Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[invest07]

I say it is a choice but what sayest thou?

[steveox]

Its a Behavoral problem. The reason why Men comit those faggot acts cause theyre so damn frustrated dealing with women. Women do it cause theyre to god damn lazy finding a good man instead of taking whats offered to them.So i dont think Gay or Lersbian Marrage should be legal. I think Insurance companies should deny anyone whos gay or lesbian health insurance. And if you file an job application if the employer finds out youre gay or lesbian you dont get the job. If you turn gay or lesbian your boss finds out he has the right to fire you!

[vyo476]

It can be either, in my experience. I've known people who were certainly homosexuals despite every wish that they had to be otherwise. I've also known people who got so fed up with the opposite sex that they decided to "go gay."

As an example of the first type, one of my cousins spent all of high school attempting to deny to himself and those around him that he was gay. He had a girlfriend and continued to attend the Catholic services he'd been going to with his family since he was born. By the time he was out of high school he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. His friends in college eventually got him to admit that he was gay and he's been a lot happier with himself ever since. Did he choose to be gay? He spent four years trying as hard as possible to not be gay and in the end it didn't work.

As for the other type, I could tell the stories of a few of my ex's who all decided guys weren't worth the trouble after we broke up. At least one of them is still saying it years later and still only dates other women. She chose to be gay initially, but I wonder if it continues to be a choice today.

[Coyote]

I don't think it is necessarily genetic in the sense that there is a single gene out there we can label the "gay gene". I also do not think it is merely a choice.

Genetics is usually complicated and many traits are poly-genetic, or the only show up under certain environmental conditions.

Consider the following:


Among those considered "gay" are really quite a diverse group of people. Heterosexuals, experimenting. Bi-sexuals. Homosexuals. Only a very small proportion of the population is totally 100% homosexual. I would think that there are equally diverse reasons leading to those sexual orientations from choice to biology.

Given that - I think it's also reasonable to assume there is a biological or genetic basis for homosexuality in some of that group.

Opponents of the idea that there might be a biological reason cite supposed "successes" of such groups as the "Ex Gay ministry" - yet, researchers interviewing those in the program and those who have left the program and found that the only thing that changed was the superficial behavior - not the sexual orientation. The attraction to the same sex remained intact.

Another reason I tend to disagree with the "it's a choice" side is simple behavioral science. Being gay in our culture, until recently has often been a pretty horrendous experience exposing the person to hatred, stigma, ridicule, personal danger, murder, loss of a job, loss of friends, loss of family. If some one had a "choice" - why would they choose to subject themselves to that?

And in the end - if it's merely a choice - who cares? Who does it hurt? No one.

[Coyote]

Its a Behavoral problem. The reason why Men comit those faggot acts cause theyre so damn frustrated dealing with women. Women do it cause theyre to god damn lazy finding a good man instead of taking whats offered to them.So i dont think Gay or Lersbian Marrage should be legal. I think Insurance companies should deny anyone whos gay or lesbian health insurance. And if you file an job application if the employer finds out youre gay or lesbian you dont get the job. If you turn gay or lesbian your boss finds out he has the right to fire you!

Sounds like you got a woman problem...:rolleyes:

[invest07]

My belief is that there is no gay gene or any combination of genes that creates a gay tendency.

My reasons are based on science:

1. Gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights. If there were a gay gene (or combination of genes) then the percentage of gays in society would decline with each succeeding generation. As an example, assume gays constitute 10% of generation 1. If gays reproduce at half the rate of the general population, the gay percentage of generation 2 would be 5%. And 2.5% for generation 3 and 1.25% for generation 4. Within 10 generation there are very few gays. This is not happening today, as the gay percentage is holding constant at 3-5% (depending on whose numbers you chose to use).
There are historical reports of gays including Sodam and Gomorrah (circa 2000 BC) and several of the Ceasars. So if there were a gay gene, it would have effectively been eliminated from the gene pool by now.

2. If you believe in evolution, there is no reason for a gay gene to survive. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) provides for the welfare and survival of the population as a whole. Gays would be a liability to population survival with a lower birth rate. Therefore, a gay gene can't be defended by evolution.

3. Genetic drift. I'm not an expert in this but the basic premise is that the frequency of competing genes may vary from generation to generation but one gene will emerge and the other competing gene will be eliminated over time. This has not happened and this is additional evidence there is no gay gene.

4. Homosexuality is more common in prison that in the general population. Many enter prison straight and leave gay.

It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for a "straight" gene to develop, as this provides the maximum chance for survival of the population.

No one has to chose to be straight. But those who are gay have chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to pursue a gay lifestyle.

[USMC the Almighty]

As for the other type, I could tell the stories of a few of my ex's who all decided guys weren't worth the trouble after we broke up.

Ouch.

[USMC the Almighty]

2. If you believe in evolution, there is no reason for a gay gene to survive. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) provides for the welfare and survival of the population as a whole. Gays would be a liability to population survival with a lower birth rate. Therefore, a gay gene can't be defended by evolution.

<snip>

It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for a "straight" gene to develop, as this provides the maximum chance for survival of the population.



That's actually a really good point.

[vyo476]

1. Gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights. If there were a gay gene (or combination of genes) then the percentage of gays in society would decline with each succeeding generation. As an example, assume gays constitute 10% of generation 1. If gays reproduce at half the rate of the general population, the gay percentage of generation 2 would be 5%. And 2.5% for generation 3 and 1.25% for generation 4. Within 10 generation there are very few gays. This is not happening today, as the gay percentage is holding constant at 3-5% (depending on whose numbers you chose to use).
There are historical reports of gays including Sodam and Gomorrah (circa 2000 BC) and several of the Ceasars. So if there were a gay gene, it would have effectively been eliminated from the gene pool by now.

That is, if you ignore recessive traits. Or the fact that many homosexuals from throughout history had to hide what they were to avoid prosecution and in doing so wound up having children.

2. If you believe in evolution, there is no reason for a gay gene to survive. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) provides for the welfare and survival of the population as a whole. Gays would be a liability to population survival with a lower birth rate. Therefore, a gay gene can't be defended by evolution.

Just because homosexuals prefer homosexual relations doesn't mean that historically they've abstained from heterosexual relations. Prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960s Western society discriminated heavily against homosexuals. How do you tell someone is gay? They have to act it. So if someone who is gay and possesses a "gay gene," as you put it, wishes to get away from discrimination, he does not act as he would naturally wish to do so - instead he acts straight, and probably has kids. The only reason homosexuality would be a liability and therefore eliminated by natural selection would be the lower reproductive rates and yet here we see why homosexuals have historically reproduced.

3. Genetic drift. I'm not an expert in this but the basic premise is that the frequency of competing genes may vary from generation to generation but one gene will emerge and the other competing gene will be eliminated over time. This has not happened and this is additional evidence there is no gay gene.

Honestly I have no idea what you're talking about.

4. Homosexuality is more common in prison that in the general population. Many enter prison straight and leave gay.

Many people enter prison straight and leave deeply traumatized. This has nothing to do with homosexuality.

It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for a "straight" gene to develop, as this provides the maximum chance for survival of the population.

Survival of the species in a low-birth environment, yes. But overpopulation has been an issue for centuries now and a latent homosexual gene would do wonders for keeping burgeoning excess population in check, were homosexuality allowed by society (as it is becoming now). Just think - homosexuals could save civilization.

No one has to chose to be straight. But those who are gay have chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to pursue a gay lifestyle.

You're right, homosexuals do choose to live a homosexual lifestyle - because it is what is natural for them. Heterosexuals choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle because it is what is natural for them. I don't see a difference.

[Coyote]

My belief is that there is no gay gene or any combination of genes that creates a gay tendency.

My reasons are based on science:



As are mine...



1. Gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights. If there were a gay gene (or combination of genes) then the percentage of gays in society would decline with each succeeding generation.


Genetics don't quite work that way.

For example - some genetic mutations seem to crop up frequently - without being inherited. Sometimes this is due to a weak spot on a particular sequence that is more prone to damange or breaking, or maybe other matters. Cystic fibrosis is one such disease. Hence - despite the fact that (until recently) most patients did not survive into adulthood or reproductive age - the disease still kept showing up spontaneiously.

Second - not genes follow a mode of strict dominance/recessive patterns. If you have a polygenetic trait - the trait may not be expressed until a couple who happens to have all the necessary genes comes together and produces an individual that expresses the trait. That individual may not breed, but all the related individuals who do not express the trait might, thus keeping the genes in the gene pool. If you add environment to that - it further complicates things. All those traits may come together but - unless certain environmental factors (such as say, something in the pre-natal environment) trigger the expression - you might never know it.

Third - why do some genetic traits, seemingly destructive - continue to crop up? Maybe because they actually, at one time had a survival mechanism. For example cycle cell anemia. In a homozygous form, it is almost always eventually lethal. In a heterozygous form it offers protection against the malaria parasite thus conferring a survival benifit in those countries rife with malaria.

Fourth - group survival over individual survivial. In a cooperative species it might be beneficial to have a small number of non-breeding individual adults to take care of the young while other adults forage. In many highly organized cooperative species there is only one, or a few breeding pairs while the rest cooperate to raise the young. In that sort of situation there might be a survivial advantage to be gained by a small degree of homosexuality to reduce sexual tensions within the group. Who knows? The thing is though - it is not as simple as survivial and reproductive success of each individual or a straight dominant/recessive heredity.


2. If you believe in evolution, there is no reason for a gay gene to survive. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) provides for the welfare and survival of the population as a whole. Gays would be a liability to population survival with a lower birth rate. Therefore, a gay gene can't be defended by evolution.


See above. In a cooperative social species survival of the group becomes more important than reproductive success of each individual.


3. Genetic drift. I'm not an expert in this but the basic premise is that the frequency of competing genes may vary from generation to generation but one gene will emerge and the other competing gene will be eliminated over time. This has not happened and this is additional evidence there is no gay gene.


I'm not sure I understand how genetic drift would apply here. My understanding of the term is that it is the random change of the occurance of a particular gene in a population and it is thought to be one cause of speciation when a group is separated from its parent population.


4. Homosexuality is more common in prison that in the general population. Many enter prison straight and leave gay.

Homosexual behavior maybe more common but I bet you once they leave, they go right back to being straight.


It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for a "straight" gene to develop, as this provides the maximum chance for survival of the population.


I think a species reproductive success is more complicated then simply an individual's chances of reproducing.


No one has to chose to be straight. But those who are gay have chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to pursue a gay lifestyle.

One could say that one chooses, unconciously, to pursue a straight lifestyle. :rolleyes:

[Coyote]

You're right, homosexuals do choose to live a homosexual lifestyle - because it is what is natural for them. Heterosexuals choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle because it is what is natural for them. I don't see a difference.

Exactly!:cool:

[steveox]

Sounds like you got a woman problem...:rolleyes:

I dont go around holding a mans hand or kissing him or sticking my penis in his ass.I jack off on internet porn instead.

[Coyote]

I dont go around holding a mans hand or kissing him or sticking my penis in his ass.I jack off on internet porn instead.

Got to watch that - leads to carpal tunnel you know.

[steveox]

How? Its better then putting your penis in a another mans asshole and get Aids.

[Coyote]

How? Its better then putting your penis in a another mans asshole and get Aids.

Sounds like you got a woman problem:D

[steveox]

Sounds like you got a woman problem:D

"" flips the bird at ya ""
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/5/9/3/small/395920.jpg

[Coyote]

"" flips the bird at ya ""
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/5/9/3/small/395920.jpg

Oh calm down...it's not so bad...there're plenty of options available....;)

http://www.nafftoyshop.co.uk/ekmps/shops/rfrosdick/images/sheep3.jpg

[USMC the Almighty]

Okay guys -- how about a little decorum?

....Although Coyote's last post was pretty damn funny.

[Coyote]

err...ahem....ok....



(sorry Steveox)



:rolleyes:

[steveox]

How bout this Coyote?
http://www.tlavideo.com/images/gay_adult/199185.jpghttp://www.sextoysexotica.com/images/product/pictures/A/000california/1959-01.jpg
I bet youre gay Coyote arent you?

[USMC the Almighty]

err...ahem....ok....



(sorry Steveox)



:rolleyes:

No, I mean, you don't need to be nice to each other or pretend to like one another. I was really talking more to steveox with his classy posts. Your's were really more sarcastic reactions to his.

Steveox, we get the point -- you believe that beating off to internet porn is better than porking some guy in the ass. Fine. Let's grow up here and move on.

[Coyote]

How bout this Coyote?
http://www.tlavideo.com/images/gay_adult/199185.jpg
I bet youre gay Coyote arent you?

No but I like a good man :cool:


(if you want to know the website to order you know what...I can send it to you)

[USMC the Almighty]

Okay, I guess this thread is a wash and it is providing for some entertainment.

Right now, I'd have to give the advantage to Coyote. Steveox needs to step it up.

[steveox]

No but I like a good man :cool:


(if you want to know the website to order you know what...I can send it to you)

Like i said,Youre Gay. GET HELP maybe this man can get you stright
http://www.kingworld.com/images/program-drphil3.jpg

[Coyote]

Okay, I guess this thread is a wash and it is providing for some entertainment.

Right now, I'd have to give the advantage to Coyote. Steveox needs to step it up.

Nah...the thread's not a wash -it's got some good stuff in it :) And it's a worthwhile discussion. People will get back on track. Stevie just needs ... well, who know what he needs?:eek:

[Coyote]

Like i said,Youre Gay. GET HELP maybe this man can get you stright
http://www.kingworld.com/images/program-drphil3.jpg

ewww...not my type. Puh-lease....


No, as I said, I appreciate a good man.

[USMC the Almighty]

Nah...the thread's not a wash -it's got some good stuff in it :)

Please tell me you're not referencing Big Joe Doll.

[steveox]

Please tell me you're not referencing Big Joe Doll.

He is..He like Big Joe instead of the construction man with his 8 inch tool he provided.

[Napoleon]

Psychologically, it is not a choice but obviously any action in response to those feelings, emotions, and desires is a choice. A true homosexual is a person who has those feelings, emotions, and desires. Anyone can imitate homosexual behavior without actually being a homosexual. That said, there are plenty of studies which demonstrate that true homosexuality does indeed have genetic, anatomical, and biological causes.

[Coyote]

Please tell me you're not referencing Big Joe Doll.

Well....now that you mention it.....but nah, dolls aren't my style.

Speaking of which...you think Steve's upset about the sheep? It claims to be once-size-fits-all....:o

[Beetle Bailey]

If science were to find a gene that determines sexual orientation, it would ultimately destroy the so called gay community. Proving a genetic cause might legitimize homosexuality in some people's minds. But if science can determine the genetic makeup of a child during pregnancy; then obviously parents can decide to abort based on that information. I wonder how many parents would choose to have a gay child? My guess would be not many.

[Coyote]

Psychologically, it is not a choice but obviously any action in response to those feelings, emotions, and desires is a choice. A true homosexual is a person who has those feelings, emotions, and desires. Anyone can imitate homosexual behavior without actually being a homosexual. That said, there are plenty of studies which demonstrate that true homosexuality does indeed have genetic, anatomical, and biological causes.

Exactly! There's a difference between homosexual behavior and being homosexual.

[Coyote]

If science were to find a gene that determines sexual orientation, it would ultimately destroy the so called gay community. Proving a genetic cause might legitimize homosexuality in some people's minds. But if science can determine the genetic makeup of a child during pregnancy; then obviously parents can decide to abort based on that information. I wonder how many parents would choose to have a gay child? My guess would be not many.


The whole issue of selective abortion for reasons like that -or even birth defects (or what people think of as defects) is a whole can of worms.

[steveox]

Why cant you just go with someone like this?
http://www.brokennewz.com/storyimages/amazon_bride.jpg
At least she`ll cook,clean and rub your back

[Coyote]

Why cant you just go with someone like this?
http://www.brokennewz.com/storyimages/amazon_bride.jpg
At least she`ll cook,clean and rub your back

16% off? What, damaged goods? I have high standards:cool:

[Napoleon]

If science were to find a gene that determines sexual orientation, it would ultimately destroy the so called gay community. Proving a genetic cause might legitimize homosexuality in some people's minds. But if science can determine the genetic makeup of a child during pregnancy; then obviously parents can decide to abort based on that information. I wonder how many parents would choose to have a gay child? My guess would be not many.

The Humane Genome project was a remarkable accomplishment but it didn't even begin to determine what the genes the project identified actually do. We're many years away from being able to create what geneticists have come to call "designer babies" and there are serious ethical concerns being raised regarding any ability to create them. Honestly, I don't believe it would be possible to identify a "gay gene" and remove it in the hope of preventing homosexual behavior because whether or not a person, regardless of their sexuality, acts upon their impulses is not determined by genetics. There are plenty of truly homosexual men and women who never act upon those desires and there are plenty of truly heterosexual men and women who experiment with their sexuality. You can't prevent behavior by removing a gene.

[Coyote]

Many genetic traits are also polygenetic, and/or don't express themselves unless the right combination of environmental conditions occur. I suspect the biological basis for homosexuality is probably along that line.

[steveox]

16% off? What, damaged goods? I have high standards:cool:

16% off the price if you get her off the Mail Order Bride site.

[Coyote]

16% off the price if you get her off the Mail Order Bride site.

Well I'll tell you what then...you send me the url for that site, and I'll send you the url for the sheep and we'll both be happy!:D

[steveox]

I dont want the sheep. I want a real girl.And you can have the construction man with his 8 inch tool included :D

[Coyote]

I dont want the sheep. I want a real girl.And you can have the construction man with his 8 inch tool included :D

Like I said...sounds like you have a woman problem :D

I'm just letting you know there's alternatives out there to help you out.:)

[Coyote]

Oh wait...I get it...ok so I'm a little slow....


The mail order bride turned you down to????

[vyo476]

Oh wait...I get it...ok so I'm a little slow....


The mail order bride turned you down to????

Ohhhhhh snap.

Coyote puts steveox on the defensive. Can steveox rebound?

[steveox]

Like I said...sounds like you have a woman problem :D

I'm just letting you know there's alternatives out there to help you out.:)

Like what? an robot girl? No way.

[USMC the Almighty]

Like what? an robot girl? No way.

Wow. The alternative was the bonking sheep.

[steveox]

Wow. The alternative was the bonking sheep.

You can bonk the sheep.But im not.

[Coyote]

Wow. The alternative was the bonking sheep.

Steveox is running out of alternatives: no to bonking sheep, no to robot girl, no mail order bride, another night of gymnastics with Mr. Hand I guess.

[drippinhun]

My belief is that there is no gay gene or any combination of genes that creates a gay tendency.

My reasons are based on science:

1. Gays reproduce at a lower rate than straights. If there were a gay gene (or combination of genes) then the percentage of gays in society would decline with each succeeding generation. As an example, assume gays constitute 10% of generation 1. If gays reproduce at half the rate of the general population, the gay percentage of generation 2 would be 5%. And 2.5% for generation 3 and 1.25% for generation 4. Within 10 generation there are very few gays. This is not happening today, as the gay percentage is holding constant at 3-5% (depending on whose numbers you chose to use).
There are historical reports of gays including Sodam and Gomorrah (circa 2000 BC) and several of the Ceasars. So if there were a gay gene, it would have effectively been eliminated from the gene pool by now.

2. If you believe in evolution, there is no reason for a gay gene to survive. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) provides for the welfare and survival of the population as a whole. Gays would be a liability to population survival with a lower birth rate. Therefore, a gay gene can't be defended by evolution.

3. Genetic drift. I'm not an expert in this but the basic premise is that the frequency of competing genes may vary from generation to generation but one gene will emerge and the other competing gene will be eliminated over time. This has not happened and this is additional evidence there is no gay gene.

4. Homosexuality is more common in prison that in the general population. Many enter prison straight and leave gay.

It is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory for a "straight" gene to develop, as this provides the maximum chance for survival of the population.

No one has to chose to be straight. But those who are gay have chosen, consciously or unconsciously, to pursue a gay lifestyle.

I don't think it matters whether it is genetic or a choice. It should be about freedom.

[invest07]

Apparently this topic has generated some interest and (also some harmless buffoonery).

Coyote

Thanks for your comments. As ususal you are knowledgeable and have thought things through within the framework of your preconceptions.

I don't think anyone in this forum would disagree with the statement that gays reproduce at a lower rate that straights. The exact rate is unknown and irrelevant. If you do the math at a 10% rate or at a 90% rate, the results are the same given several generations. Each generation, the gay population will shrink as a percentage of the total, if there were a gay gene. Doesn't matter if there in one gene or a combination. Doesn't matter if there are environmental issues thrown into the mix. If the birth rate is lower any trait will decline in frequency over enough generations.

The example of Sodom and Gomorroh I used was a historic reference from about 4,000 years ago. If my math is correct, that is somewhere around 150 human generations. So we have historic reference that homosexual behavior has existed in humans for at least 150 generations. Even if gays reproduced at the rate of 90% of straights, do the math and see what happens. Same result as my example of 50%, just takes longer. Either way, 150 human generations is plenty of time to make a gay gene extremely rare.

Since somewhere from 3% to 10% of the population is gay and gay behavior is not rare, the "gay" gene is a myth.

The examples you gave tend to support this assertion. All your examples are of rare diseases. That is exactly the same assertion I am making:

If there were a "gay gene" the frequency of it would decline over succeeding generations due to a lower birth rate. Given enough time, the gene would become extremely rare.

coyote and vyo476

As to the objections raised over using prison population, this is perhaps the most telling indicator that homosexuality is a choice. Prisoners chose to have homosexual relations. After they leave prison, if they return to a straight lifestyle, so what? In prison, they chose homosexual relations. A choice is a choice is a choice. Doesn't matter if the cause was trauma or it was an availability problem. It was still a choice.

And homosexuals have always had sex with heterosexuals. There are only 2 options here: intragender sex, or intergender sex. My contention is that gays have reproduced with straight and lesbian women throughout all of history but never at as great a rate as the straight population. Therefore, the mythical gay gene would decline in frequency over the generations.

The example I used citing genetic drift was a poor choice on my part. I don't understand this topic well enough to properly discuss it. One of the topics genetic drift addresses is the case when there are 2 competing genes (such as gay vs straight). I believe genetic drift supports my assertion and applies to this topic but I am not knowledgeable enough to properly discuss it.

There is one additional argument, although I think it to be a weak one, which supports the "Gay lifestyle is a choice" assertion.

Gay proponents love to point out that certain animals (not human) exhibit gay behavior. The examples they quote and actual observations would indicate that such behavior exists but is extremely rare. If there is a "Gay" gene for simians, it is present in only small quantities (well under 1% of the population).

This gay behavior has also been reported in a few other other species, always as a rare occurrence. (I am only referring here to intraspecies gay behavior. Interspecies gay behavior is proabably best categorized as some form of perversion.)

The percentage of gays in our present society is somewhere between 3% and 10%, depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. This is a far higher percentage than any zoologist would claim as a percentage of non-humans exhibiting gay behaviors. Gay behavior is not rare in our society. If gay behavior is genetic and rare in every other sepcies, why is is not rare in humans? ..... Because humans chose gay behavior.

If any one reading this is gay or is close friends with a gay (I am in the latter category), do not think my comments are meant as a slam against gays. I am making no value judgement in any way. I am interpreting data in a logical and scientific manner and have reached the conclusion that gay behavior must be a choice.

My comments concerning gays being a liability to a primitive society should not be interpreted that I think gays are a liability to any society. Those comments are solely an interpretation of what I consider to be a seriously flawed theory (Evolution). On the contrary, some of my favorite music was composed by gays (Queen and Yes) and one of the best wordsmiths in recent history was Truman Capote. Gays have made significant contributions to our present society, particularly but not limited to the arts, and will make similar contributions in the future.

I'm not slammimg anyone or any lifestyle, just presenting my conclusions and the reason for those conclusions. No value judgement attached.

[Napoleon]

I don't think anyone in this forum would disagree with the statement that gays reproduce at a lower rate that straights. The exact rate is unknown and irrelevant. If you do the math at a 10% rate or at a 90% rate, the results are the same given several generations. Each generation, the gay population will shrink as a percentage of the total, if there were a gay gene. Doesn't matter if there in one gene or a combination. Doesn't matter if there are environmental issues thrown into the mix. If the birth rate is lower any trait will decline in frequency over enough generations.

You are ignoring one important fact; the vast majority of homosexuals have heterosexual parents. This clearly indicates that the gay gene is a recessive one transmitted by the heterosexual population into their offspring. Your logic would only be correct if the gene was passed exclusively from homosexual parents.

Since somewhere from 3% to 10% of the population is gay and gay behavior is not rare, the "gay" gene is a myth.

That is an incorrect assertion given the anatomical, physiological, and biological nature of homosexuality.

I am interpreting data in a logical and scientific manner and have reached the conclusion that gay behavior must be a choice.

Of course gay behavior is a choice. You are obviously having trouble making the distinction between gay behavior and homosexuality. Homosexuality is a state of being not a behavior. People don't wake up one day and decide to change the size and function of their hypothalamus.

[JavaBlack]

Read this article for more insight into how the genetics actually works:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html?ei=5070&en=764069fdec4b2bd1&ex=1182571200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1182450983-GfqlRNqsJlsfwokUXSLwCg

According to science apparently, men are hard-wired to be gay or straight... Women are not.

But for the record I always felt the argument was pointless. If it is a choice... how does that make it any more anyone's business. It affects no one other than the consenting adults involved.

[Coyote]

Apparently this topic has generated some interest and (also some harmless buffoonery).

Coyote

Thanks for your comments. As ususal you are knowledgeable and have thought things through within the framework of your preconceptions.


Errr...MY preconceptions? :rolleyes:


I don't think anyone in this forum would disagree with the statement that gays reproduce at a lower rate that straights. The exact rate is unknown and irrelevant. If you do the math at a 10% rate or at a 90% rate, the results are the same given several generations. Each generation, the gay population will shrink as a percentage of the total, if there were a gay gene. Doesn't matter if there in one gene or a combination. Doesn't matter if there are environmental issues thrown into the mix. If the birth rate is lower any trait will decline in frequency over enough generations.


Invest07, you're missing the points I made entirely.

Polygenetic traits - especially recessive and/or enviornmentally mediated traits - are extremely difficult to irradicate because you have a lot of unknowing carriers.

Certain genetic diseases are due to mutations that spontaneiously arise, often due to a weak area on the sequence (and are not inherited by the sufferer) - such as cystic fibrosis. It wouldn't matter how many generations you had the mutation would continue to occur at the same rate - it would not decline.

Environmental issue - yes, it does matter. If a genetic trait requires an environmental trigger to manifest itself - it could go for generations unexpressed in the phenotype until the right conditions are met. This means that the person with it breeds. The birth rate is unaffected until something in the environment triggers it in an individual.

If the so-called gay gene fits in the above criteria (as well it might) then you will not see a decrease. What if ALL those factors are involved?


Since somewhere from 3% to 10% of the population is gay and gay behavior is not rare, the "gay" gene is a myth.


Average consensus is 3-6% - a very small number. You have not proved that a genetic or biological basis for homosexuality is a myth.


The examples you gave tend to support this assertion. All your examples are of rare diseases. That is exactly the same assertion I am making:

If there were a "gay gene" the frequency of it would decline over succeeding generations due to a lower birth rate. Given enough time, the gene would become extremely rare.


They are rare diseases - yet their rate of occurence has not lessoned any. If your theory were correct we would see diminishing rate of occurance. Now we may - eventually, through advances in research on genetic markers and genetic counseling to prospective parents, but that is a different thing.


coyote and vyo476

As to the objections raised over using prison population, this is perhaps the most telling indicator that homosexuality is a choice. Prisoners chose to have homosexual relations. After they leave prison, if they return to a straight lifestyle, so what? In prison, they chose homosexual relations. A choice is a choice is a choice. Doesn't matter if the cause was trauma or it was an availability problem. It was still a choice.


There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexuality. People can engage in homosexual behavior but their basic sexual identification remains the same - heterosexual. In that respect it is a choice. That is not the same as people who are actual homosexuals. Their orientation remains fixed.


And homosexuals have always had sex with heterosexuals. There are only 2 options here: intragender sex, or intergender sex. My contention is that gays have reproduced with straight and lesbian women throughout all of history but never at as great a rate as the straight population. Therefore, the mythical gay gene would decline in frequency over the generations.


That's quite a leap of imagination here...and again, while it could be true - it still does not take into account any of the genetic scenarios above which would account for the continuing presence of a genetic or biological basis for homosexuality.


The example I used citing genetic drift was a poor choice on my part. I don't understand this topic well enough to properly discuss it. One of the topics genetic drift addresses is the case when there are 2 competing genes (such as gay vs straight). I believe genetic drift supports my assertion and applies to this topic but I am not knowledgeable enough to properly discuss it.


I don't think genetic drift is the right concept for what you are trying to express...however...if a trait is polygenetic then the whole idea of 2 competing genes becomes no longer matters.


There is one additional argument, although I think it to be a weak one, which supports the "Gay lifestyle is a choice" assertion.

Gay proponents love to point out that certain animals (not human) exhibit gay behavior. The examples they quote and actual observations would indicate that such behavior exists but is extremely rare. If there is a "Gay" gene for simians, it is present in only small quantities (well under 1% of the population).


This gay behavior has also been reported in a few other other species, always as a rare occurrence. (I am only referring here to intraspecies gay behavior. Interspecies gay behavior is proabably best categorized as some form of perversion.)[/quote]

The fact is that it does exist in other animals and in some species, such as bonobo chimps the prevaelance of homosexual behavior (and just heterosexual behavior) is very high and is thought to be part of the process they use to maintain social ties and peace (sort of like - make love not war). The fact that it exists in nature means that it is natural. The fact that it is rare is not surprising since in a lot of species it would not be conducive to survival. But I could see an argument for it being benificial in a cooperative social species - such as humans, and if it benefits the group, it survives and the group survives.


The percentage of gays in our present society is somewhere between 3% and 10%, depending on whose numbers you chose to believe. This is a far higher percentage than any zoologist would claim as a percentage of non-humans exhibiting gay behaviors. Gay behavior is not rare in our society. If gay behavior is genetic and rare in every other sepcies, why is is not rare in humans? ..... Because humans chose gay behavior.


Do we have an accurate way of really measuring the prevelance of homosexuality in other species, particularly in the wild? Even 3-10% is still very small. If it is more common in humans then other species the reason might be because it benefits human society in some way and that ensures it's survival since we don't live by the law of the jungle. Genetic survival in cooperative social species goes beyond survival of the individual - and what benefits the group as a whole carries more weight then what benefits the individual.


If any one reading this is gay or is close friends with a gay (I am in the latter category), do not think my comments are meant as a slam against gays. I am making no value judgement in any way. I am interpreting data in a logical and scientific manner and have reached the conclusion that gay behavior must be a choice.

My comments concerning gays being a liability to a primitive society should not be interpreted that I think gays are a liability to any society. Those comments are solely an interpretation of what I consider to be a seriously flawed theory (Evolution). On the contrary, some of my favorite music was composed by gays (Queen and Yes) and one of the best wordsmiths in recent history was Truman Capote. Gays have made significant contributions to our present society, particularly but not limited to the arts, and will make similar contributions in the future.

I'm not slammimg anyone or any lifestyle, just presenting my conclusions and the reason for those conclusions. No value judgement attached.

Actually, you make very well spoken arguments - free of nastyness - I wholly applaud you :)

Let me ask you to consider a question concerning gays being a liability to a primitive society.

In any primitive society cooperation is essential. Cooperation in food gathering, hunting, child rearing. Some must engage in hunting/gathering, some in guarding, and some must stay home to raise the young.

Another form of cooperation early societies is in war. Large groups of young males, living closely together, and fighting together - wholly seperate from women for long periods of time. This could conceivably create a great deal of sexual tensions. Homosexual love was not uncommom or villified in ancient Greek or Roman society for example (at least I don't think so).

I could see in both of the above examples where there might be a benifit to homosexuality - one in having non-competing/non-breeding males, to help with care, particularly if there are more males then females and the other, in diffusing tensions and promoting social cohesion.

[Coyote]

Read this article for more insight into how the genetics actually works:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10gene.html?ei=5070&en=764069fdec4b2bd1&ex=1182571200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1182450983-GfqlRNqsJlsfwokUXSLwCg

According to science apparently, men are hard-wired to be gay or straight... Women are not.

But for the record I always felt the argument was pointless. If it is a choice... how does that make it any more anyone's business. It affects no one other than the consenting adults involved.

Ya...pretty much, it's nobody's business but the folks involved.

[invest07]

Napoleon,

Thanks for your input.

As to your first comment, remember that I reject any notion of a "gay" gene. Therefore the comments I made were to present the case against a "gay" gene. Even if the mythical "gay" gene were passed from heterosexual parents, the gays themselves (who would have recieved the gay gene from both parents), still reproduce at a lesser rate than straights. I never said the homosexual gene would disappear. I only said if homosexuality was genetic in nature, the lower birth rate would result in declining frequency over many generations. Because this is not the case, I assert that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality.

Even if the hetero parents continue to spread the mythical gene, there is still a lower birth rate among gays than straights.

As I asserted, the exact rate is unknown and may be unknowable. But the exact rate doesn't matter. If you assume a higher rate of gay reproduction, it takes more generations but the end affect is the same: The gene becomes very rare. And we have at least 150 generations of humans since the first recorded instances of homosexuality. (And there may be other historical references earlier than the Genesis example I cited. If homosexuality existed from an earlier point in time, more generations would have elapsed and the decline factor would be even more pronounced. If you beleive in evolution, you must accept considerably more generations, several thousand perhaps, to have elapsed.)

I also reject any notion that there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior. If there is any difference to be found, there is no genetic basis for either case. Both are a choice. (And I maintain they are one in the same.) The example I cited using prison inmates
demonstrates that certain people may turn on or off homosexual behavior. This reinforces my assertion that homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is a choice.

[invest07]

coyote,

You make an interesting case for homosexuals in a primitive society. There might be something there.

Remember that I reject many elements of evolution and I prefaced the argument using evolution with "If you believe in evolution". To me it is a moot point. I reject any notion that humans or birds or flowers have evolved due to unintelligent, random and unfocused forces. I reject as absurd the notion that any organism has been improved by a long series of sequential mistakes.

Any argument using evolution as it's basis is predicated on the reader's acceptance of evolution. If evolution is false, and the evidence that it is false is overwhelming and growing daily, the argument is unfounded.

And I guess that was a cheap shot about preconceptions. Like many other evolutionists, You seem to believe there is only one possible way to interpret evidences from the past: that is using evolutionary theory as the framework for any analysis. There are other interpretations of the data from the past and many of those interpretations explain the mysteries of origins which evolution can't.

My comment about preconceptions is that if you have closed your mind to other interpretations, you indeed have preconceptions. In my eyes, a person of science should never close their mind to competing ideas, even if those new ideas require a total overhaul of their current beliefs. The ONLY question should be: "What best explains the evidence?"

And this closed mindedness among evolutionists has resulted in a stubborn resistance to ANY different interpretation. To the point of ridiculing other interpretations (the politics of personal destruction are alive and well among academic evolutionists).

The evidence against evolution is piling up. We haven't even had the opportunity to discuss the new science of Information. This is an area in which the mathematical probabilites of evolution can be computed and the odds are slim, indeed. If evolution were a horse, no way you'd bet your own money.

Talk to you later.

[JavaBlack]

I reject as absurd the notion that any organism has been improved by a long series of sequential mistakes.


I can tell you already have your mind made up over evolution and no amount of evidence can change that... but the above line is jaw-dropping.
All of your points are made on the basis of experience and philosophy rather than science...
yet somehow you still come out saying that a series of sequential mistakes cannot improve an organism?

Our lives and especially our minds are improved by such mistakes. We learn and grow through mistakes.

[vyo476]

In order to say that homosexuality and homosexual behavior are the same thing (which more or less says that there is no such thing as homosexuality), one would have to say that heterosexuality and heterosexual behavior are also one and the same (which means that there is also no such thing as heterosexuality). Therefore both are entirely and completely equal.

Even if the mythical "gay" gene were passed from heterosexual parents, the gays themselves (who would have recieved the gay gene from both parents), still reproduce at a lesser rate than straights.

Once again you're ignoring a few things.

Firstly, why would gays reproduce less than heterosexuals? Obviously because they feel no inclination to mate with the opposite sex. However, over the centuries persecution of homosexuals more than gave them the inclination to mate with the opposite sex - as a way of disguising who and what they really were.

Secondly, there's the issue of recessive traits that you still haven't dealt with. A "gay" gene could survive a dozen generations as a recessive trait.

I have to go to work. I look forward to your response.

[JavaBlack]

Also in the article I posted, it explains differences in the mutation rates between the Y and X chromosome. The article explains how studies show men being hardwired to heterosexuality or homosexuality, while women are not.
Thus a gay gene could travel through many generations of women before reaching a man that is even a candidate for the gene.

[Napoleon]

I only said if homosexuality was genetic in nature, the lower birth rate would result in declining frequency over many generations.

Again, that only holds water if you assume that only homosexuals pass the gene. The birth rate of heterosexuals has increased significantly which means that the gene would manifest itself with greater frequency. Whether or not homosexuals reproduce is irrelevant because we have already established that the gene would be recessive and is passed through heterosexuals.

I also reject any notion that there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior.

You don't distinguish between a state of being and a behavior?

If there is any difference to be found, there is no genetic basis for either case. Both are a choice.

There are anatomical, physiological, and biological differences. Are you suggesting that people chose the size and function of their hypothalamus?

This reinforces my assertion that homosexuality (and homosexual behavior) is a choice.

You can behave like a monkey without actually being a monkey.

[Coyote]

Napoleon,
I also reject any notion that there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual behavior.

Reject it based on what sort of scientific evidence?

[Mare Tranquillity]

I've seen dozens of these kinds of threads and all the arguments are the same--pro and con. My question is: Why bother?

Why not stop the discrimination, the persecution, the hate, the religous bigotry, and all the endless debate which is really little more than mental masturbation? Except for people with a religous axe to grind there is no one honestly putting forth any peer-reviewed articles with evidence showing that homosexual people are different than heterosexual people in any substantive way. There was a terrible argument about black people being able to be full citizens at one time, but after all the fire and fury died down we discovered that there was no real issue--it was all made up. This issue is the same.

There is a huge amount of energy on both sides of this argument--and to what purpose? It's like the long discussions that were had about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. For some reason that was an important issue at one time in human history, but where is it now? Homosexuality will be the same way shortly so why don't we evolve consciously past this pebble in the road and move on to one of the real problems facing humanity?

[DrWho]

I don't think it is necessarily genetic in the sense that there is a single gene out there we can label the "gay gene". I also do not think it is merely a choice.

Genetics is usually complicated and many traits are poly-genetic, or the only show up under certain environmental conditions.

Consider the following:


Among those considered "gay" are really quite a diverse group of people. Heterosexuals, experimenting. Bi-sexuals. Homosexuals. Only a very small proportion of the population is totally 100% homosexual. I would think that there are equally diverse reasons leading to those sexual orientations from choice to biology.

Given that - I think it's also reasonable to assume there is a biological or genetic basis for homosexuality in some of that group.

Opponents of the idea that there might be a biological reason cite supposed "successes" of such groups as the "Ex Gay ministry" - yet, researchers interviewing those in the program and those who have left the program and found that the only thing that changed was the superficial behavior - not the sexual orientation. The attraction to the same sex remained intact.

Another reason I tend to disagree with the "it's a choice" side is simple behavioral science. Being gay in our culture, until recently has often been a pretty horrendous experience exposing the person to hatred, stigma, ridicule, personal danger, murder, loss of a job, loss of friends, loss of family. If some one had a "choice" - why would they choose to subject themselves to that?

And in the end - if it's merely a choice - who cares? Who does it hurt? No one.

I agree with you that there are many diverse people within the group that is labeled homosexual. Surely there are as many reasons. Surely, the evidence indicates that there is a genetic component to all sorts of human behavior and sexuality is probably no exception. Fortunately as humans we have the choice to over-ride our behavioral genetic components most of the time. I do it all the time when I choose to be faithful to one woman.

But people choose to do all sorts of things that they know will subject to them hurt and I am not going to say that people do not choose to be prostitutes, atheists, communists, Christians, etc, when the environment is hostile to these.

[Coyote]

I agree with you that there are many diverse people within the group that is labeled homosexual. Surely there are as many reasons. Surely, the evidence indicates that there is a genetic component to all sorts of human behavior and sexuality is probably no exception. Fortunately as humans we have the choice to over-ride our behavioral genetic components most of the time. I do it all the time when I choose to be faithful to one woman.

But people choose to do all sorts of things that they know will subject to them hurt and I am not going to say that people do not choose to be prostitutes, atheists, communists, Christians, etc, when the environment is hostile to these.

Why would they want to overide something as inate as sexual orientation? Would you want to overide your heterosexuality and become homosexual?

[invest07]

vyo476

Concerning recessive genes, so long as a recesssive gene does not affect birth rates, it will continue to be passed on to each generation with the same frequency.

Example: my father has wavy hair, which is a recessive trait for Anglo origin. Wavy hair also has nothing to do with reproduction rates and this recessive trait continues to be passed on at about the same frequency from generation to generation.

Cocerning gay reproduction rates, I can't believe you are really asserting gays reproduce at the same rate as straights. Gays certainly do reproduce and have in every human generation. But they have made a choice to gravitate towards same gender relationships which do not produce new births. Certainly some gays reproduce, with both straights and other gays of different gender but the overall rate is lower than for straights and has been so since the beginning of the human race.

coyote
Concerning the rate of disease that you mentioned, I understand that genetics is a complicated matter. I have studied animal genetics but plant genetics are a total mystery to me. I do not think genetic material ever completely disappears except by species extinction. A recesssive trait, such as the mythical gay gene, would diminish over time to a low frequency but would likely never disappear. After 150 human generations (or thousands in the case of your belief) the frequency would be very low but likely at some level of maintenance.

The examples you cited seem to have behaved precisely as I predicted the mythical gay gene would have behaved. It would diminish over generations to finally reach a low frequency, maintenace level. The mythical gay gene should have reached this low frequency, maintenance level, within 40-50 generations (thousands of years ago)

As to whether or not 3-6% (or 3-10% depending on whose number you chose to beleive) is rare, consider this example:

My street has nine houses and a human population of about 30. Statistically, using 3-10% as a gay frequency, there should be at least 1 and maybe as many as 3 gays living on my small street.

With a US population over 300M+, the absolute count of gays would be 9M+ to 30M+. Not rare in my estimation. And not rare to politicians.

I understand that the Political Correct position is that a "Gay" gene must exist. I maintain that a "Gay" gene can't be defended genetically. Since PC is driven solely by social considerations, and not by reality or science, many of the positions supported by PC do not represent reality.

There is no "gay" gene or any combination of traits that produce a predisposition to be gay. Gay is a choice.

The most visible example of this choice is homosexuality in prison. Straights go into prison, engage in homosexual behavior, and may or may not continue this behavior after release. Choice, choice, choice.

[vyo476]

Concerning recessive genes, so long as a recesssive gene does not affect birth rates, it will continue to be passed on to each generation with the same frequency.

Example: my father has wavy hair, which is a recessive trait for Anglo origin. Wavy hair also has nothing to do with reproduction rates and this recessive trait continues to be passed on at about the same frequency from generation to generation.

Cocerning gay reproduction rates, I can't believe you are really asserting gays reproduce at the same rate as straights. Gays certainly do reproduce and have in every human generation. But they have made a choice to gravitate towards same gender relationships which do not produce new births. Certainly some gays reproduce, with both straights and other gays of different gender but the overall rate is lower than for straights and has been so since the beginning of the human race.

Homosexuality has been persecuted a lot over the last millennium (and wasn't too popular for a few centuries before that even). Would not a homosexual (in possession of a hypothetical "gay" gene) then be encouraged to do what was necessary to give the appearance of heterosexuality? Would not breeding be a good way of convincing society that he is not, in fact, gay? This is how homosexual reproduction rates have kept up with heterosexual reproduction rates.

In that way the recessive trait also would not have affected birth rates. Homosexuals are fully capable of reproducing. If you believe that homosexuals are incapable of engaging in intercourse with the opposite sex, or would not do so to avoid persecution, or even that in doing so they could no longer be considered homosexuals, than your view of homosexuality is limited indeed.

[Napoleon]

There is no "gay" gene or any combination of traits that produce a predisposition to be gay.

There have been MANY studies which prove that assertion to be incorrect.

The most visible example of this choice is homosexuality in prison. Straights go into prison, engage in homosexual behavior, and may or may not continue this behavior after release. Choice, choice, choice.

There is a clear difference between behavior and a state of being. You can go to a zoo and behave like a monkey. That doesn't mean that you are a monkey.

[USMC the Almighty]

There have been MANY studies which prove that assertion to be incorrect.


Once upon a time, there were many 'studies' that said the Earth was flat. Science is not flawless.

[Coyote]

Once upon a time, there were many 'studies' that said the Earth was flat. Science is not flawless.

Science over time has been pointing the way towards the idea that at least some homosexual traits have a biological basis - this is seen in the endocrine system, brain chemistry and make up, and a host of other things. To ignore it and fall back on an opinion that is primarily based on a subjective sense of morality is to ignore science. Of course, that is your choice.

[Coyote]

There have been MANY studies which prove that assertion to be incorrect.



There is a clear difference between behavior and a state of being. You can go to a zoo and behave like a monkey. That doesn't mean that you are a monkey.

:D that's a good example

[DrWho]

Why would they want to overide something as inate as sexual orientation? Would you want to overide your heterosexuality and become homosexual?


Every individual makes his own choices. If one person wants to steer his ship one way and another person wants to steer his ship another that is his own decision. I believe strongly in making my own destiny and if I wanted to overcome any biological drive I have then I would. By definition, any biologically driven behavior would be just as innate as any other. Is one harder to overcome? And does a person want to?

My sexuality is not the most important thing to me. There are many things in life that are more important. I hope you too have things in your life that are more important too as I would hate to see anyone's life reduced to their drive for sex.

If I were a pedophile I would gladly choose anything that would help me to avoid abusing children. When it comes to homosexuality I don't see many reasons why one would need to make a choice of one thing over another but if it came down to it I hope they would not be stuck deciding to follow their biology. The only reason I can think of is if their religious views were both opposed to homosexuality for themselves and more important than their sexuality. In another culture or another time it might be different - then one might want to steer their ship away from homosexuality in favor of participation in the larger culture. But that is still an individual choice.

[Napoleon]

Once upon a time, there were many 'studies' that said the Earth was flat. Science is not flawless.

There were never any scientific studies which demonstrated a flat Earth. Such ideas were based on mythology and personal opinion not science. Nevertheless, there are still those who believe that the Earth is flat despite the fact that a spherical Earth has been demonstrated and widely accepted by scientists for over 2,200 years! See a parallel? I do.

[invest07]

Science over time has been pointing the way towards the idea that at least some homosexual traits have a biological basis - this is seen in the endocrine system, brain chemistry and make up, and a host of other things.

Sources for any of this would help support your assertion.

[DrWho]

There were never any scientific studies which demonstrated a flat Earth. Such ideas were based on mythology and personal opinion not science. Nevertheless, there are still those who believe that the Earth is flat despite the fact that a spherical Earth has been demonstrated and widely accepted by scientists for over 2,200 years! See a parallel? I do.

Really, have you examined all the scientific studies that were ever made? Was there never a scientist anywhere who looked at a large field/ocean and concluded that to the best of his archaic scientific experience that since the field/ocean appeared flat that the earth was flat. He would have been wrong but it would still have been his primitive scientific understanding.

Here is a quote. I don't know much about the author but it appears to be from a learned person from long ago who is relying on a misinterpretation of the scientific concept of gravity to make his case.

"If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be -- if we could imagine the thing, to be peopled all around-'antipodes:' 'people who,' says the dictionary, 'living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, having their fee [sic] opposite to ours' - people who are HANGING DOWN, HEAD DOWNWARDS while we are standing head up? But since the theory allows to travel to those parts of the earth where the people are said to hand head downward, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards, and our friends whom we have left behind us to be heads downwards, it follows that the WHOLE THING IS A MYTH - A DREAM - A DELUSION - and a snare, and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate this popular theory, it is plain proof that the Earth is Not A Globe."

[invest07]

There were never any scientific studies which demonstrated a flat Earth. Such ideas were based on mythology and personal opinion not science. Nevertheless, there are still those who believe that the Earth is flat despite the fact that a spherical Earth has been demonstrated and widely accepted by scientists for over 2,200 years! See a parallel? I do.

There are better examples than flat earth.

There were scientific studies that supported the existence of phlogiston. For 200 years, this was accepted.

In spite of mounting scientific evidence, most scientists and doctors rejected the notion of germs, until around 1900, following the work of Walter Reid in Cuba.

30 years ago the scientific community was convinced that global cooling was right around the corner.

A scientist at IBM is quoted as saying no one would could possibly ever need more than 640K of memory.

Around 1900, the head of the US patent office, who was an accomplished scientist, fully expected the office to soon close because everything that could be invented already had.

Science is not always right.

[Coyote]

My sexuality is not the most important thing to me. There are many things in life that are more important. I hope you too have things in your life that are more important too as I would hate to see anyone's life reduced to their drive for sex.



But that's exactly what this whole argument is about. Defining someone's entire existance by their sexuality. What difference does it make to anyone but the consenting adults involved? This is not pedophilia. There are no "victims".

Asking them to "choose" to be heterosexual would imply the same as asking you to "choose" to be homosexual. You'd be fighting inate built in biological drives. Could you do it and live a happy fulfilled life?

[USMC the Almighty]

There were never any scientific studies which demonstrated a flat Earth.

Right, but that was the scientific "consensus". See a parallel? I do.

[Coyote]

Right, but that was the scientific "consensus". See a parallel? I do.

No.


Science at that time was very different then it is today. In addition, it wasn't just science - it was religion.

[USMC the Almighty]

Science at that time was very different then it is today. In addition, it wasn't just science - it was religion.

I was just using that as an example of how just because it's scientifically accepted doesn't mean that it's absolutely infallible. Another example of this would be eugenics in the early 20th century.

[Coyote]

I was just using that as an example of how just because it's scientifically accepted doesn't mean that it's absolutely infallible. Another example of this would be eugenics in the early 20th century.

Agreed. That is a better example.

However - the problem isn't scientific consensus. It's attempting to apply scientific findings (ie genetics) to other social issues.

For example: scientific consensus agrees that certain diseases are inherited by a simple recessive and if individuals carrying that recessive trait did not breed, the trait may die out.

Another group of people - generally not scientists - might take that consensus and carry it further by stating these people should not be allowed to breed therefore we will legislate laws to prohibit it.

Science is pretty much amoral and impartial. It's what people choose to do with it that gives it value.

Kind of like the lyrics to this Tom Leher song...


Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

[DrWho]

But that's exactly what this whole argument is about. Defining someone's entire existance by their sexuality. What difference does it make to anyone but the consenting adults involved? This is not pedophilia. There are no "victims".

Asking them to "choose" to be heterosexual would imply the same as asking you to "choose" to be homosexual. You'd be fighting inate built in biological drives. Could you do it and live a happy fulfilled life?

In comparison to the vast hordes of heteros there are not victims. The crimes of heterosexuals are just as numerous as the crimes of homosexuals.

If heteros did what they were supposed to do then in comparison homosexuality would have victims.

But this is the real world, so I know of no reason for a secular america to disaprove of homosexuals. Unless the disapproval is genetic.

[Napoleon]

Really, have you examined all the scientific studies that were ever made?

I've examined many of the reasoning behind claiming that the Earth is flat and none of it is truly scientific. It was based on uneducated/scientifically illiterate opinion and mythology.

Here is a quote. I don't know much about the author but it appears to be from a learned person from long ago who is relying on a misinterpretation of the scientific concept of gravity to make his case.

Actually, it was written in September of 1988 by the Flat Earth Society in, their publication, The Flat Earth News as number 24 out of their article "One Hundred Proofs Earth is Not a Globe." Yeah, they're still around and I suspect that you know your quote came from them.

[SW85]

I could go either way on the question. My sisters were born five minutes apart and are both lesbians; my brother and I, who were born eight years apart, are as straight as arrows. That lends credence to the genetics argument. By contrast, most of my mom's friends growing up were lesbians (we lived in a little San Diego-like suburb in Maryland; we were one of the few typical nuclear families on the block) and my sisters spent a lot more time with them than my brother or I did. That could back up the environmental argument, too. More than likely it's a combination of both.

[ArmChair General]

I could go either way on the question. My sisters were born five minutes apart and are both lesbians; my brother and I, who were born eight years apart, are as straight as arrows. That lends credence to the genetics argument. By contrast, most of my mom's friends growing up were lesbians (we lived in a little San Diego-like suburb in Maryland; we were one of the few typical nuclear families on the block) and my sisters spent a lot more time with them than my brother or I did. That could back up the environmental argument, too. More than likely it's a combination of both.

I agree, its a combination of both.

Though I think Coyote makes a very valid point, who friggin cares.

[Chip]

Homosexuality is neither genetic nor a choice.

It is compelled psychologically as an unconscious idiosyncratic reaction to relationships with family-of-origin members during the first four years of post-natal life, while the brain is still forming.

Those supporting the either-or dualism have missed the truth, once again.

[numinus]

The act of engaging in a homosexual act is ALWAYS a choice - whether the inclination to it is present of not.

The argument for genetics is a crude way of divorcing responsibility for what is clearly one's actions.

[Force-of-the-Truth]

Based on what I have read, sexual preference is inborn (though not necessarily genetic- it may be determined by prenatal conditions) in men, but it is, in some sense, a choice among women, who technically don't have a sexual orientation. Regardless, it isn't something that should be regulated by the government.

In reply to numinus, it is true that behavior is ultimately a choice, but the morality or immorality of sexual behavior is determined by whether a relationship is hierarchical and emotionally abusive, in which case it is immoral, or takes place between psychological equals with mutual respect, in which case it is not immoral. Since relationships of both types exist among both heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is this dynamic rather than gender that should be examined.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Homosexuality is neither genetic nor a choice.

It is compelled psychologically as an unconscious idiosyncratic reaction to relationships with family-of-origin members during the first four years of post-natal life, while the brain is still forming.

Those supporting the either-or dualism have missed the truth, once again.

So, Chip, you know this because you are gay? If so, or if not, why don't you provide some evidence to support your sweeping claims that contradict the work of a lot of scientists, please.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Based on what I have read, sexual preference is inborn (though not necessarily genetic- it may be determined by prenatal conditions) in men, but it is, in some sense, a choice among women, who technically don't have a sexual orientation. Regardless, it isn't something that should be regulated by the government.

This is an amazing statement. Do you have anything to back it up? It smacks of the early Christian Church policy stating that women didn't have souls.

[Mare Tranquillity]

The act of engaging in a homosexual act is ALWAYS a choice - whether the inclination to it is present of not.

The argument for genetics is a crude way of divorcing responsibility for what is clearly one's actions.

Anything that a human does can be considered a "choice". If the Church has a scripture that says eating is a sin, would you stop making that evil choice? Denying a person their own humanity is the worst thing that religion has done.

[Force-of-the-Truth]

This is an amazing statement. Do you have anything to back it up? It smacks of the early Christian Church policy stating that women didn't have souls.

Unfortunately, the New York Times article detailing the scientific studies has expired for those who aren't registered subscribers, so I can't prove the statement. That is why I prefaced it with "Based on what I have read". I can't prove this either, but somehow I doubt that New York Times writers think women have no souls. :rolleyes:

[OPGhostdog]

This is MY Day for posting. I am not a supporter of Homosexuality,
but some of these cases started at birth, and grew in the later
stages of life. Why should we hate people who are born the way
that they are? Scientific studies and articles that was wrote do
not mean a damn thing.

Science is the reason why society is so screwed up like it is today.
Always expermenting on a concept that so like its worth investing
into, and it seems to always turn out a waste of money.

Homosexuality can't be blamed on the church, but I do believe that
its a genetic trace in the family tree, and one generation may appear
to be straight for years.
Then all at once the program begin to change then what?

I feel that to make a choice at the correct time is ones business.
Meaning if at birth one might have been born straight, and 30
years down the line begin to look at another man's a** that's
where and when the choice is made.

I know a guy who walks like Jennifer Lopaz, but he is strictly a
woman's man, and I also know a woman who have more Butch
in her...then Butch himself (being a man).

So either way..however or whatever way one choices to go
that's on them, and who are we to pass judgement on somebody?
As long as I am treated with respect..they will get respect, and
as long as they stay their distants I will stay mine.

Regardless to what I might think people with sexual grooves is
entitle to have whatever they choose.

[top gun]

It could be either.

Some people just become curious about a strange or different sex act and then act out themselves. They may even go back and forth between being straight and being gay.

Others are defiantly just born with that orientation and sexual preference preset in their mind. If that wasn't true you could just change there preference through medical science and therapy. While a small percentage might be influenced by treatment the vast, vast majority cannot/do not change.

[Chip]

So, Chip, you know this because you are gay? If so, or if not, why don't you provide some evidence to support your sweeping claims that contradict the work of a lot of scientists, please.
Your implication is false.

There is no "gene for" homosexuality.

This is not an area of mere "scientific" expertise.

It is a combined authority realm referred to as neuropsychology.

The truth has been thereby determined using both science and art.

But regardless of how the truth is revealed, the truth itself remains what it is.

And the truth is that homosexuality is neither genetic or a conscious choice.

It doesn't matter what method of truth denial is presently in vogue -- it doesn't matter if worshipping science, even when science has not spoken, is the new-age religion of the masses.

What matters is the truth.

Neuropsychology has revealed the truth, the truth that I have presented in my previous post: homosexuality is caused by an unconscious idiosyncratic reaction to relationships with family-of-origin members during the first four years of post-natal life, while the brain is still forming.

I do not have to "prove" the truth to you.

The onus of proof otherwise against the obvious truth that I stated is upon you. :cool:

[numinus]

In reply to numinus, it is true that behavior is ultimately a choice, but the morality or immorality of sexual behavior is determined by whether a relationship is hierarchical and emotionally abusive, in which case it is immoral, or takes place between psychological equals with mutual respect, in which case it is not immoral. Since relationships of both types exist among both heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is this dynamic rather than gender that should be examined.

The moral worth of an action does not derive from inclinations of appetite. In fact, nothing can be further from this.

To engage in sex for the SOLE purpose of personal pleasure, whether hetero or homo, is an action of NO MORAL WORTH.

[numinus]

Anything that a human does can be considered a "choice". If the Church has a scripture that says eating is a sin, would you stop making that evil choice? Denying a person their own humanity is the worst thing that religion has done.

All actions calculated to promote DIGNITY in the human PERSON, WITHOUT regard for whatever subjective or personal ends that might simultaneously accrue from it, are not merely good, but are fundamental IMPERATIVES as well.

If you ever bothered to read ANY of the catholic church teachings, you would realize that ALL of them derive from this simple and intuitively logical principle.

Now, in what way is homo-eroticism a part of human nature, thus making it a command of human dignity?

[r0beph]

We as humans are born with a built in set of criteria for what we will find attractive insofar as the gender of who we find attractive. The idea that it incorporates a single or even 50 genetic markers is a bit on the low end, as its not simple as the preface makes it sound. We are clay tablets at birth as we age the writing dries and we have our hardwired neurology in place, as an adult new memories, situations, traumas, loves, losses, etc. will be filtered through these hardwired portions of the mind. This hardwiring is done akin to a blueprint for an electrician. It shows where he is supposed to route the wires, but sometimes they fudge a bit, because going through the blueprints guide is just not going to happen, and may cause problems later on. Early childhood traumas cause abnormalities in brain development insomuch as things don't follow the blueprint and may cause things to go awry. Given that, environmental homosexual is a very, very, and I cannot stress more fully, very rare case. Sexual abuse (Male-Adult > Male Child) usually ends up with a Heterosexual Relationship with male child sexual abuse predispositions. To me this is the sought after grail of proof for the "Are they born that way" argument. Why would a male who wishes male on male contact with a child/teenager, be in a heterosexual relationship. Not all of those abused ergo abusers could possibly be repressive homosexuals who are married just as a front could they? No, I do not believe this the case, I believe that the mishandling in childhood created a sexual attractant to child males (due to being a child male and suffering that at the hands of a fatherly figure, hardwiring some strange sexual/love response), the heterosexual attraction (predisposition sans environmental) is inherent. There's tons of documentation on the heterosexual male on male sexual abuser, however its not put in this scope as a definitive manner of presentation for this case, and thus is speculation of my own built with that which you may find as its foundation. There are many other reasons why I'd be led to believe it is "genetic", while it requires many things to be different from the heterosexual, the only difference would be that of the mind not of the body. We're so used to birth defects that create hideousity but how is one to tell that which effects the mind? While I'm using the word defect here with quite the loose hand, I simply am referencing its state as an anomaly for the male. It is not a "problem" and you lot who feel homosexuals threaten you, perhaps you should look at some gay porn and get over that which you're repressing so dearly. The repression and anger at homosexuality unlike homosexuality itself is an environmental affect, one that creates a suspicious element to your design. Why would one be so angry and hateful towards something that does not effect you in any manner, unless one is effected by the feeling that if one does not herald his distaste for the subject his secret may be found? Of course after a childhood of growing up with this attitude that too is now hardwired. But who knows.

homophobic are we? (http://www.skeptictank.org/homosex.htm)

[Napoleon]

Now, in what way is homo-eroticism a part of human nature, thus making it a command of human dignity?

Again, there have been numerous studies which demonstrate the FACT that homosexuality directly results from biological, physiological, anatomical, and possibly genetic factors. I'm also completely unaware of any generation of the human species in which homosexuality did not occur. This clearly demonstrates that homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species and therefore a part of human nature. What is not a part of human nature is celibacy; a policy enforced by the Catholic Church on it's priests and nuns.

[invest07]

Napoleon
You are right on the money when you say that homosexual behavior has existed in every human generation. We have historical references from several sources and the frequency of homesexual appears to be constant throughout recorded history.

This supports my assertion that there is no "gay" gene. If there were a "gay" gene, the lower birth rate among gays would insure that the frequency of the "gay" gene would diminish and within 40-50 generations, would have shrunk to a very low, maintenance level.

Anywhere from 4% to 10% percent of the US population (depending on whose numbers you believe) engage in homosexual behavior. If there were a "gay" gene, the lower birth rate over hundreds of human generations would have reduced this percent to a small fraction of one percent.

Homosexual behavior is a choice.

[DrWho]

Again, there have been numerous studies which demonstrate the FACT that homosexuality directly results from biological, physiological, anatomical, and possibly genetic factors. I'm also completely unaware of any generation of the human species in which homosexuality did not occur. This clearly demonstrates that homosexuality is a natural occurrence within our species and therefore a part of human nature. What is not a part of human nature is celibacy; a policy enforced by the Catholic Church on it's priests and nuns.

The same has been said for pederasty. But saying it and it being a fact are two different things.

The human is complex and nothing is solely biological or solely a result of free will. But whatever the cause of a person's sexuality if they want to alter it's effect on their lives they can. If one is gay and doesn't want to have sex with same sex people one doesn't have to. If they are happy with their sexuality then they will have no motive to alter it.

[Napoleon]

This supports my assertion that there is no "gay" gene. If there were a "gay" gene, the lower birth rate among gays would insure that the frequency of the "gay" gene would diminish and within 40-50 generations, would have shrunk to a very low, maintenance level.

Except that all of the genetic research suggest that the "gay gene" is passed via HETEROSEXUAL mothers into their offspring. If the gene is passed through HETEROSEXUAL women, which appears to be the case, then it would not have diminished. In any case, no one really knows how large or small the truly homosexual population is.

Homosexual behavior is a choice.

Homosexuality is not a behavior; it is a state of being and the same is true of heterosexuality.

But saying it and it being a fact are two different things.

The FACT is that there are clear anatomical, biological, physiological, and possibly genetic differences between homosexual men and heterosexual men. This has been proven numerous times in decades of scientific studies and research.

But whatever the cause of a person's sexuality if they want to alter it's effect on their lives they can. If one is gay and doesn't want to have sex with same sex people one doesn't have to. If they are happy with their sexuality then they will have no motive to alter it.

Choosing whether or not to have sex and choosing your sexuality are entirely different things, the latter being impossible.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Unfortunately, the New York Times article detailing the scientific studies has expired for those who aren't registered subscribers, so I can't prove the statement. That is why I prefaced it with "Based on what I have read". I can't prove this either, but somehow I doubt that New York Times writers think women have no souls. :rolleyes:

If the New York Times said YOU didn't have a sexual orientation would you believe it? What in the world would make you think that a newspaper could speak knowledgably about half of the human race? Do you believe everything you read in the paper?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your implication is false.

There is no "gene for" homosexuality.

This is not an area of mere "scientific" expertise.

It is a combined authority realm referred to as neuropsychology.

The truth has been thereby determined using both science and art.

But regardless of how the truth is revealed, the truth itself remains what it is.

And the truth is that homosexuality is neither genetic or a conscious choice.

It doesn't matter what method of truth denial is presently in vogue -- it doesn't matter if worshipping science, even when science has not spoken, is the new-age religion of the masses.

What matters is the truth.

Neuropsychology has revealed the truth, the truth that I have presented in my previous post: homosexuality is caused by an unconscious idiosyncratic reaction to relationships with family-of-origin members during the first four years of post-natal life, while the brain is still forming.

I do not have to "prove" the truth to you.

The onus of proof otherwise against the obvious truth that I stated is upon you. :cool:

When one postulates something the onus is on the postulater to prove that he or she is not just speaking through their hat. Are you a neuropsychologist? If you are then you should be able to supply some documentation from peer review journals. If you cannot support your wild claims in any way, then you are in the same catagory as all the Bible-beaters bleating like sheep about Scripture and sin.

If you can actually PROVE your claim I would be like to know about it because I will be speaking to a University class on human sexuality next week and so far I have not been able to find ANYTHING to back up what you've said. Put up or shut up.

[DrWho]

The FACT is that there are clear anatomical, biological, physiological, and possibly genetic differences between homosexual men and heterosexual men. This has been proven numerous times in decades of scientific studies and research.


Please post a clear anatomical difference.


Choosing whether or not to have sex and choosing your sexuality are entirely different things, the latter being impossible.


Yes they are different. But I am not the one limiting the power of the people to determine their own destiny. Just how did you determine that it is impossible for people to alter their sexual leanings?

[Mare Tranquillity]

All actions calculated to promote DIGNITY in the human PERSON, WITHOUT regard for whatever subjective or personal ends that might simultaneously accrue from it, are not merely good, but are fundamental IMPERATIVES as well.
Could you demostrate the veracity of this statement please?

If you ever bothered to read ANY of the catholic church teachings, you would realize that ALL of them derive from this simple and intuitively logical principle.
I think that "intuitively logical" is an oxymoron. Logic specifically denies intuition, and intuition is intuition because it DOES NOT rely on logic. This is more baseless religious blather, semantically null, and logically vacant.

Now, in what way is homo-eroticism a part of human nature, thus making it a command of human dignity?
The worst thing that religion does is deny people their humanity, it denies them the existence that their Creator gave them and it does this on the basis of religious bigotry authored by human beings with overweening egos. If you are a homosexual and mutually in love, then expressing that love is a manifestation of God within you (no less than expressing the God-within in a heterosexual love) and your expression of the God within you should be trampled upon by bigots.

What "command of human dignity" made the Catholic Church torture people in the Inquisition? The Catholic Church stands out amongst the all the other Christian sects for it's violence and violation of human dignity. The baseless, senseless, unsupportable, and truly insufferable pogrom against homosexual people makes a mockery of everything for which Jesus stood. The Dark Ages were dark because of the Catholic Church more than anything else.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes they are different. But I am not the one limiting the power of the people to determine their own destiny. Just how did you determine that it is impossible for people to alter their sexual leanings?

If you are stating that a person can change their sexual orientation, then I think you should pony-up and change yours to prove your point. Anything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do it. So far you appear to be a poser with nothing to back up anything you've said.

If heteros did what they were supposed to do then in comparison homosexuality would have victims.
Could you please explain this peculiar sentence? How can sex between consenting adults have victims? If it was heterosex I can see where unwanted children could be seen as "victims", but that can't be the case in homosexual liasons.


Here's a website with an interesting talk by Dr. Cynthia Chappell (who has one gay and one straight son) speaking on A BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I recommend that you do not watch it because it won't matter to you since you are arguing from an emotional position and facts don't count.

[Chip]

When one postulates something the onus is on the postulater to prove that he or she is not just speaking through their hat. Are you a neuropsychologist? If you are then you should be able to supply some documentation from peer review journals. If you cannot support your wild claims in any way, then you are in the same catagory as all the Bible-beaters bleating like sheep about Scripture and sin.
Your projections are irrelevant.

There is no "gene for" homosexuality.

One's sexual orientation is obviously not a conscious choice.

Nor is there any real evidence for gestational chemicals as a cause.

Thus it is obvious that the only rationally acceptable cause is during post-natal brain development that concludes by the age of five.

Such brain development is greatly influenced by the environment, family-of-origin relationships, idiosyncratically.


If you can actually PROVE your claim I would be like to know about it because I will be speaking to a University class on human sexuality next week and so far I have not been able to find ANYTHING to back up what you've said. Put up or shut up.
Again, you project.

You have no proof otherwise.

I speak the truth.

So I will not shut up.

Your pretentious allusion to being a university "Authority" does in no way alter the truth of what I have told.

[Napoleon]

Please post a clear anatomical difference.

Studies conducted independently by D.F. Swaab and Laura S. Allen revealed that the suprachiasmatic nucleus and anterior commissure of the hypothalamus are significantly larger in homosexual men than they are in heterosexual men. A study conducted by Simon LeVay also revealed that the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus is significantly smaller in homosexual men and women than it is in heterosexual men and women.


Just how did you determine that it is impossible for people to alter their sexual leanings?

Because sexuality is determined by the brain. You can't alter the structure of your brain simply by willing yourself to be heterosexual or homosexual.

There is no "gene for" homosexuality.

Actually, research conducted by Dean Hamer, Bailey, McKnight, and Malcolm revealed the presence of distinctive alleles and autosomal markers on the Xq28, 7q36, 8p12, and 10q26 genes of homosexual men. It's possible that one of those genes is the "gay gene". Further research will tell the tale.

Nor is there any real evidence for gestational chemicals as a cause.

There have been a few studies which suggest a link between the skewing of X chromosome inactivation and homosexuality.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your projections are irrelevant.
There is no "gene for" homosexuality.
One's sexual orientation is obviously not a conscious choice.
Nor is there any real evidence for gestational chemicals as a cause.
Thus it is obvious that the only rationally acceptable cause is during post-natal brain development that concludes by the age of five.
Such brain development is greatly influenced by the environment, family-of-origin relationships, idiosyncratically.
Sorry you missed the point, Chip, YOU are making some very sweeping and inclusive statements and saying that they are demonstrable FACTS while at the same time refusing to give ANY proof to support your statements. Hello? That puts you in the same class as any of the Bible-beaters who support their arguments with nothing but loud voices. Gimme some proof.


Again, you project.
You have no proof otherwise.
I speak the truth.
So I will not shut up.
Your pretentious allusion to being a university "Authority" does in no way alter the truth of what I have told.
Again, you missed the point. Because someone cannot PROVE that there is no angry Unicorn on the backside of the Moon is not PROOF that the Unicorn IS there. You are making wild-ass claims of TRUTH. I'm not an authority, I just speak to classes on the stuff I've learned, one way I learn is by talking to people, getting new sources of information, reading those sources, comparing them with previous sources, and drawing conclusions based on the new information.

Hello? Can you hear me? I am politely asking you to supply me with some credible sources, I'm willing to look at new research--give me some to look at. Simply stating "I speak the truth." doesn't give me anything to go on.

[9sublime]

This is quite a sensitive subject and I know a few people who are currently discussing it have strong views on it. Can I please ask people make an effort to try and keep this thread under control before it gets out of hand.

I'm not accusing anyone of breaching forum rules yet, I just want it to be avoided.

[Force-of-the-Truth]

If the New York Times said YOU didn't have a sexual orientation would you believe it?

If it cited credible scientific studies (as it did about women in the article in question), then I likely would. I am, as you guessed, a man, and although the same article stated that research indicates sexual orientation is inborn in males, if new evidence came forward that my own sexual preference was formed entirely by my environment, I would have no problem with the idea that I was potentially homosexual. If I had no sexual orientation, the only reason I would remain heterosexual for practical purposes is that I tend to like women more than men on an emotional level. Not being homophobic or biphobic, why would it matter to me whether I have a sexual orientation or not?

What in the world would make you think that a newspaper could speak knowledgably about half of the human race?

The newspaper wasn't speaking for itself. It was reporting scientific findings. I'm guessing that you object to those findings on feminist grounds, which is rather odd, since the studies are actually a victory for feminism because first, if women form their own sexual preference, they are completely independent of men in that respect and second, the radical feminist goal of lesbian separatism is, based on these conclusions, possible on a large scale.

[Mare Tranquillity]

If it cited credible scientific studies (as it did about women in the article in question), then I likely would. I am, as you guessed, a man, and although the same article stated that research indicates sexual orientation is inborn in males, if new evidence came forward that my own sexual preference was formed entirely by my environment, I would have no problem with the idea that I was potentially homosexual. If I had no sexual orientation, the only reason I would remain heterosexual for practical purposes is that I tend to like women more than men on an emotional level. Not being homophobic or biphobic, why would it matter to me whether I have a sexual orientation or not?

The newspaper wasn't speaking for itself. It was reporting scientific findings. I'm guessing that you object to those findings on feminist grounds, which is rather odd, since the studies are actually a victory for feminism because first, if women form their own sexual preference, they are completely independent of men in that respect and second, the radical feminist goal of lesbian separatism is, based on these conclusions, possible on a large scale.

I object on the grounds that someone (anyone) is making that kind of sweeping statement about ANY group. I don't recall you mentioning any sources for this article, but I am fairly well read on this subject and I haven't been able to find any supporting articles from peer review journals.

[Force-of-the-Truth]

I object on the grounds that someone (anyone) is making that kind of sweeping statement about ANY group.

It is an equally sweeping statement to assert that all men have inborn and fixed sexual orientation. Furthermore, even if the statement were false, nothing is offensive about it. Some people have speculated that no one has a sexual orientation in the conventional sense. While the preponderance of evidence indicates this is not true about men, I see nothing offensive about such ideas. I dug up a link to the findings in question, moreover:

http://www.standard-freelancer.com/content/273

[numinus]

Could you demostrate the veracity of this statement please?

From kant's 'general principle of the metaphysics of morals':

"Now all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former represent the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed (or at least which one might will). The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end, i.e. as objectively necessary..."

and

"...Now I say: man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all actions, whether they concern himself or other rational beings, must be always regarded at the same time as an end."

(my highlights)

I think that "intuitively logical" is an oxymoron. Logic specifically denies intuition, and intuition is intuition because it DOES NOT rely on logic. This is more baseless religious blather, semantically null, and logically vacant.

All logical conceptions (such as mathematics) start with basic axioms. Axioms have NO rigorous proof nor require one because they are INTUITIVELY TRUE.

I direct you to the commutative property of binary operation in the set of real numbers, (which is incidentally, included in my son's first grade math):

a+b = b+a and a*b=b*a

The worst thing that religion does is deny people their humanity, it denies them the existence that their Creator gave them and it does this on the basis of religious bigotry authored by human beings with overweening egos. If you are a homosexual and mutually in love, then expressing that love is a manifestation of God within you (no less than expressing the God-within in a heterosexual love) and your expression of the God within you should be trampled upon by bigots.

The human sexual act, viewed by the rc church, consists both a unitive and pro-creative aspect - both being inseparable halves of a coherent and rational whole.

What purpose in human love or nature does homo-eroticism address?

What "command of human dignity" made the Catholic Church torture people in the Inquisition? The Catholic Church stands out amongst the all the other Christian sects for it's violence and violation of human dignity.

That is why john paul II made the millenium apology.

Do you know what it means for someone holding an office endowed (dogmatically) with moral infallibility to do such a thing? But it needed to be said openly if the church were to continue its teaching authority.

Which is infinitely more than anyone can say about any other christian sect.

The baseless, senseless, unsupportable, and truly insufferable pogrom against homosexual people makes a mockery of everything for which Jesus stood. The Dark Ages were dark because of the Catholic Church more than anything else.

Have you even read ANY church encyclical that would give you a right to make such an indictment?

[Chip]

Sorry you missed the point, Chip, YOU are making some very sweeping and inclusive statements and saying that they are demonstrable FACTS while at the same time refusing to give ANY proof to support your statements. Hello? That puts you in the same class as any of the Bible-beaters who support their arguments with nothing but loud voices. Gimme some proof.

Again, you missed the point. Because someone cannot PROVE that there is no angry Unicorn on the backside of the Moon is not PROOF that the Unicorn IS there. You are making wild-ass claims of TRUTH. I'm not an authority, I just speak to classes on the stuff I've learned, one way I learn is by talking to people, getting new sources of information, reading those sources, comparing them with previous sources, and drawing conclusions based on the new information.

Hello? Can you hear me? I am politely asking you to supply me with some credible sources, I'm willing to look at new research--give me some to look at. Simply stating "I speak the truth." doesn't give me anything to go on.
I have told you the truth based on obvious realities.