be the outliers who wish to be "cured", but it would certainly not get rid of homosexuality. This is assuming it is genetic.

Sexual orientation is not gender.

It isn't truthful to say people don't entirely pick who they are. They do to an extent, but the capacity to change differs during our stages of development. Namely we loose our capacity to change as we age.

I think of homosexuality just like I think of mental retardation. I don't think we should murder the mentally retarded, but I do think we should prevent it from occurring if possible. In other words I believe in eugenics, I think man kind should direct our evolution in a way that we see fit. What most people consider fit is what serves a egocentric human and not the human race at large. Which is fine and I can respect it, but such people will never admit they hold such a position because of such.


It only gets worse with your theory. Assuming they do have this choice, and can make the choice to be gay it would get messy. Because then your not curing anything because nothing is wrong with them. They choose to be that way. It would be much like me deciding to go cure all the moronic homophobes and fix them up proper because they choose to not agree with me. Or perhaps I don't like people who eat peanut butter, let's go cure them so they don't like peanut butter.

It isn't as much as a choice as it is a capacity to change. Again if someone doesn't want to change, I don't advocate they should be forced to do so.

I don't concern myself with which theory bests serves our political reality. I care about what the truth is.


I hope you are at least aware of this yes?

I am. I'm curious if you have ever thought of the following.

Every one has heard the story of a man who some would argue was born gay, but hide his sexuality to the extent that he took a wife and had even raised a family. Some will maintain that he still was a homosexual the whole time despite he didn't exhibit any homosexual behavior. If the man is involved with affairs with men that isn't a different story. Unless you object to this and I have no reason to believe you would, consider the reverse scenario.

What about a man who was supposedly born heterosexual, but lived a lie acting out as a homosexual? From his perspective he does not want to be homosexual, but he has been pressured by the environment for whatever reasons. Are you aware this man can not see a professional doctor who is educated about his issues and who can treat him? From his aspect the homosexual behavior is disorder and becomes politics interfered with science, homosexuality disorder was removed from the DSM, he can't seek help.

In light of that, you aren't much of an advocate for human rights for everyone are you? Hiding the truth may have allowed you to advocate for the majority, but only the truth will free everyone.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Environmental factors are being mentioned alot in this debate. I'm genuinely curious as to what these environmental factors are believed to be.

[JTG]

What you are saying is, you didn't always party. Ergo your arguement is still illogical.Nope. You're just not getting it, either because you can't understand, or because you refuse to concede that you could possibly be wrong.

My argument on that is that preference and behavior do not always match up. Predisposition does not ultimately equate to choice. By your logic, even extraverts who don't always party aren't extraverts. Taking an argument ad absurdum does not mean you're right.

Somebody can be gay and choose not to act upon their impulses. If they aren't doing gay things, then they could claim being straight, and nobody would be the wiser.

And yes, for about a year, i did always party. Nobody who got to know me then would believe i'm an introvert if i told them. My behavior did not match my preference.

Hypothetical if homosexually where genetically caused like autism, then what you have said otherwise is in fact correct. Children are products of the genetic make up of their parents, duh. That is all you have said.Duh, that's what you're arguing, except you're oversimplifying it. You're saying that anybody who's gay came from gay parents, because you refuse to accept that genes can be carried but not expressed. A man and woman with brown hair can have a child with red or blonde hair. Genetics is a crap shoot sometimes.

This isn't rocket science.
Finally, we agree on something.

[admittedheretic]

My argument on that is that preference and behavior do not always match up. Predisposition does not ultimately equate to choice. By your logic, even extraverts who don't always party aren't extraverts. Taking an argument ad absurdum does not mean you're right.

I will argue that a preference is non-existence if it doesn't ever match up with behavior. Thought is also behavior so your saying it is possible for a person to be homosexual even if they never think or act like a homosexual? That would have to be your logic if you chose to use it.

I never said anything to the effect that all extroverts must party all the time. If you would be so kind to reread what I wrote you'd see that I pointed out socialization and extroversion are not the same thing as you've fallaciously proclaimed.

What we disagree on is what always means as ridiculous as that is.


Somebody can be gay and choose not to act upon their impulses. If they aren't doing gay things, then they could claim being straight, and nobody would be the wiser.

Of course.


And yes, for about a year, i did always party. Nobody who got to know me then would believe i'm an introvert if i told them. My behavior did not match my preference.

A period of a year is not always. This is my point.

Maybe if you have partied for the last decade you could say you always partied. Why would anyone assume you where an extrovert from attending a party? I think it would only happen if someone didn't understand what introversion and extroversion are, like yourself.


Duh, that's what you're arguing, except you're oversimplifying it. You're saying that anybody who's gay came from gay parents, because you refuse to accept that genes can be carried but not expressed. A man and woman with brown hair can have a child with red or blonde hair. Genetics is a crap shoot sometimes.

If homosexuality is a genetic condition then of course a gay child would get the gay genes from their gay gene gay parents. Replace homosexuality and gay with any other form of behavior caused by genetics and the statement will still be true. I'm arguing homosexuality is not genetic so it is beyond me why you think I would argue that. My position isn't forced to contradict itself like yours.

I'm well aware how Mendelian inheritance works and how it does not work in the case of eye color. The genetics of hair color is not understood yet. I never said that genes can't exist without being expressed. Genetics only seems like a crap shoot if one doesn't understand it. I'll use Autism as an example again. A clinical diagnosis of autism is made when there is a cluster of different genes associated with different behaviors. The expression of the genes does not lay dormant until a certain combination of them is formed. It just doesn't suddenly get triggered. Sexual orientation is a spectrum. There is no clear dichotomy. Genes do not code for behavior! They code for how the hardware of our brain is structured which effects how our software runs on it.

[JTG]

I will argue that a preference is non-existence if it doesn't ever match up with behavior.So just because you can't see it means it isn't there? Preference is inherently personal in nature. Gays who grow up in religious areas and end up with families and children can still have a differing preference. I knew a guy who kept it to himself until his late 40s. His children were already grown and had moved out, and one day he just came out. He had "always" behaved in a heterosexual manner. He had "always" lived the life he was told he should live, but it was never satisfying to him.

To say that thought = behavior isn't wholly accurate. Conscious thought and desire are two different things. You can't control your desire any more than you can control how you feel. You can certainly overcome your emotions to behave in a rational manner, but that's not the same as choosing not to feel that way. Thinking, rationalizing, and logical thought are done in a different area of the brain than wanting, feeling, and desiring. The lower functions are largely unable to be controlled by means of simple decision making.

Somebody was talking earlier in the thread about means of "curing" homosexuals. True, such treatments may work, but the homosexual isn't deciding to be straight so much as they're being reprogrammed to be straight. Sure, they may make the decision to submit to such treatment, but the alteration of their desires is being done to them by outside means, not by some internal decision to just not be gay anymore.

Environmental influence vs choice in that last case, which is irrelevant to our own discussion, but has been brought up in the thread already.

Why would anyone assume you where an extrovert from attending a party? I think it would only happen if someone didn't understand what introversion and extroversion are, like yourself.

Only a fool would call somebody an extrovert for going to a party. However, if somebody is working two full time jobs, both of which require heavy socializing... and if that same person is partying with friends 5-6 nights a week, then that becomes more typical extraverted behavior. I was never an extravert, but i behaved as one. I could have continued the behavior as long as i desired, but in the end i decided to be true to my nature and return to an introverted lifestyle.

Maybe you don't understand what it means to be an introvert or an extravert. It does not mean you spend most of your time alone, or that you spend most of your time around others. It does mean that you have a preference for one or the other. Introverts who over-socialize (or extraverts who under-socialize) feel drained. They can still exhibit contradictory behaviors for the sake of public appearance. It can and does happen.

It's narrow-minded to say that somebody's behavior in the long run dictates their preference. True, in the long run somebody's preference should dictate their behavior, and thus the behavior could indicate preference, but in cases like homosexuality, where it can be socially unacceptable to act on one's preference, people will sometimes keep their preferences to themselves, sometimes for entire lifespans, just for the sake of avoiding punishment or being ostracized.

[Gamgee]

I am. I'm curious if you have ever thought of the following.

Every one has heard the story of a man who some would argue was born gay, but hide his sexuality to the extent that he took a wife and had even raised a family. Some will maintain that he still was a homosexual the whole time despite he didn't exhibit any homosexual behavior. If the man is involved with affairs with men that isn't a different story. Unless you object to this and I have no reason to believe you would, consider the reverse scenario.

What about a man who was supposedly born heterosexual, but lived a lie acting out as a homosexual? From his perspective he does not want to be homosexual, but he has been pressured by the environment for whatever reasons. Are you aware this man can not see a professional doctor who is educated about his issues and who can treat him? From his aspect the homosexual behavior is disorder and becomes politics interfered with science, homosexuality disorder was removed from the DSM, he can't seek help.

In light of that, you aren't much of an advocate for human rights for everyone are you? Hiding the truth may have allowed you to advocate for the majority, but only the truth will free everyone.

Ahh... eugenics. You should have just said so instead of dressing your words up in false niceties and misleading words.

This could be solved by perhaps making the public more aware, and teaching doctors or someone to distinguish what ones sexual identity is. Your trying to amputate a leg when all that is really needed is a band aid and a kiss. If even that is needed.

I mean if doctors were trained in how to help people figure out their identity and if they are gay or not it would help. We could even start young and get people aware of themselves. This way no one is hurt, and if it is as you say they would then have a "choice" since they would be aware of it when young. Then if we go with the other side and it is genetics we could teach people they have nothing to fear. You can't catch gay, or become gay.

Although I personally think this is beyond even eugenics. You are not trying to find alternative ways to as you say "cure" these people. Your going straight to the chopping block and the whole "curing" thing. It's pretty much not even eugenics at this point, but your personal opinion of these people and how best they should fit in society.

All I know is there is an incredible amount that could be done to lessen all of the problems you have raised without needing to resort in some sort of snake oil cure which would probably be just as brutal as the electrotherapy for questionable results. Then there is the fact that these are already debatable problems. So you could be doing this for nothing more than personal bias.

It would be like someone having a minor cough and you ordering for full surgical procedure to remove a lung and put a mechanical one it its place.

Edit
Oh and yes he can seek help. It is called a psychologist (councilor specifically). You can go to them to bounce problems around and talk things out. Hypothetically they are neutral, and in my experience are.

[admittedheretic]

So just because you can't see it means it isn't there? Preference is inherently personal in nature. Gays who grow up in religious areas and end up with families and children can still have a differing preference. I knew a guy who kept it to himself until his late 40s. His children were already grown and had moved out, and one day he just came out. He had "always" behaved in a heterosexual manner. He had "always" lived the life he was told he should live, but it was never satisfying to him.

In today's world, we can see thought with brain imaging.

From Wikipedia..

Behaviorism (or behaviourism), also called the learning perspective (where any physical action is a behavior), is a philosophy of psychology (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) based on the proposition that all things that organisms do — including acting, thinking and feeling — can and should be regarded as behaviors (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).[1] (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._note-Skinner1984-0)

^ a (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._ref-Skinner1984_0-0) b (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._ref-Skinner1984_0-1) Skinner, B.F. (16 April 1984). "The operational analysis of psychological terms" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Behavioral and brain sciences(Print) 7 (4): 547–581. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Retrieved 2008-01-10.


To say that thought = behavior isn't wholly accurate. Conscious thought and desire are two different things. You can't control your desire any more than you can control how you feel. You can certainly overcome your emotions to behave in a rational manner, but that's not the same as choosing not to feel that way. Thinking, rationalizing, and logical thought are done in a different area of the brain than wanting, feeling, and desiring. The lower functions are largely unable to be controlled by means of simple decision making.

To say that thought isn't behavior is just an argument of semantics. My point remains the same regardless what you want to call it.

I don't think you have termed every properly there, but I agree with the gist of what you have said to an extent. Feelings and desires are not easily changed, but they fact remains that are not unchangeable. Because they are not easily changed we should have respect and sensitivity to them. Isn't that what your point is?


Somebody was talking earlier in the thread about means of "curing" homosexuals. True, such treatments may work, but the homosexual isn't deciding to be straight so much as they're being reprogrammed to be straight. Sure, they may make the decision to submit to such treatment, but the alteration of their desires is being done to them by outside means, not by some internal decision to just not be gay anymore.

:huh:


Environmental influence vs choice in that last case, which is irrelevant to our own discussion, but has been brought up in the thread already.

Again with the vs choice. Didn't you say I was misrepresenting your argument by claiming you say such things?



Only a fool would call somebody an extrovert for going to a party. However, if somebody is working two full time jobs, both of which require heavy socializing... and if that same person is partying with friends 5-6 nights a week, then that becomes more typical extraverted behavior. I was never an extravert, but i behaved as one. I could have continued the behavior as long as i desired, but in the end i decided to be true to my nature and return to an introverted lifestyle.

That still isn't a concrete example of extroverted behavior. All you have proved with your story is that other people are capable of mistyping you. What is the insight?

I'm simply saying if something doesn't walk or think like a duck, it isn't a duck.

How can you return to something you never where? Illogical.


Maybe you don't understand what it means to be an introvert or an extravert. It does not mean you spend most of your time alone, or that you spend most of your time around others. It does mean that you have a preference for one or the other. Introverts who over-socialize (or extraverts who under-socialize) feel drained. They can still exhibit contradictory behaviors for the sake of public appearance. It can and does happen.

Is there an echo in here or what?

Your still a little off base.


It's narrow-minded to say that somebody's behavior in the long run dictates their preference. True, in the long run somebody's preference should dictate their behavior, and thus the behavior could indicate preference, but in cases like homosexuality, where it can be socially unacceptable to act on one's preference, people will sometimes keep their preferences to themselves, sometimes for entire lifespans, just for the sake of avoiding punishment or being ostracized.

Just because people mistype a person indeed doesn't change who that person is. I've never said otherwise. If they keep their preferences to themselves and never, ever exhibit an act of homosexuality, how in the hell does anyone know they are homosexual, but them? Unless you think someone can be born homosexual and possibly never realize it your logic makes no sense.

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 03:42 PM ----------

Ahh... eugenics. You should have just said so instead of dressing your words up in false niceties and misleading words.

I don't dress any of my words up. If you perceived them that way that must have be genuine niceties.


I mean if doctors were trained in how to help people figure out their identity and if they are gay or not it would help. We could even start young and get people aware of themselves. This way no one is hurt, and if it is as you say they would then have a "choice" since they would be aware of it when young. Then if we go with the other side and it is genetics we could teach people they have nothing to fear. You can't catch gay, or become gay.

If you effectively tell children the truth about how it works, why would any child choose to deviate from the norm provided they have a healthy identity? If your going to argue we should let the child make an autonomous decision about sexuality identity why not other forms of identity? Because if we did, we would have a society of cartoon super heroes.

Should we also teach the truth about anti social personality disorders and conditions akin to that nature and leave the decision up to the child to choose what they want to be? No, we steer them in the direction we best see fit. Your practicing eugenics too. You just won't admit to it because you don't realize it.


Although I personally think this is beyond even eugenics. You are not trying to find alternative ways to as you say "cure" these people. Your going straight to the chopping block and the whole "curing" thing. It's pretty much not even eugenics at this point, but your personal opinion of these people and how best they should fit in society.

How exactly is it beyond eugenics?

If I was going straight to the chopping block wouldn't I be implying force? I'm not, you are misrepresenting my position.


All I know is there is an incredible amount that could be done to lessen all of the problems you have raised without needing to resort in some sort of snake oil cure which would probably be just as brutal as the electrotherapy for questionable results. Then there is the fact that these are already debatable problems. So you could be doing this for nothing more than personal bias.

Snake oil, no thank you. Brutal, absolutely not. Extensive, perhaps.

My only bias is that I think we should make decisions that our in the best interest of our species capacity to some day inhabit worlds beyond Earth.

Are you and your position above being personal bias?


Oh and yes he can seek help. It is called a psychologist (councilor specifically). You can go to them to bounce problems around and talk things out. Hypothetically they are neutral, and in my experience are.

When I want to go to a doctor I want to go see someone who is professionally trained with the what I want them to treat me for. What would happen if this man went to a doctor who stubornly insist he was born homosexual and the he is in denial, when in fact he isn't? No, he can't seek the help he has the rights to receive.

[JustMel]

Oh yes, Wikipedia is such an unarguable source of data.

[JTG]

I'd be willing to wager that brain scans would reveal homosexuality if they were taken while the subjects were looking at various erotic imagery... whether the subjects were openly gay or not.

You still wouldn't be seeing activity exclusively in the areas of the brain responsible for thought though. Whether thinking sexual thoughts or not, the telling aspect would be looking at areas of the brain that govern sexual arousal.

[Gamgee]

So far you haven't proven anything. You keep claiming this is for some greater good. Your not showing us this. Your just expecting us to know.

Also what does being gay have to do with going to another world? I didn't realize all of a sudden your an expert on spaceflight.

At any rate. I'm done here. Nothing I can say will stop you. Your just going to have to ruin lives before you listen. Hahaha... why do people always choose the hard way.

[Architectonic]

I'd be willing to wager that brain scans would reveal homosexuality if they were taken while the subjects were looking at various erotic imagery... whether the subjects were openly gay or not.

You still wouldn't be seeing activity exclusively in the areas of the brain responsible for thought though. Whether thinking sexual thoughts or not, the telling aspect would be looking at areas of the brain that govern sexual arousal.

I think you're under-estimating how crude this sort of technology/study really is.

[admittedheretic]

I'd be willing to wager that brain scans would reveal homosexuality if they were taken while the subjects were looking at various erotic imagery... whether the subjects were openly gay or not.

By this do you mean, would we be able to tell from a neurological view point that a homosexual really is attracted to the same sex like a heterosexual is attracted to the opposite sex?

Here you go. And that is an old article.

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


You still wouldn't be seeing activity exclusively in the areas of the brain responsible for thought though. Whether thinking sexual thoughts or not, the telling aspect would be looking at areas of the brain that govern sexual arousal.

Brain imaging does reveal where in a physical local the activity is coming from. I'm not sure if they have found a specific area for that yet, but if such an area exists, they will in time.

So far you haven't proven anything. You keep claiming this is for some greater good. Your not showing us this. Your just expecting us to know.

I've proved homosexuality is not genetically caused. I can't prove my other beliefs though I do believe they are also objective in nature.


Also what does being gay have to do with going to another world? I didn't realize all of a sudden your an expert on spaceflight.

Being gay means one does not or is less likely to reproduce. To best adapt to our environment we need to diversify. The makeup of your personal DNA is millions of years in the making. You will pass it on through your children. If your children are homosexuals then that million years might as well never have existed because of how evolution works. I believe my DNA has value and it should be passed on. I also believe homosexuals DNA has value and should be passed on. I do think people have the right to not pass on their DNA and that doesn't necessarily imply they don't think their DNA does not have value, but again.. it isn't about what we think, it is about how we are expressed through evolution. Even if no other world are involved homosexuality is still maladaptive to our species.


At any rate. I'm done here. Nothing I can say will stop you. Your just going to have to ruin lives before you listen. Hahaha... why do people always choose the hard way.

What could I possibly do to ruin any lives? I have listened. I understand the alternatives it my position very well and unfortunately I don't think the reverse is true.

I think you're under-estimating how crude this sort of technology/study really is.

Hardly crude at all compared to our subjective behavioral observations that are obstructed by bias.

[Architectonic]

Neither do I but I have seen and consulted with geneticists for issues relating to my seizures. I know what they believe to be the "cause" of homosexuality. You do not. Therefore, neither of us is exactly right though I'm probably closer than you.


Argumentum ad verecundiam is not valid.
The fact is that virtually all of the evidence is merely correlative (and rarely high 95%+ correlations either), rather than etiological. As such, the etiology is still highly questionable.

Accusing those questioning the belief that homosexuality is not genetic is absurd. It is equally absurd to assume and state that the only way homosexuality will be accepted in society is if it is proven to be genetic or otherwise congenital.

These factors may exist for a subset, but I'm willing to bet a significant majority won't have such deterministic factors discovered in the next 75 years. To be more specific, deterministic genetic/congenital factors that have a 50% or greater chance of causing homosexuality. (eg test both at birth, make predictions about which will become homosexual and have over 50% of these reveal they are homosexual).
Yes this is presumptuous of me, but you shouldn't hypothesise unless you accept the possibility of being proven wrong.

If there is a "homosexual gene" and if everybody who is homosexual has that gene, then it does not also stand to reason that everybody who has the gene is a homosexual, for the same reason that somebody with genes for autism can be non-autistic. To say otherwise is to say that every autistic person came from autistic parents, or that every homosexual came from homosexual parents.

Gene expression can be measured. But they haven't yet found enough evidence for such genes even to justify such testing yet.

With regards to autism, I personally think that autism has multiple etiological subsets. Viral causes is a strong one - it is associated with congenital HIV infection for example, and other viruses are currently being investigated. Other congenital factors may also be possible, though still hypothetical at the moment.

[cannotseethe]

It is about helping people; correct me if I'm wrong. AH thinks helping people (eg. mankind) entails ensuring that homosexuality does not hinder the birth every possible being that could have been born if everyone is heterosexual. To give to all potential egg/sperm combination that could have resulted the "gift of life".

Helping mankind is not the same as helping people. Mankind is an abstraction used to name a collection of individuals. There might be conditions under which the best way to help mankind is for every person in a population to have six children. Too bad if most individuals don't want to do that.

That's the danger of propping up some abstraction over and above the individuals who make up the abstraction. You end up with these disconnected arguments that favor the abstraction at the expense of brutalizing some individuals. Who charged anyone here with responsibility for, let alone power over, our collective well-being?

The way that I see it, homosexual behavior is harmless and will persist indefinitely. It can only be made to sound harmful if one invokes arguments like "it'll doom mankind to extinction! (auuuggh!)". Besides being a ridiculous argument, who cares?

[JustMel]

The fact is that virtually all of the evidence is merely correlative (and rarely high 95%+ correlations either), rather than etiological. As such, the etiology is still highly questionable.

Accusing those questioning the belief that homosexuality is not genetic is absurd. It is equally absurd to assume and state that the only way homosexuality will be accepted in society is if it is proven to be genetic or otherwise congenital.

These factors may exist for a subset, but I'm willing to bet a significant majority won't have such deterministic factors discovered in the next 75 years. To be more specific, deterministic genetic/congenital factors that have a 50% or greater chance of causing homosexuality. (eg test both at birth, make predictions about which will become homosexual and have over 50% of these reveal they are homosexual).
Yes this is presumptuous of me, but you shouldn't hypothesise unless you accept the possibility of being proven wrong.

Actually, according to the twin study I posted earlier in the thread it is believed by some that there is a genetic reason for homosexuality. I never said the only way it will be accepted is to be proven genetic. Careful there. I don't think that small minded individuals who think that homosexuality is wrong or a choice are going to accept it if they were handed 100% undeniable proof it is genetic.

I was having this conversation with some friends the other night one of whom is a Pediatrician that works with genetic diseases at the children's hospital and she said she's looking at the possibility (I'm assuming with other doctors) that homosexuality could be the result of a mutation like color blindness or CF or down syndrome. The oncologist at the table disagrees with her.

Personally, I don't care if they prove it's genetic or not. Homosexuality is not a big enough percentage wise to be maladaptive to society as it's been around since before the term was coined in the late 19th century. In fact there are writings that recognize homosexuality, even though the term didn't exist, in 5th century BC.

I found the article below to have some good information on the history of homosexuality and the author talks about both sides of the argument.

The latter (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) part of the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries, however, saw a sharp rise in intolerance towards homosexual sex, alongside persecution of Jews, Muslims, heretics, and others. While the causes of this are somewhat unclear, it is likely that increased class conflict alongside the Gregorian reform movement in the Catholic Church were two important factors.

[themuzicman]

Social mores and laws against homosexuality go back as far as circa 1800 BCE, as the Jewish Torah (given around that time) forbade homosexual activities.

I do find the characterization of those who think homosexual acts are wrong as "small minded" to be bigoted. Certainly people with reasonable arguments can disagree with you without the name calling, can't they?

Homosexuality exists. It seems to have been around for at least 4000 years, probably longer. The reasons one becomes homosexual are probably as complex as any other condition, and to try to pin it on one particular factor seems to be an oversimplification. I'm quite sure that both sides have engaged in this kind of argumentation.

[nacht]

Social mores and laws against homosexuality go back as far as circa 1800 BCE, as the Jewish Torah (given around that time) forbade homosexual activities.


Only between men, between women is perfectly acceptable (or at least not spoken against in the prevailing literature on the matter).

This is also specific to Judaic culture and is not shared by all of the surrounding cultures. Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum lived in c. 2400 BCE and were quite likely a male-male homosexual couple who were "joined in life and joined in death" (according to the names).

In c. 600 BCE Sappho of Lesbos wrote her famous poem to a young woman, and this piece in praise of Aphrodite (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

The ancient Greeks, in fact, were quite accepting of homosexuality among men, though there is some evidence of disdain for effeminate males (we see something similar in Viking cultures around 800 CE). In the Hellenistic Age homosexual relationships were viewed extremely positively and in the Roman Empire there are recorded homosexual marriages.

This is, of course, focused on western culture. There are records in China going back to 600 BCE. There are records in Japan in the 11th century CE, and the Thail culture has been accepting of the practice for quite some time.

So while you can say that "Social mores and laws against homosexuality go back as far as circa 1800 BCE" we can also point out how social mores and laws that were pro homosexuality go back at least that far.

[themuzicman]

I'm sure there are. I was simply pointing out that awareness of homosexuality goes back that far. I wasn't making the case that it was exclusively anti-homosexual.

[JTG]

By this do you mean, would we be able to tell from a neurological view point that a homosexual really is attracted to the same sex like a heterosexual is attracted to the opposite sex?

Here you go. And that is an old article.

As seen in the image, MRI and PET scans showed a similar pattern in two specific regions of the brain, the right and left amygdalas, which are thought to control fight-or-flight reactions.

...

"These studies imply that the brains of the gay men have functional similarities to those of a straight woman, and that homosexuality is not of a moral choice, but one of biological substrate," wrote Jane Rochstad Lim.

There you go, the part of the brain seen to be activated is not one of the areas involved in "thought"

Also, it says homosexuality isn't a "choice"

Certainly, sexual preference constitutes behavior by psychological standards. I don't believe i ever argued that. What i said was that preference is different from choice. Choices and decisions are behaviors of logic, while many reactions (such as emotions, arousal, etc) are behaviors of instinct or what have you.

One can choose to take certain actions, but it does not change one's preference.

[admittedheretic]

There you go, the part of the brain seen to be activated is not one of the areas involved in "thought"

I don't follow. I don't think you have a coherent point with regard to whatever your talking about.


Also, it says homosexuality isn't a "choice"

In no way does that study say it isn't a "choice."

I'm not arguing it is what I think you have defined choice to be. If by choice you mean environmental and developmental then homosexuality is a choice.


One can choose to take certain actions, but it does not change one's preference.

So, can a person be homosexual and never think a homosexual thought or behave homosexual? Yes or no. If you wouldn't dodge my questions I think you'd see what my point is.

[nfinityi]

Either that, or it it indeed a choice of people to be homosexual and has nothing to do with being 'born with it'.
I don't know if you're born with it, but it's not a choice... At least it wasn't for me.
The thesis is a result of observation of the past 20 years of homosexuality increasing rather than decreasing.
What do you mean by increasing? That more people engage in homosexual activity, or that more people identify as gay? I can safely tell you that those are two separate matters.

Take a gander at craigslist and you'll find plenty of self-identified straight men who like to engage in homosexual activity.
One would normally expect that once out of the closet, men and women alike would stop having sexual encounters with the opposite sex that found themselves to be gay.
You would expect that, but you'd be wrong. Sexual drive and sexual desire are two different things. I feel an intense sexual drive towards my own sex. That hasn't stopped me from desiring sex with a woman, even if it's just once. Why? Why not? I'd like to know what I'll be missing out on lol.
Yet the numbers increase.. one then might assume that this is due to respondants to the government survey on their homosexuality being increasing more truthful as acceptance of their sexuality is demonstrated.. Currently there are laws stating that you cannot descriminate employment based on sexuality.
The proliferation of gay culture is indeed a product of more open-minded attitudes towards sexual deviancy, at least in the west. Homosexual individuals in the middle east are unfortunately not so lucky.
This is in essence the breaking point.
Breaking point of?
Which we have now come to... so.. first off, since homosexuality is supposed to occur at the time one becomes sexually aware we should have much more respondants indicating that it occurs during this time frame.. This is atypical of course (and unsurprising to my thesis).
Different generations differ from each other. The older gay men that I know faced much greater adversity than I probably ever will. Only the bravest, most staunchly individualistic show themselves in the face of the treatment gays received just a few decades ago.
Furthermore while my personal experience is not all-encompassing, I have noticed that all of the gay people I know happen to come from wealthy families.. which is exactly the way it occured in roman times as well. (The rich people could afford to experiment).
I suggest you get out more often.
Now.. in the next 20 years.. if homosexuality DOES indeed remove itself from the earth due to this lack of a new generation, then my thesis is wrong. Though I highly expect the reverse, thus demonstrating that this is nothing more than a choice.
Well, your thesis is wrong, but not because homosexuals will "die out." I can tell you from personal experience. Why would someone choose to be gay?

The problem here is the assumption that sexuality is an ON-OFF switch, or even a dial reading GAY-BI-STRAIGHT. Human sexuality and love are a little more complex than that, I'm afraid.

[JTG]

I don't follow. I don't think you have a coherent point with regard to whatever your talking about. My point is that preference and choice are two different things.

In no way does that study say it isn't a "choice."
It does. It says that it's "not a moral choice" i.e. not a choice.

I'm not arguing it is what I think you have defined choice to be. If by choice you mean environmental and developmental then homosexuality is a choice.
Certainly, if your claim is that one has control over how one develops and over the events that happen to oneself during childhood, then i will agree that homosexuality is a choice. Clearly though, developmental issues are almost always out of our own control. In the study you quoted, i doubt any of the homosexual people chose to have activity in the specified sections of their brains. It just happened that way. They developed that way, so it's how they are.

So, can a person be homosexual and never think a homosexual thought or behave homosexual? Yes or no. If you wouldn't dodge my questions I think you'd see what my point is. I think somebody with a homosexual preference, who is indoctrinated to believe homosexuality is wrong, can choose to divert such thoughts and avoid them as much as possible. They will still have those impulses, but they can choose not to linger on such thoughts, and they can choose to never act in a homosexual way. Is that what you're asking? Whether somebody can make a choice to never do anything regarded as homosexual? Yes, it is very possible that people have been born, lived long lives, and died... all the while carrying homosexual urges that were never acted upon.

However, that does not change their inherent preference. That's like people who bleach their hair blonde. They're still brunettes. Maybe nobody ever finds out that the rug doesn't match the curtains, but it doesn't change how the person is wired.