NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, about and hour and a half ago I went looking for evidence that homosexuality is innate, whether or not gays are born gay. What I found? Well the overwhelming majority of what I found was biased opinions and pure unmasked speculation (with a healthy dash of lame ass bullshit from just about every camp imaginable.) I did find one particular site that seemed to at least scrounge up past scientific studies and neatly refute them all (from a mainly secular perspective no less.) So, after finishing reading it, I decided to share it along with some of my own contributions.

Ok, lets get started
_____________________________________

The Evidence For a Biological Cause

Evidence 1:
"I feel like I cannot change"
This is the most common reason for saying that homosexuality has a biological basis. But the same argument could be used for any learned belief or behavior that becomes deeply ingrained. People often say "I cannot change how I feel" about a person or a topic. But when they find out more about that person or topic, their feelings often do change.

Evidence 2:
Twin Studies – Result So Far: No
The obvious way to find if gays are genetically programmed to be gay is to look at identical twins, who are (of course) genetically identical. If being gay has a simple genetic cause like eye colour, we would expect each pair of twins to be either both gay or both straight (given the choice). That is not the case. So the only thing we can say with absolute certainty is your genes alone did not make you gay.

But perhaps certain genes make being gay more likely? To find out, you would need to find a large number of identical twins, who were all separated at birth (to eliminate the possibility that upbringing makes someone gay). And you would need enough gay men to make the study statistically significant. It is unlikely that anyone will find enough sets of gay identical twins who were separated at birth to make any kind of general conclusions, so this avenue of study is not very helpful.

Identical Twins Tend to Choose the Same Things:
If you look the same as someone else, have the same level of physical strength and agility, and think of the other person as your extra-special friend, you are more likely to choose the same kind of thing. For example, if one twin likes sports, goes to the movies a lot, and thinks he looks good wearing denim, an identical twin is more likely to think the same, compared with a non-identical twin who may be bad at sports, prefer music to movies, and looks better in leather. All these things are affected by whether of not the twins share the exact same genes. But they are all the result of choice.

Naturally, since identical twins are more likely to make the same choices, if one chooses to be gay, the other is a little more likely to choose that as well (compared with a non-identical twin). There are also other possible explanations – such twin studies usually have very small sample sizes, and are thus easily biased by random fluctuations.

In conclusion, twin studies are consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of free choice.

Evidence 3:
Brain Sizes – Result So Far: No
In 1991 and 1992, research was published which suggested that two parts of the brain were slightly different sizes in gay men as compared with straight men.

It seemed pretty conclusive at he time – gays ARE different. The gay lobby got excited. But this was dealt a serious blow in March 2000, when research was published that showed that taxi drivers also had different brain structures. In taxi drivers, the part that dealt with navigation – the hippocampus – was larger than in non-taxi drivers. Does that mean that there is a taxi driving gene too? That some babies are pre-programmed to drive taxis?

The researchers concluded that if you use your brain differently from other people, it will grow differently. It has nothing to do with being born that way – it is down to freedom of choice.

Evidence 4A:
Fruit Flies and Rats – Result So Far: Yes (But It Favours the 'Choices' Model)
It has been discovered that a single transplanted gene can cause fruit flies to display homosexual behaviour. However, when you experiment with moving genes, you are in effect damaging an otherwise normal brain. The easiest thing is to cause some kind of harmful damage. You can induce some very strange behaviour (or strange mutations) by changing genes in fruit flies (although by careful trial and error you could in theory also create neutral or beneficial changes). This kind of research could most easily be interpreted as saying that homosexuality is a kind of brain damage, which I am sure is not what was intended. (Actually, in this case no conventional illnesses result, but the 'bisexual' fruit flies are unable to perform sexually.)

"This 'bisexual' fly strain has existed behaviorally unchanged through hundreds of generations." (Not because the bisexual flies have offspring, but because two normal flies can carry half the gene, which becomes complete in a percentage of their offspring. Some of their other offspring will have half genes, ready for the next generation, and so on.) If this is the mechanism in humans, we should expect homosexuality to appear consistently in some families and not at all in others. But this is not the case. So if the fruit fly results mean anything, they show that, even if you are 'born to be gay', you can quite happily choose otherwise.

Evidence 4B:
Dysfunctional Rats
Similarly it has been found that if you castrate a male rat and pump it it full of female hormones, it makes some of the sexual movements seen in female rats. But this to me is the sign of a very confused rat having dysfunctional behaviour. An even bigger problem is assuming that humans act like lab rats – as if we just respond to chemical stimuli without the conscious ability to choose and interpret. Are we to believe that gay men have no more freedom of thought than a damaged fruit fly or a drugged rat?

Perhaps referring to rats and flies is unfair. Perhaps similar behaviour can be prompted in monkeys. But the same principle applies. We are comparing a creature of instinct to a creature of free thought. It is true that people, when we are young, lazy, or misled, can give up freedom to drugs or biological urges. But is that how we want to classify ourselves? Is this the self image we are choosing? "Hi – my name's David. I have decided to shut down my freedom of choice and become a slave to whatever forces happen to push me around. Why not join me?"

Evidence 5:
Some Animals Are Homosexual – Yes, and Some Animals Also Eat Their Young
See www.newscientist.com/ns/19990807/queercreat.html for details. Researchers have documented a wide variety of homosexual behaviours across the animal kingdom. One prominent researcher of the subject "stresses that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform phenomenon. His mission is to document its sheer diversity." Given that homosexual behaviour in animals is essentially counter-productive (it does not result in passing on more genes) the easiest explanation is to note that animals exhibit all kinds of behaviours– some beneficial, some less so. It is only humans who group some behaviours together and call them all "homosexual." It seems clear that a proportion of all animals will show these behaviours. That is how "natural selection" works. In the absence of sufficient intelligence, variety is the only way to cope with the unexpected. Those with extremely counter-productive lifestyles (e.g. those that get themselves killed, do not eat, or mate with the same sex) do not pass their genes on to the next generation.

It could be argued that because animals do it, that makes it "right," or at least "normal." But many animals also kill their own young, and certainly kill each other. Sexual behaviour in general in the animal kingdom is closer to what we would call "rape." So I would suggest that animals are not a good guide to how life "should" be. Humans have a great advantage over animals. We have a greater degree of free choice, reasoning ability and accountability.

What is 'Natural'?
We need to be clear what we are advocating when we say something is "natural." The natural world operates by the law of the jungle – the strong survive and the weak starve. Life is pleasant only to the extent that animals do not think about the dangers. Homosexuality, like all other animal behaviours, exists in this context. From a human point of view, natural life is "nasty, brutish and short." Humans have the opportunity to rise above this by developing rules. "Natural," on its own, is not a good argument.

Could It Be Beneficial in Any Way?
It could also be argued that homosexual behaviour may have some social role (this was argued in the case of bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) who exhibit these behaviours more than most. But even if proven, we need to be very careful. A strategy that works for a relatively simple society that also relies on relatively low intelligence and a certain amount of killing, may not be so ideal for human society.

With the bonobos, it has been suggested that male-male sexual behaviour is a result of pressure – they live in large groups, and the potential for stepping on each other is great. They need some way to diffuse the situation, and sex seems to work. This seems to support Desmond Morris's statement that such behaviour is a result of being forced together. But there is another alternative, a better way to live in groups. It is to devise structures and institutions that allow individual freedom. Heterosexual marriage is one such institution. Homosexual marriage has been suggested as another, but (as noted in the page on "what's wrong with it?") this would tend to decrease freedom, decrease variety, and increase tension.

Finally, it should be remembered that homosexual behaviour in animals is still in a minority pursuit (which is one reason it has taken so long to be recognised). The dominant (and therefore more successful) strategy is heterosexuality.

Evidence 6:
A 'Gay Gene?' Result So Far: No
The best known evidence was published in 1993 (plus a couple of follow-up studies) by Dean Hamer. He claimed to find a correlation (not a cause, but a correlation – a coincidence) between a certain gene and gay men. The media started talking of a "gay gene," even though the researchers did say that many people had this gene who were not gay, and some gay men did not have the gene. Even so, it looked hopeful, although statisticians pointed out that, to be certain, the sample group would have to be much, much larger. But in 1999, a different researcher carried out the same experiment, and found no evidence at all that this so-called gay gene existed. He found that the occurrence of the so-called "gay gene" was no greater in gay men than in straight men. (See "Where Did the Gay Gene Go?" on the ABC News site.

Evidence 7:
Hormones – Result: No
Men have more testosterone, and women have more oestrogen. So homosexual men are somewhere in between? Twenty years ago, the research here was like the research into hormones in the womb (see below). It all looked very promising. But as more and more studies were completed, the evidence began to look weaker and weaker.

"Three studies did show that homosexuals had significantly lower levels of testosterone, but [a scientist who studied all the results together] believed that two of them were methodologically unsound and that the third was tainted by psychotropic drug use on the part of its subjects. Two studies actually reported higher levels of testosterone in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, and one unhelpfully showed the levels to be higher in bisexuals than in either heterosexuals or homosexuals."

Researchers have just about given up on this idea. But a similar idea – that hormone levels were different in the womb, before a baby was born – are still popular.

Evidence 8A:
Hormones in the Womb – Results Can Be Explained By the Environment
This is the 'The prenatal-hormone hypothesis" – that gay men and lesbians are the result of unusual amounts of male and female hormones acting on the unborn child. But the evidence is weak (as I shall show), and the whole theory is pretty shaky:

"The evidence from hormonal research may circumstantially implicate biology in sexual orientation, but it is far from conclusive. William Byne raises a warning flag: 'If the prenatal-hormone hypothesis were correct, then one might expect to see in a large proportion of homosexuals evidence of prenatal endocrine disturbance, such as genital or gonadal abnormalities. But we simply don't find this.'"

The rest of this section looks at the individual evidences for the hormone theory. (Sources: Most quotes are from the Chandler Burr article. The remainder are from articles in a San Francisco newspaper, Newsweek, Reuters, and NewScientist, all available on the web.)

Evidence 8B:
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a condition where a baby in the womb is flooded with far too much male hormone. A baby girl can then look physically a little similar to a boy. But this is superficial – internally and by chromosomes she is indeed a girl. Corrective surgery then allows her to be raised as a girl. If hormones determine sexual orientation, surely all such women would be lesbians? In fact, the majority are heterosexual.

But about a third describe themselves as either 'lesbian' or 'bisexual.' This is much higher than average, but entirely consistent with a 'free choices' model of development. Imagine that you were a child, a girl. All children feel they are different and look to their environment to help them decide who they are. Imagine discovering that you really were physically different at birth – a little like a boy. Wouldn't you grab on to that as an important proof that you really were different? Wouldn't you identify strongly with bisexuals and others who also appeared to cross the gender gap? It would be 'only natural' to feel that way, and we do not need to look to a different brain structure for a cause.

Evidence 8C:
Older Brothers

"Ray Blanchard [has] shown that boys who have greater numbers of older brothers have a higher likelihood of being gay. Blanchard says he thinks Breedlove's study furthers the theory that hormones in the womb have an effect on the eventual sexual orientation of the fetus."

Note that there is no direct evidence for the hormones – they are only inferred as a possible cause. "Breedlove said it's a complete mystery as to how a mother's body could 'remember' how many male children she had borne, where this signal was kept and how it could influence hormone levels of a later-born child."

As usual, the effect, if real, is only slight. There are plenty of younger brothers in the world who are not gay. And many men who consider themselves gay have no older brothers. "Indeed, when asked how he accounted for men with no older brothers who are still homosexual, Breedlove replied that 'we have no explanation for their sexual orientation." And once again, this can easily be explained in terms of upbringing. If you are surrounded by older brothers, you are more likely to either a) be bullied by them, which might lead you to reject conventional aggressive heterosexual norms, or b) admire and respect them, which admiration might be transferred to males in general. Neither effect would be enough to make every young brother gay, but each could be enough to distort the statistics as observed.

Evidence 8D:
Finger Length

Newsweek summed it up like so: "Scientists have long believed that finger lengths may indicate the levels to which a fetus was exposed to male sex hormones, such as androgen, while in the womb. ... A person's finger-ratio is the index finger's length divided by the ring finger's length. In men, the average ratio is 0.95. For women, 0.97. Lesbians who participated, the Berkeley team found, scored 0.96" (It should be emphasised that these were averages – some heterosexual men have ratios above 0.97, and some lesbian women have rations below 0.95.)

This only applies to women. In gay men there was no overall difference. There may have been some effect linked to having older brothers or not, but the sample was not large enough to say.

I don't know how this was received in the US, but the next day, one of the best selling newspapers in the UK (which was not known for being anti-Gay) published a double page spread on the subject. Researchers have searched newspaper archives for clear photos of the hands of the world's most famous gay and straight celebrities. All the famous gay men and lesbians had "heterosexual" hands, and all the famous heterosexuals (such as those famous for heterosexual desire) had "gay" hands. Of course, this wasn't a scientific study – it was a piece of mischievous fun. But it was all genuine.

Plainly, it is silly to say "my finger length means I was born to be gay." As usual, personal choice is far more important. One observer comments wryly:

"The researchers caution – in a disclaimer that probably will be widely ignored – that these differences apply only as broad averages in large samples, not to individuals. One stubby-fingered father of two, who ignored the business about averages over large populations, was surprised to discover he was lesbian."

Similar research has suggested that lesbians are more likely to have more masculine-looking inner ears.

But how do we explain the effect, no matter how small? Perhaps because having more masculine hands would suggest a more masculine body in general. Even as young children, peers and parents would notice this and make subtle (usually unconscious) judgements. This affects the person's self image. So a more masculine looking person is less likely to identify with the feminine norm. They are thus more susceptible to choosing an orientation that accepts and values their more masculine outlook.

Is the Evidence Really So Strong?
At the time of writing, the finger length study is hot news. Some newspapers (the New York Post online edition, for example) describe the research with words like "stunning," and write as if it was all proven.

But another possibility is that it is all a statistical fluke in a single study. The recent finger study suggested that gay men had more male hormones than normal. It goes against all the other theories, where gay men are more like women:

"John Manning of the University of Liverpool has found the opposite in gay men: that their finger ratios veer more towards the feminine. ... Manning also wonders if Breedlove's data may have been slightly muddied because the research did not take account of ethnicity. He has found big population variations in 2D:4D ratios. 'The geographical differences swamp the sex differences,' says Manning. 'There's more difference between a Pole and a Finn than between a man and a woman.'"

Evidence 8E:
Sex-typical Play Behaviour

"Robert Goy [at the University of Wisconsin at Madison] has done many studies over the years showing that you can reverse the sex-typical play behavior of infant monkeys by hormonal manipulations in prenatal life. [Play] is an example of a sex-reversed trait in gay people that's not directly related to sex. It's not sex, it's play. When you get to adulthood, these things become blurred. It's easier to tell a gay kid than a gay adult–kids are much of a muchness. Most gay men, even those who are very macho as adults, recall at least some gender-atypical behavior as children."

The assumed cause – hormonal changes in the womb – is pure speculation. But even if true, this supports the 'free choice' theory of sexuality. When we are young, we are less aware of our choices. (In the Church for example, children are not considered accountable until the age of eight. In the legal system it is often later.) So it is notable that young children could be manipulated by their hormones, but adults show more freedom of choice.

Evidence 8F:
Damage in the Earliest Stages

"[One theory is] what Green refers to as male "vulnerability" during the process of sexual differentiation. A considerably larger number of male embryos come into existence than female embryos, and yet males and females come into the world in about the same numbers. Therefore, phenomena linked to sex must reduce the number of males who survive to term. Many disorders are, in fact, more common in men than women, and some of these could result from problems originating in masculine differentiation. Although good statistics do not exist, it appears that there may be two gay men for every gay woman, which would be consistent with the vulnerability theory."

Is this the publicity that gay men want? That they are basically damaged, babies who narrowly escaped the 'reject' bin?
Conclusion

What If, One Day, a Biological Influence Was Discovered?
This has not happened yet, but who knows? Perhaps one day something will be discovered. But if it exists, it must be very weak – or else all identical twins would be always both gay or both straight. Clearly the biggest factor is choice.

If a biological predisposition to homosexuality was discovered, it would be no different in principle from a predisposition to be athletic, or obese, or alcoholic, or musical. It would be easier to go one way and more difficult to go another way, but the most powerful influence is still free choice. As someone who is currently on a diet (I need to lose w-a-y too many pounds – and keep it off) I know what it is like to have a deep-felt desire to put on weight. Since everyone in my family seems to be the same, I assume there is some biological influence. But I also know that by changing my lifestyle I can choose for myself. Even though dieting can be psychologically damaging, being fatter does not necessarily mean being happier.

The Bottom Line

The important question is not "is there a biological influence?"
The important question is "is there anything wrong with it?"

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/gay_gene.htm
Source ^^^
_____________________________________

First I would like to contribute a bit from my own life. I am personally friends with a man who "was once gay" as he will quite willingly explain to most anyone interested. In my mind he remains the strongest evidence I have that homosexuality is pure choice. I literally watched this man take control of his life and his feelings and make a decision that has shaped his life for the past several years. In college he was a gay man, he is now married with two kids and does not have any regrets about his choice. He is not bisexual, he completely insists upon being called a heterosexual and his choice had NOTHING to do with religious beliefs of any kind or outside pressure for that matter. Apart from that he is a rather brilliant individual as for as creative talent goes.

Second I would like to address Sparta. Sparta as I'm sure some of you know was a Greek city state renowned for it's extremely efficient military (Thermopylae anyone?) and on a related note, it's homosexuals. Spartan education for men was almost entirely based on the military. All Spartan males where sent to Military Academies at a very young age, there they where openly encouraged to form homosexual relationships with fellow students and teachers. The idea behind this was that in the Phalanx formation where you were expected to provide protection to the man standing directly to your side by covering him with part of your Hoplon (the man on your other side was expected to do the same for you.) Their belief was that a soldier would be more willing to protect the man standing beside him if that man were his lover. Sure enough, Spartan Academies consistently mass produced homosexuals (who then had to go through a "readjustment period" in which they where expected to take a wife and have kids.) Of course to Greek culture in general homosexuality was simply a non issue, their was no societal pressure against them. To them it was completely "natural" and as such was extremely prevalent. To me at least the entire civilization just reeks of "choice."

Well anyway, it seems most everyone here seems to think that homosexuality has been "proven" to be inborn. Sorry to burst your collective bubble. If anyone here can give some evidence that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin to refute any of this feel free.

A conclusive, non-biased, non-religious, completely scientific viewpoint on homosexuality, without condemning or supporting it?

Bravo, my good sir! A fine read!

Its a choice, people are capable of thinking themselves into any condition. People that think positive when they have cancer are more likley to recover, I think that homosexuality is the same way.

Its a choice, people are capable of thinking themselves into any condition. People that think positive when they have cancer are more likley to recover, I think that homosexuality is the same way.

Comparing homosexuality to cancer is hardly believable...

Going from my own experience, I didn't just think, "Hey, wait a minute.... I think that I'm gay!", and just continue living life like that.

EDIT (after finding out what source it came from): I don't think that its all genetic. I do believe that there are certain environmental causes as well, along with your upbringing.

snip

Nice try. Next time cite an unbiased source. Whyprophets is a Mormon site--hardly unbiased or unreligious.

Nice try. Next time cite an unbiased source. Whyprophets is a Mormon site--hardly unbiased or unreligious.

I'm fully aware that the site is Morman. The actual content IS from a non religious perspective and focuses solely on scientific information and conclusions.

Please, posts like this just make the last two hours of PIIAS sufferers look like amateurs simply by it's brainless simplicity.

Meh. All that was, was problematising heterosexism (by mormons!).

As any queer-theorist will tell you: Answer why people are straight, and you will answer why people are gay. It isn't homosexuality that needs answering - it's heterosexuality.

As a gay person I happen to know why I am gay (for the same reason a straight person is straight), that I have always been it, that I never chose it, and that I would never want to be straight.

There was a time (filled with shame instilled in me by evil people) I would have sold my soul for it, for the ability to change, and I am very well aware of the self-loathing that can make gay people convince themselves that they are straight, even though they can suck copious amounts of cock in back alleys adjacent to video clubs and then suppress it like some bad memory, so excuse me if you friend's story leaves me unconvinced.

(Checks source)

Aw hell...I got suckered into believing it wasn't religious for a second there...

:( Why can't there be any objective reporting anymore?

I'm fully aware that the site is Morman. The actual content IS from a non religious perspective and focuses solely on scientific information and conclusions.

Please, posts like this just make the last two hours of PIIAS sufferers look like amateurs simply by it's brainless simplicity.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept information published on a religious site. Even if it came from what appears to be a scientific study, the fact that it is related to a religious site shows that the authors have bias. I don't even have to read it to know that I can totally dismiss it as a scientist.

Now, were it to be published in Nature or Genetics or the Journal of Human Sexuality or other respected scientific journal, then I would read it and consider its merit. However, if the peer review process hasn't deemed it worth reading, I am not going to waste my time.

(Checks source)

Aw hell...I got suckered into believing it wasn't religious for a second there...

Why can't there be any objective reporting anymore?


I'm fully aware that the site is Morman. The actual content IS from a non religious perspective and focuses solely on scientific information and conclusions.

...

(Checks source)

Aw hell...I got suckered into believing it wasn't religious for a second there...

:( Why can't there be any objective reporting anymore?

There is objective reporting. I've just never seen any that treats homosexuality from this perspective. . .gee, I wonder why.

Here's the million dollar question: Why does it seem like there are more and more queers around here, on NS, and in RL these days?

Here's the million dollar question: Why does it seem like there are more and more queers around here, on NS, and in RL these days?

Perhaps because we've always been around, but are no longer willing to live the lives of second class citizens and instead want to live openly and freely as heterosexuals have done for the last several thousand years?

And for the record, that's Dr. Queer to you.

Here's the million dollar question: Why does it seem like there are more and more queers around here, on NS, and in RL these days?
theres the same proportion of homosexuals as there has always been, but now they feel safer in being who they are

but could never be it....


:rolleyes:

Here's the million dollar question: Why does it seem like there are more and more queers around here, on NS, and in RL these days?

Because they've come out of the closet and into the streets? Might not do too much to the streets, but I'm sure the closets are roomier now...

Listen, I asked for someone to come forward with something "that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin" and all I am getting is "the author is religious, therefore his work is worthless."

I honestly expected better from this place.

Here's the million dollar question: Why does it seem like there are more and more queers around here, on NS, and in RL these days?

The culture is evolving my friend, you'll just have to adapt.

A person finally makes a decent topic on the truths on homosexuality, using only science...and just because it comes from a religious site, it must suddenly be BS.

I'm starting to think, you just don't want to believe anything then what your told in your society.

Listen, I asked for someone to come forward with something "that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin" and all I am getting is "the author is religious, therefore his work is worthless."

I honestly expected better from this place.
the issue you are trying to debate has been argued to the death over the last few weeks and months here, so im not that surprised if not many people want to get involved in yet another argument about homosexuality

Listen, I asked for someone to come forward with something "that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin" and all I am getting is "the author is religious, therefore his work is worthless."

I honestly expected better from this place.


You obviously don't know much about the spread of scientific research. You claimed that this was from an unbiased source. It's not. Therefore, its worthless scientifically and we don't have to respond to it.

Listen, I asked for someone to come forward with something "that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin" and all I am getting is "the author is religious, therefore his work is worthless."

I honestly expected better from this place.


It's ok... you get used to the double-standards after a while. This forum is mainly Libertarian and Atheists anyways...

the issue you are trying to debate has been argued to the death over the last few weeks and months here, so im not that surprised if not many people want to get involved in yet another argument about homosexuality

But this is the internet! :D

Lyrics of "Sexuality" by Billy Bragg -

I've had relations with girls from many nations
I've made passes at women of all classes
And just because you're gay I won't turn you away
If you stick around I'm sure that we can find some common ground
Chorus:

Sexuality - Strong and warm and wild and free
Sexuality - Your laws do not apply to me

A nuclear submarine sinks off the coast of Sweden
Headlines give me headaches when I read them
I had an uncle who once played for Red Star Belgrade
He said some things are really left best unspoken
But I prefer it all to be out in the open

Sexuality - Strong and warm and wild and free
Sexuality - Your laws do not apply to me
Sexuality - Don't threaten me with misery
Sexuality - I demand equality

I'm sure that everybody knows how much my body hates me
It lets me down most every time and makes me rash and hasty
I feel a total jerk before your naked body of work
I'm getting weighed down with all this information
Safe sex doesn't mean no sex it just means use your imagination
Stop playing with yourselves in hard currency hotels
I look like Robert De Niro, I drive a Mitsubishi Zero

Sexuality - Strong and warm and wild and free
Sexuality - Your laws do not apply to me
Sexuality - Come eat and drink and sleep with me
Sexuality - We can be what we want to be

Listen, I asked for someone to come forward with something "that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin" and all I am getting is "the author is religious, therefore his work is worthless."

I honestly expected better from this place.

I dismiss it not only because it's biased by a religious author, but I reject it for its heterosexism, its problematising, and for its downright erroneous claims. It for instance claims that heterosexuality is the most common ("dominant") sexuality among animals, which is simply not true.

You obviously don't know much about the spread of scientific research. You claimed that this was from an unbiased source. It's not. Therefore, its worthless scientifically and we don't have to respond to it.
or at least it is a source with a clear agenda and each of its claims would need to be taken back to the original source material and examined as well as peer reviews and other scientific imput into each source. this is why its almost impossible on a site like this to deal with articles like this, the task of fact checking and distortion finding is mindblowing, to refute or prove what was cut and pasted in seconds could take hundreds of hours of research.

This isn't a double standard. I would have the same problems with a study that favored homosexuality but was published by PFLAGG or Lambda or the ACLU. Bias is bias.

Further, studies published on religious sites like these do not go through the rigorous peer review process that is standard in scientific journals. This is not a gay thing--this is a science thing.

You presents at least sources, unlike a lot of people, but you have included just as many biased views against the topic as I've seen for the topic.

I could provide a link to the APA (American Psychological association http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html) that argues completely contradictory to all of the above assumptions that homosexuality is controllable. Yeah, I know about the contraversy surrounding the APA's decision, but you know what? They're scientists, and this is a standard to be used all over for scientifically based arguments. So here it is, take it or leave it, this is as close as you're going to get.

Your attraction to someone of the same sex is NOT controllable, what IS is your ability to not ACT on said attractions. Nobody really knows why people are whatever sexuality they end up being, but changing sexuality is a VERY difficult process, that nearly always ends up reverting or causing extreme mental trauma to the person in question.

Here's the thing about your source... he MAY be telling you the whole truth, and he may NOT be. OR he may be repressing attractions to fit more comfortably in society. It's not fun being gay, and there have been many men who have been in marriages, only to end up divorced and with men later in life, as well as gay men in marriages that never readdress their sexuality because they are married and may not want to hurt their family, or spouse.

Sex IS a choice, attractions are not. Sorry this wasn't better linked, or that I haven't supplied too much in the way of studies conducted.. but I am SO tired right now.

NOTE: I'm gay, I have personal experience that says otherwise about what my body is and is not stimulated by, and no, I wasn't sexually abused or anything like that. Proof enough for me.

This post is absolutely biased. One, the sexual systems of many species are devised in totally different ways than that of humans. Two, because it comes from a religious site. Three, because this site has taken pieces of scientific fact but has not gone far enough to explain that no single biological process is to blame or cause homosexuality. The sources you post merely show the results of sceintific studies involving the ability of genes, environmental factors, and biological processes to cause homosexuality in humans. There may not be a single gene to code for sexuality. In fact, I believe there is not. This is evident due to the fact that there are transgendered people and that homosexuality is not an inherited trait(being gay will not cause your children to be gay). Thus, biological processes and environmental factors are involved. No person is born with a sexuality. Sexuality is developed as the child goes into puberty. The environmental factors are probably the biggest key but are not to be mislead as a choice. Events where children are exposed to sexual stimulation too early show that it can cause asexuality, homosexuality in some cases, a high rate of sexual behavior and lack of sexual behavior. Events that will affect the functioning of the child's brain have already occured. Also, the cause and prevalence of homosexuality in other animal species is not necessarily evidence of homosexuality.

EDIT: Euroslavia, you're gay? :eek:
I'm intrigued.

I have a gay cousin. Ever since I could remember he was gay. Even when he was very young. You could tell that he didn't have interest in girls. I think it is genetic.

You obviously don't know much about the spread of scientific research. You claimed that this was from an unbiased source. It's not. Therefore, its worthless scientifically and we don't have to respond to it.

I actually never said it was a unbiased source I said: "I did find one particular site that seemed to at least scrounge up past scientific studies and neatly refute them all (from a mainly secular perspective no less.)" Did you by chance see any reference to religion used to refute any of the points? No? Ok, moving on, there is no such thing as a unbiased source it basically isn't humanly possible (based on how people learn and perceive "truth"). Your response is at best a example of typical closed mindedness and a spasmodic "head in the sand" reply and at worse another case of PIIAS. It has no substance and is nothing but a excuse to retain your immovably state of mind.

I'm not going to bother. You aren't going to understand that I know all of this about biased humans--and that is why peer review is so important. Further, being published by a religious site automatically makes your methods, your date, and your analysis totally debunct. Had this been published in a real journal and sited on this site, I would give it more credit. But the mere fact that it is on a religious site is enough to totally discredit it scientifically. Period. Fact. QED. That's the way it is.

or at least it is a source with a clear agenda and each of its claims would need to be taken back to the original source material and examined as well as peer reviews and other scientific imput into each source. this is why its almost impossible on a site like this to deal with articles like this, the task of fact checking and distortion finding is mindblowing, to refute or prove what was cut and pasted in seconds could take hundreds of hours of research.

Excellent point.

People that think positive when they have cancer are more likley to recover, I think that homosexuality is the same way.Gee, nice.Here's the million dollar question: Why does it seem like there are more and more queers around here, on NS, and in RL these days?Well, in case you don't know yet,

Cancer cells reproduce like crazy, you see ... :rolleyes:

Did anybody ever consider the possiblity that it took them years to map the Human Genome and they haven't even discovered more than 1% of what it actually contains?

Did anybody ever consider the possiblity that it took them years to map the Human Genome and they haven't even discovered more than 1% of what it actually contains?

I did. I think. Nonetheless, even if they do finally have it completed, they still have to find out how and what changes in genes affect phenotypes.

Did anybody ever consider the possiblity that it took them years to map the Human Genome and they haven't even discovered more than 1% of what it actually contains?Quiet you, this is no place for reason, :p

Quiet you, this is no place for reason, :p

Damn it. We need to this thread down with reason. :p

I could provide a link to the APA (American Psychological association http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html)

Here it is.

I dont see why you people have to get over all this issue... I mean, it doesn't concern you, their orientation, nor does their belief in a religion, their preferance in a car, or what country they'd rather live it. Let gays live their lives like they want to. They let us, without getting all pissy about the type of people we love. So, I dont see why so many straights gotta do that to gays...

After all, they're hurting nobody. They aren't murderers, abusers, or child malesters. Just because they find someone they truly love in their own sex doesn't mean they're a bad person, nor does it mean they're bad because they have a different belief in religion, preferance in cars, or choice of location to live.

So, how about everyone who feels they gotta bash others follow this simply one step program and SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT. Thank you. :)

Oh, yes, and I do realize my choice of words may be a little harsh, but for those who need to follow that simple one step program, it's nothing compared to what can come out of their mouth.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with gays, or not like them. Hell, hate them if you want. But don't make a huge deal out of it. Didn't your mother ever teach you some mannors and respect? Ever heard of the old saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Well, change the "nice" to "respectable", and follow that rule. Otherwise, please, take that simple one step program. :)

I could provide a link to the APA (American Psychological association http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html)

Here it is.

What was your point about the APA? Idon't remember. :confused:

First, my general code of conduct tends towards honesty more then "nice and respectful," this sometimes makes me come across as a asshole.

Second, I really have nothing against gays. My best friends is a lesbian and quite honestly I get along better with her then I do with most people. Could be because she too is both honest to a harsh degree and a Republican.

Three, gay bashing was not my objective here. I have read some recent threads here about homosexuality and the general theme was of PIIAS and "proven" genetic predisposition, something that I nor any of the homosexuals I know personally agree with.

I went looking for evidence and found nothing but endless horse shit, that was by far the most objective, unbiased (in substance) piece of work I found.

Can you please define PIIAS for me? And please note, that I didn't say that there was a genetic component to homosexuality--and I would put any science through the same rigors I have put that given here. I think it likely that there is a genetic component, as well as an environmental component, to homosexuality--as there are for most human traits.

And on that note, I'm off to bed. Have to be up early tomorrow to go to the free clinic. Good night all.

First, my general code of conduct tends towards honesty more then "nice and respectful," this sometimes makes me come across as a asshole.

Second, I really have nothing against gays. My best friends is a lesbian and quite honestly I get along better with her then I do with most people. Could be because she too is both honest to a harsh degree and a Republican.

Three, gay bashing was not my objective here. I have read some recent threads here about homosexuality and the general theme was of PIIAS and "proven" genetic predisposition, something that I nor any of the homosexuals I know personally agree with.

I went looking for evidence and found nothing but endless horse shit, that was by far the most objective, unbiased (in substance) piece of work I found.
I wasn't necessarily talking about you, but rather towards other who always end up bashing gays in these type of topics...

Oh shit, sorry. I just realized that I coined that, hehehehe.

PIIAS = Perception Impairment Induced by Anal Spelunking. :D

This thread is gay! :rolleyes:

This thread is gay!No, its stupid. I'm the gay bit. Well, there may be others. We're the gay bit ? Any order you want, then.

EDIT: Euroslavia, you're gay? :eek:
I'm intrigued.

I'm actually bisexual. :)

(Psychologists) are scientists, and this is a standard to be used all over for scientifically based arguments....Your attraction to someone of the same sex is NOT controllable, what IS is your ability to not ACT on said attractions. Nobody really knows why people are whatever sexuality they end up being, but changing sexuality is a VERY difficult process, that nearly always ends up reverting or causing extreme mental trauma to the person in question.

I love a debate like this to get my blood pumping! I think we have to keep in mind that sexuality, like many other things, cannot solely be explained by a scientific approach. Many scienticians out there are probably going to hate to hear that. However, to paint science as the one true path to knowledge is intellectually bigotted. Science has limitations to what is observable and measureable - everything else is speculation. To assume that science provides some magical property of understanding outside of these parametres is utter bull, and the reason that science is held in such regard is that the method of falsificationism doesn't allow for the contamination of speculation and bias.

We can disect the genome of millions of gay people and we may or may not find nothing. Genes will only program for biology. We can observe a correlation between a person's emotional experience and the simultaneous flood of hormones, and draw our conclusions, but I don't think science will answer "why are you gay?" The Sexuality question, like the God question, are about far more than just making conclusions based on observable events, or lack thereof.

I personally believe sexuality is innate, not learned. I didn't always hold this view. To me, if it was choice, then 'encouraging' a heterosexual to have homosexual intercourse would work, wouldn't it? I'm a bit liberal, and I think a person's sexuality should only be of concern to them and the person they're boning at the time. If you're against gay sex, don't say 'yes please' when it's offered, but don't disrespect someone just because they do.

Apologies for length, girth, and conjunctions.

I'm fully aware that the site is Morman. The actual content IS from a non religious perspective and focuses solely on scientific information and conclusions.

Not really. It dresses itself up with a nice aura of science, but it decends pretty quickly into value judgments.

Take a look at the fruitfly example. Homosexuality is easy to instill in fruitflies by changing a gene. Then they go on to argue that because damage is easier to cause via genetics than improvments then homosexuality must be brain damage, and since the researchers didn't mean to say that then their study must be flawed.

Change IS neutral, unless it leads an inability for the organism to survive, or contribute to the survival of its species. Until such an event happens it is unscientific to claim that there is a positive or a negative in homosexuality.

Then take a look at the "animals do it so it must be natural" example. Does it challenge the premise that what animals do is natural? No, it says that because animals do it it may be natural, but it's also bad. Again, with no scientific argument, just a dodge.

I'm actually bisexual. :)

I did not know that. :)

Oh shit, sorry. I just realized that I coined that, hehehehe.

PIIAS = Perception Impairment Induced by Anal Spelunking. :D

Okay, so I can't sleep. Still I refuse to make intelligent responses at the moment.

However, regarding this--if it weren't so damned funny I think i would be insulted.

Yes, yes. I offer the same challenge to anyone that says homosexuality is a choice:

Choose to be homosexual, have sex with me 5 times, and I'll choose to be heterosexual.

There, simple enough. Hop to it.

What was your point about the APA? Idon't remember. :confused:

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html


Click it and read. They're a scientific organization that is THE top source for psychological decisions regarding next to everything.

It's not a choice... say the scientists who can't afford to lie, because their information is used ALL over for all sorts of important decisions regarding all kinds of matters.

Read the entire link, and you'll get ALL of your answers. Answered by Scientific findings that the APA have discovered.

The thing that you can use to really get these "homosexuality is a choice" people in a stir is this: if homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. That means that each and every one of us is just as likely to be attracted to members of both sexes, and heterosexuals simply choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. Saying you think that homosexuality is a choice is saying that you think heterosexuality is a choice, and saying that means you admit you contain the ability to find members of both sexes attractive. ;)

Ok, about and hour and a half ago I went looking for evidence that homosexuality is innate, whether or not gays are born gay. What I found? Well the overwhelming majority of what I found was biased opinions and pure unmasked speculation (with a healthy dash of lame ass bullshit from just about every camp imaginable.) I did find one particular site that seemed to at least scrounge up past scientific studies and neatly refute them all (from a mainly secular perspective no less.) So, after finishing reading it, I decided to share it along with some of my own contributions.

Ok, lets get started
_____________________________________

The Evidence For a Biological Cause

But perhaps certain genes make being gay more likely? To find out, you would need to find a large number of identical twins, who were all separated at birth (to eliminate the possibility that upbringing makes someone gay). And you would need enough gay men to make the study statistically significant. It is unlikely that anyone will find enough sets of gay identical twins who were separated at birth to make any kind of general conclusions, so this avenue of study is not very helpful.

Identical Twins Tend to Choose the Same Things:
If you look the same as someone else, have the same level of physical strength and agility, and think of the other person as your extra-special friend, you are more likely to choose the same kind of thing. For example, if one twin likes sports, goes to the movies a lot, and thinks he looks good wearing denim, an identical twin is more likely to think the same, compared with a non-identical twin who may be bad at sports, prefer music to movies, and looks better in leather. All these things are affected by whether of not the twins share the exact same genes. But they are all the result of choice.

Naturally, since identical twins are more likely to make the same choices, if one chooses to be gay, the other is a little more likely to choose that as well (compared with a non-identical twin). There are also other possible explanations – such twin studies usually have very small sample sizes, and are thus easily biased by random fluctuations.

In conclusion, twin studies are consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of free choice.

Evidence 3:
Brain Sizes – Result So Far: No
In 1991 and 1992, research was published which suggested that two parts of the brain were slightly different sizes in gay men as compared with straight men.

It seemed pretty conclusive at he time – gays ARE different. The gay lobby got excited. But this was dealt a serious blow in March 2000, when research was published that showed that taxi drivers also had different brain structures. In taxi drivers, the part that dealt with navigation – the hippocampus – was larger than in non-taxi drivers. Does that mean that there is a taxi driving gene too? That some babies are pre-programmed to drive taxis?

The researchers concluded that if you use your brain differently from other people, it will grow differently. It has nothing to do with being born that way – it is down to freedom of choice.

Evidence 4A:
Fruit Flies and Rats – Result So Far: Yes (But It Favours the 'Choices' Model)
It has been discovered that a single transplanted gene can cause fruit flies to display homosexual behaviour. However, when you experiment with moving genes, you are in effect damaging an otherwise normal brain. The easiest thing is to cause some kind of harmful damage. You can induce some very strange behaviour (or strange mutations) by changing genes in fruit flies (although by careful trial and error you could in theory also create neutral or beneficial changes). This kind of research could most easily be interpreted as saying that homosexuality is a kind of brain damage, which I am sure is not what was intended. (Actually, in this case no conventional illnesses result, but the 'bisexual' fruit flies are unable to perform sexually.)

"This 'bisexual' fly strain has existed behaviorally unchanged through hundreds of generations." (Not because the bisexual flies have offspring, but because two normal flies can carry half the gene, which becomes complete in a percentage of their offspring. Some of their other offspring will have half genes, ready for the next generation, and so on.) If this is the mechanism in humans, we should expect homosexuality to appear consistently in some families and not at all in others. But this is not the case. So if the fruit fly results mean anything, they show that, even if you are 'born to be gay', you can quite happily choose otherwise.

Evidence 4B:
Dysfunctional Rats
Similarly it has been found that if you castrate a male rat and pump it it full of female hormones, it makes some of the sexual movements seen in female rats. But this to me is the sign of a very confused rat having dysfunctional behaviour. An even bigger problem is assuming that humans act like lab rats – as if we just respond to chemical stimuli without the conscious ability to choose and interpret. Are we to believe that gay men have no more freedom of thought than a damaged fruit fly or a drugged rat?

Perhaps referring to rats and flies is unfair. Perhaps similar behaviour can be prompted in monkeys. But the same principle applies. We are comparing a creature of instinct to a creature of free thought. It is true that people, when we are young, lazy, or misled, can give up freedom to drugs or biological urges. But is that how we want to classify ourselves? Is this the self image we are choosing? "Hi – my name's David. I have decided to shut down my freedom of choice and become a slave to whatever forces happen to push me around. Why not join me?"

Evidence 5:
Some Animals Are Homosexual – Yes, and Some Animals Also Eat Their Young
See www.newscientist.com/ns/19990807/queercreat.html for details. Researchers have documented a wide variety of homosexual behaviours across the animal kingdom. One prominent researcher of the subject "stresses that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform phenomenon. His mission is to document its sheer diversity." Given that homosexual behaviour in animals is essentially counter-productive (it does not result in passing on more genes) the easiest explanation is to note that animals exhibit all kinds of behaviours– some beneficial, some less so. It is only humans who group some behaviours together and call them all "homosexual." It seems clear that a proportion of all animals will show these behaviours. That is how "natural selection" works. In the absence of sufficient intelligence, variety is the only way to cope with the unexpected. Those with extremely counter-productive lifestyles (e.g. those that get themselves killed, do not eat, or mate with the same sex) do not pass their genes on to the next generation.

It could be argued that because animals do it, that makes it "right," or at least "normal." But many animals also kill their own young, and certainly kill each other. Sexual behaviour in general in the animal kingdom is closer to what we would call "rape." So I would suggest that animals are not a good guide to how life "should" be. Humans have a great advantage over animals. We have a greater degree of free choice, reasoning ability and accountability.

What is 'Natural'?
We need to be clear what we are advocating when we say something is "natural." The natural world operates by the law of the jungle – the strong survive and the weak starve. Life is pleasant only to the extent that animals do not think about the dangers. Homosexuality, like all other animal behaviours, exists in this context. From a human point of view, natural life is "nasty, brutish and short." Humans have the opportunity to rise above this by developing rules. "Natural," on its own, is not a good argument.

Could It Be Beneficial in Any Way?
It could also be argued that homosexual behaviour may have some social role (this was argued in the case of bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) who exhibit these behaviours more than most. But even if proven, we need to be very careful. A strategy that works for a relatively simple society that also relies on relatively low intelligence and a certain amount of killing, may not be so ideal for human society.

With the bonobos, it has been suggested that male-male sexual behaviour is a result of pressure – they live in large groups, and the potential for stepping on each other is great. They need some way to diffuse the situation, and sex seems to work. This seems to support Desmond Morris's statement that such behaviour is a result of being forced together. But there is another alternative, a better way to live in groups. It is to devise structures and institutions that allow individual freedom. Heterosexual marriage is one such institution. Homosexual marriage has been suggested as another, but (as noted in the page on "what's wrong with it?") this would tend to decrease freedom, decrease variety, and increase tension.

Finally, it should be remembered that homosexual behaviour in animals is still in a minority pursuit (which is one reason it has taken so long to be recognised). The dominant (and therefore more successful) strategy is heterosexuality.

Evidence 6:
A 'Gay Gene?' Result So Far: No
The best known evidence was published in 1993 (plus a couple of follow-up studies) by Dean Hamer. He claimed to find a correlation (not a cause, but a correlation – a coincidence) between a certain gene and gay men. The media started talking of a "gay gene," even though the researchers did say that many people had this gene who were not gay, and some gay men did not have the gene. Even so, it looked hopeful, although statisticians pointed out that, to be certain, the sample group would have to be much, much larger. But in 1999, a different researcher carried out the same experiment, and found no evidence at all that this so-called gay gene existed. He found that the occurrence of the so-called "gay gene" was no greater in gay men than in straight men. (See "Where Did the Gay Gene Go?" on the ABC News site.

Evidence 7:
Hormones – Result: No
Men have more testosterone, and women have more oestrogen. So homosexual men are somewhere in between? Twenty years ago, the research here was like the research into hormones in the womb (see below). It all looked very promising. But as more and more studies were completed, the evidence began to look weaker and weaker.

"Three studies did show that homosexuals had significantly lower levels of testosterone, but [a scientist who studied all the results together] believed that two of them were methodologically unsound and that the third was tainted by psychotropic drug use on the part of its subjects. Two studies actually reported higher levels of testosterone in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, and one unhelpfully showed the levels to be higher in bisexuals than in either heterosexuals or homosexuals."

Researchers have just about given up on this idea. But a similar idea – that hormone levels were different in the womb, before a baby was born – are still popular.

Evidence 8A:
Hormones in the Womb – Results Can Be Explained By the Environment
This is the 'The prenatal-hormone hypothesis" – that gay men and lesbians are the result of unusual amounts of male and female hormones acting on the unborn child. But the evidence is weak (as I shall show), and the whole theory is pretty shaky:

"The evidence from hormonal research may circumstantially implicate biology in sexual orientation, but it is far from conclusive. William Byne raises a warning flag: 'If the prenatal-hormone hypothesis were correct, then one might expect to see in a large proportion of homosexuals evidence of prenatal endocrine disturbance, such as genital or gonadal abnormalities. But we simply don't find this.'"

The rest of this section looks at the individual evidences for the hormone theory. (Sources: Most quotes are from the Chandler Burr article. The remainder are from articles in a San Francisco newspaper, Newsweek, Reuters, and NewScientist, all available on the web.)

Evidence 8B:
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a condition where a baby in the womb is flooded with far too much male hormone. A baby girl can then look physically a little similar to a boy. But this is superficial – internally and by chromosomes she is indeed a girl. Corrective surgery then allows her to be raised as a girl. If hormones determine sexual orientation, surely all such women would be lesbians? In fact, the majority are heterosexual.

But about a third describe themselves as either 'lesbian' or 'bisexual.' This is much higher than average, but entirely consistent with a 'free choices' model of development. Imagine that you were a child, a girl. All children feel they are different and look to their environment to help them decide who they are. Imagine discovering that you really were physically different at birth – a little like a boy. Wouldn't you grab on to that as an important proof that you really were different? Wouldn't you identify strongly with bisexuals and others who also appeared to cross the gender gap? It would be 'only natural' to feel that way, and we do not need to look to a different brain structure for a cause.

Evidence 8C:
Older Brothers

"Ray Blanchard [has] shown that boys who have greater numbers of older brothers have a higher likelihood of being gay. Blanchard says he thinks Breedlove's study furthers the theory that hormones in the womb have an effect on the eventual sexual orientation of the fetus."

Note that there is no direct evidence for the hormones – they are only inferred as a possible cause. "Breedlove said it's a complete mystery as to how a mother's body could 'remember' how many male children she had borne, where this signal was kept and how it could influence hormone levels of a later-born child."

As usual, the effect, if real, is only slight. There are plenty of younger brothers in the world who are not gay. And many men who consider themselves gay have no older brothers. "Indeed, when asked how he accounted for men with no older brothers who are still homosexual, Breedlove replied that 'we have no explanation for their sexual orientation." And once again, this can easily be explained in terms of upbringing. If you are surrounded by older brothers, you are more likely to either a) be bullied by them, which might lead you to reject conventional aggressive heterosexual norms, or b) admire and respect them, which admiration might be transferred to males in general. Neither effect would be enough to make every young brother gay, but each could be enough to distort the statistics as observed.

Evidence 8D:
Finger Length

Newsweek summed it up like so: "Scientists have long believed that finger lengths may indicate the levels to which a fetus was exposed to male sex hormones, such as androgen, while in the womb. ... A person's finger-ratio is the index finger's length divided by the ring finger's length. In men, the average ratio is 0.95. For women, 0.97. Lesbians who participated, the Berkeley team found, scored 0.96" (It should be emphasised that these were averages – some heterosexual men have ratios above 0.97, and some lesbian women have rations below 0.95.)

This only applies to women. In gay men there was no overall difference. There may have been some effect linked to having older brothers or not, but the sample was not large enough to say.

I don't know how this was received in the US, but the next day, one of the best selling newspapers in the UK (which was not known for being anti-Gay) published a double page spread on the subject. Researchers have searched newspaper archives for clear photos of the hands of the world's most famous gay and straight celebrities. All the famous gay men and lesbians had "heterosexual" hands, and all the famous heterosexuals (such as those famous for heterosexual desire) had "gay" hands. Of course, this wasn't a scientific study – it was a piece of mischievous fun. But it was all genuine.

Plainly, it is silly to say "my finger length means I was born to be gay." As usual, personal choice is far more important. One observer comments wryly:

"The researchers caution – in a disclaimer that probably will be widely ignored – that these differences apply only as broad averages in large samples, not to individuals. One stubby-fingered father of two, who ignored the business about averages over large populations, was surprised to discover he was lesbian."

Similar research has suggested that lesbians are more likely to have more masculine-looking inner ears.

But how do we explain the effect, no matter how small? Perhaps because having more masculine hands would suggest a more masculine body in general. Even as young children, peers and parents would notice this and make subtle (usually unconscious) judgements. This affects the person's self image. So a more masculine looking person is less likely to identify with the feminine norm. They are thus more susceptible to choosing an orientation that accepts and values their more masculine outlook.

Is the Evidence Really So Strong?
At the time of writing, the finger length study is hot news. Some newspapers (the New York Post online edition, for example) describe the research with words like "stunning," and write as if it was all proven.

But another possibility is that it is all a statistical fluke in a single study. The recent finger study suggested that gay men had more male hormones than normal. It goes against all the other theories, where gay men are more like women:

"John Manning of the University of Liverpool has found the opposite in gay men: that their finger ratios veer more towards the feminine. ... Manning also wonders if Breedlove's data may have been slightly muddied because the research did not take account of ethnicity. He has found big population variations in 2D:4D ratios. 'The geographical differences swamp the sex differences,' says Manning. 'There's more difference between a Pole and a Finn than between a man and a woman.'"

Evidence 8E:
Sex-typical Play Behaviour

"Robert Goy [at the University of Wisconsin at Madison] has done many studies over the years showing that you can reverse the sex-typical play behavior of infant monkeys by hormonal manipulations in prenatal life. [Play] is an example of a sex-reversed trait in gay people that's not directly related to sex. It's not sex, it's play. When you get to adulthood, these things become blurred. It's easier to tell a gay kid than a gay adult–kids are much of a muchness. Most gay men, even those who are very macho as adults, recall at least some gender-atypical behavior as children."

The assumed cause – hormonal changes in the womb – is pure speculation. But even if true, this supports the 'free choice' theory of sexuality. When we are young, we are less aware of our choices. (In the Church for example, children are not considered accountable until the age of eight. In the legal system it is often later.) So it is notable that young children could be manipulated by their hormones, but adults show more freedom of choice.

Evidence 8F:
Damage in the Earliest Stages

"[One theory is] what Green refers to as male "vulnerability" during the process of sexual differentiation. A considerably larger number of male embryos come into existence than female embryos, and yet males and females come into the world in about the same numbers. Therefore, phenomena linked to sex must reduce the number of males who survive to term. Many disorders are, in fact, more common in men than women, and some of these could result from problems originating in masculine differentiation. Although good statistics do not exist, it appears that there may be two gay men for every gay woman, which would be consistent with the vulnerability theory."

Is this the publicity that gay men want? That they are basically damaged, babies who narrowly escaped the 'reject' bin?
Conclusion

What If, One Day, a Biological Influence Was Discovered?
This has not happened yet, but who knows? Perhaps one day something will be discovered. But if it exists, it must be very weak – or else all identical twins would be always both gay or both straight. Clearly the biggest factor is choice.

If a biological predisposition to homosexuality was discovered, it would be no different in principle from a predisposition to be athletic, or obese, or alcoholic, or musical. It would be easier to go one way and more difficult to go another way, but the most powerful influence is still free choice. As someone who is currently on a diet (I need to lose w-a-y too many pounds – and keep it off) I know what it is like to have a deep-felt desire to put on weight. Since everyone in my family seems to be the same, I assume there is some biological influence. But I also know that by changing my lifestyle I can choose for myself. Even though dieting can be psychologically damaging, being fatter does not necessarily mean being happier.

The Bottom Line

The important question is not "is there a biological influence?"
The important question is "is there anything wrong with it?"

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/gay_gene.htm
Source ^^^
_____________________________________

First I would like to contribute a bit from my own life. I am personally friends with a man who "was once gay" as he will quite willingly explain to most anyone interested. In my mind he remains the strongest evidence I have that homosexuality is pure choice. I literally watched this man take control of his life and his feelings and make a decision that has shaped his life for the past several years. In college he was a gay man, he is now married with two kids and does not have any regrets about his choice. He is not bisexual, he completely insists upon being called a heterosexual and his choice had NOTHING to do with religious beliefs of any kind or outside pressure for that matter. Apart from that he is a rather brilliant individual as for as creative talent goes.

Second I would like to address Sparta. Sparta as I'm sure some of you know was a Greek city state renowned for it's extremely efficient military (Thermopylae anyone?) and on a related note, it's homosexuals. Spartan education for men was almost entirely based on the military. All Spartan males where sent to Military Academies at a very young age, there they where openly encouraged to form homosexual relationships with fellow students and teachers. The idea behind this was that in the Phalanx formation where you were expected to provide protection to the man standing directly to your side by covering him with part of your Hoplon (the man on your other side was expected to do the same for you.) Their belief was that a soldier would be more willing to protect the man standing beside him if that man were his lover. Sure enough, Spartan Academies consistently mass produced homosexuals (who then had to go through a "readjustment period" in which they where expected to take a wife and have kids.) Of course to Greek culture in general homosexuality was simply a non issue, their was no societal pressure against them. To them it was completely "natural" and as such was extremely prevalent. To me at least the entire civilization just reeks of "choice."

Well anyway, it seems most everyone here seems to think that homosexuality has been "proven" to be inborn. Sorry to burst your collective bubble. If anyone here can give some evidence that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin to refute any of this feel free.

Just a quick rebuttal:

Evidence 1: Now how might you explain manifestation of homosexual desires in individuals possessing little to no knowledge of sexuality, specifically homosexuality. This would seem to burst the bubble of it being a learned behavior.

Evidence 2: The twin studies proved beyond any doubt sexual orientation is not a Mendelian trait, like eye colour etc. This goes for heterosexuality too. One might easily surmise gender traits are genetic, and they are, and it is somewhat intriguing homosexuals tend to share behavioral traits of the opposite sex but sexual orientation has no genetic predeterminism..no sirreee! :rolleyes:

Evidence 3: Reread my rebutal to evidence 1 while keeping in mind spatial comprehension is the product of the oh so dynamic neo-cortex not the instinctual lower brain which is the seat of sexual drive.

Evidence 4a&b: I'm not terribly sure how it is relevant to the human species. We can both agree sexual orientation is not determined simply by recessive/dominant genes nor by castration and/or being pumped full of estradiol. *shrugs*

Evidence 5: Animals also mate and reproduce. I am a bit confused what the point is here other than bringing up the concept of natural selection. Now why oh why does the human species have such a relatively large population of homosexuals if it serves utterly no purpose. Now go re-read 1-3.

Evidence 6: The Hamer study was upstaged by an eager press which prematurely reported finding the elusive gay gene. Any idiot with a knowledge in genetics KNOWS there is no such thing, same for heterosexuality, but is probable both are products of the same genetic mechanisms.

Evidence 7-8a: Obviously hormone levels in adults are not repsonsible. Otherwise I'd expect to see an awful lot of gynocomastic gay males and bearded lesbians. I've seen both in both gays and straights. The reason it is felt that hormonal exposure is a factor is due to some conclusions put forward by the twin studies as well as one other study by Dr. LeVay into the structure of deceased gay males.

Evidence 8b: Previously addressed.

Evidence 8c: (Older siblings) I could go into the genetic argument for this but its quite lengthy. Personally I don't give a great deal of weight to the influence of older sibs but it does have support in genetics. A lot in fact. Further, it is commonly understood by the mainstream that socialization and that of familial infuences have no known effect in sexual orientation which would devastate what seems to be the bulk of your cut n paste spiel, and that's where I will end this tedium.

Just a quick rebuttalFUGEES, DUMBASS--- That's dick...

You're scary :(

FUGEES, DUMBASS--- That's dick...

You're scary :(

Mmkay next time I will write a thesis... or I could just cut n paste from a mormon site.

I apologize for the length of this but I was reading through here and found the topic to be somewhat interesting. Posted below is a study done that was published in a academic peer reviewed journal, I am curious to read your responses to it. Due to its length it is split into two posts.

The cognitive, behavioral, and personality profiles of a male monozygotic triplet set discordant for sexual orientation. Scott L. Hershberger; Nancy L. Segal.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation


INTRODUCTION


Few would dispute the importance of sexual orientation in persons' lives and, in recognition of this, researchers have actively sought its origins during the last two decades. Much of this work has focused on how biological mechanisms influence sexual orientation development, the results of which suggest that genes, brain anatomy, and prenatal sex hormones influence sexual orientation in men (Hershberger, 2001). Researchers have used two broad approaches to the biological origins of sexual orientation: neurohormonal and genetic. In one way or another, all biological approaches to the origins of sexual orientation encompass either one of these views.


Neurohormonal Etiology


A neurohormonal etiology is based on the reasoning that sexual orientation depends on the early sexual differentiation of hypothalamic brain structures. The differentiation of these brain structures, in turn, depends on prenatal androgen. Masculinization of brain structures occurs because of relatively high levels of androgens, whereas feminization of brain structures occurs in the absence of sufficient levels of androgens. These differences led to the idea that homosexual men and heterosexual women have neural sexual orientation centers that are similar to each other and different from those of heterosexual men and homosexual women.


The results of two different avenues of investigation strongly support this idea. In the first, studies have been conducted examining the effects of prenatal patterns of sex steroid secretion on the development of sexually dimorphic behaviors in nonhuman animals. Animals who have had their prenatal hormonal environments experimentally altered to mimic the hormonal environment of the opposite sex frequently exhibit postnatal sexual behaviors characteristic of the opposite sex (see Breedlove, 1994, for a review). For example, male rats who have experienced prenatal androgen-deficient hormonal environments exhibit lordosis, lack of aggressiveness, and avoid rough-and-tumble play. Conversely, female rats who have experienced unusually high levels of androgen exhibit mounting behavior, increased levels of aggression, and avoidance of maternal rearing behavior.


A second line of neurohormonal research studies humans whose prenatal sex steroid environment has been atypical because of a physical disorder. The most frequently studied condition arising from an atypical prenatal hormonal environment has been congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an inherited, autosomal recessive disorder of adrenal steroidogenesis. CAH causes excessive production of adrenal androgens; in female newborns, this results in full or partially masculinized external genitalia, whereas in male newborns, it appears to have little or no apparent effect. CAH females exhibit unusually high levels of masculine-type behavior, including "masculine" toy preferences, high rates of masculine gender identity, elevated rates of homosexual fantasy and behavior, and low marital rates (Meyer-Bahlburg, 2001).


Genetic Etiology


Genetic differences among individuals could also trigger differences in sexual orientation, perhaps by inducing differences in prenatal androgen levels or sensitivity to androgen. Behavior genetic studies, primarily using twins, have been the most productive methods of exploring genetic influence on sexual orientation and behavior. Twin studies generally compare resemblance between monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins (Segal, 2000). To date, there have been nearly a dozen large studies comparing the concordance rates of MZ and DZ twins for homosexuality. These studies generally converge on the conclusion that sexual orientation is significantly influenced by genetic factors in men, but less so in women (Hershberger, 2001).


Twin studies are, however, vulnerable to some design problems that could compromise the interpretation of their results. For example, concordant-dependent ascertainment, in which there is a greater likelihood of MZ twins concordant for sexual orientation volunteering than those MZ twins who are discordant may occur. There is also a greater likelihood in general of MZ twins volunteering than DZ twins (Neale, Eaves, & Kendler, 1989). Moreover, there are at least three problems to which twin studies of sexual orientation are particularly susceptible. First, the representativeness of the samples are open to question, because many of the studies obtain participants through homophile publications, which may not have a readership reflective of the general homosexual population (e.g., Whitam, Diamond, & Martin, 1993). Second, how sexual orientation is defined affects the magnitude of the computed heritability (e.g., Hershberger, 1997). Third, certain analytic approaches to estimating heritability require knowledge of the population base rate of homosexual orientation (e.g., Bailey & Pillard, 1991). Perhaps the strongest studies of genetic influence on sexual orientation use large population-based strategies for obtaining twins (e.g., twin registries; Kirk, Bailey, & Martin, 2000). Importantly, population-based studies report heritability estimates of sexual orientation significantly lower than studies that rely on advertising or word of mouth to obtain participants.


Sexual Orientation and Cognitive Ability


Finding that biology plays a significant role in sexual orientation is of considerable consequence for the emergence of cognitive differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. If a hormonal explanation of sexual orientation is correct, we would expect the cognitive attributes of male homosexuals to be femininzed, more closely resembling heterosexual females than heterosexual males. Sex differences should, in this case, generalize to sexual orientation differences.


The most dramatic sex difference in cognitive ability is found on measures of spatial ability, in particular tests of mental rotation, with males typically outperforming females (Linn & Petersen, 1985; Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995). To a lesser extent, men also perform better on measures of spatial perception, such as the water-level test, which asks participants to predict the appearance of the water level in containers that are presented in various orientations. However, negligible sex differences are found on tests of spatial visualization (e.g., the Block Design subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale), a third type of spatial ability test (Voyer et al., 1995). Males also tend to outperform women on tests of mathematical reasoning ability (Becker & Hedges, 1984). In contrast, evidence exists for female superiority on tests of verbal fluency, an example of which is to name as many words as one can that begin with the letter "F" during a brief period of time (Halpern, & LaMay, 2000). Females are also found to outperform men on tests requiring rapid visual scanning and matching, as well as on tests of location memory (Halpern & Crothers, 1997).


Evidence suggests that sex differences in cognitive abilities are prenatal in origin. According to one theory, high levels of prenatal testosterone slow the development of the left hemisphere in men, resulting in hemispheric lateralization for many cognitive tasks. In men, language functions are mediated by the left hemisphere, whereas spatial functions are mediated by the right hemisphere; however, hemispheric lateralization is less strong in women, as evidenced by the presence of language functions in the right hemisphere (McGlone, 1980). The presence of language functions in the right hemisphere appears to interfere with information processes in women (thus accounting for their relatively poorer performance), but at the same time improves their processing of linguistic information. Women can call upon either their right or left hemisphere for interpreting linguistic information.


If prenatal hormonal effects on CNS development can be used to explain sex differences in cognitive ability, then they can also be used to explain the origin of differences in cognitive abilities between homosexual and heterosexual men. For example, Willmott and Brierley (1984) found that although there were no overall IQ differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, homosexual males had higher verbal IQs than did heterosexual males and females. A similar result was obtained by Tuttle and Pillard (1991), who found that homosexual males had higher vocabulary scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale than did heterosexual males. McCormick and Witelson (1991) found that homosexual males had greater verbal fluency than did heterosexual males, but neither male group was as fluent as heterosexual females. On a computerized lexical-decision-making task, heterosexual women and homosexual men performed comparably, and superior, to heterosexual men (Wegesin, 1998). Rahman, Abrahams, and Wilson (2003) also showed that homosexual men outperformed heterosexual men on synonym, category, and letter fluency tests.


Studies of spatial abilities show even more consistent results, with several investigators reporting that heterosexual males outperformed homosexual males and heterosexual females (e.g., Cohen, 2002; Gladue, Beatty, Larson, & Stratton, 1990; Rahman & Wilson, 2003; Sanders & Ross-Field, 1986; Tuttle & Pillard, 1991; Wegesin, 1998; Willmott & Brierley, 1984). A number of studies have also found that homosexual men score higher on the intellectual and openness to change factors (factors B and [Q.sub.1], respectively) of the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), both of which are significantly correlated with general intelligence measures (see Duckitt & du Toit, 1990).


Other Sexual Orientation Differences


Sexual orientation differences have also been found on gender conformity, somatic measures, and voice and speech characteristics. The greater recalled gender atypicality of homosexual men is one of the most robust findings in sexual orientation research (Bailey & Zucker, 1995). If hormones influence the development of sex dimorphic behavior and sexual orientation, an atypical gender identity would be expected among homosexual males. Somatic measures show sexual orientation differences consistent with hormonal influences; for example, homosexual men tend to weigh less than heterosexual men (e.g., Bogaert & Blanchard, 1996).


Somatic differences are also found for the hands: Homosexual men have elevated rates of non-right-handedness (Lalumiere, Blanchard, & Zucker, 2000) and more dermal ridges on the left hand (Green & Young, 2000). Voice and speech differences between homosexual and heterosexual men are also consistent with sex differences. For examples, a higher pitch is usually associated with feminine speech (Bachorowski & Owren, 1999); homosexual males are perceived to have higher pitched voices than heterosexual males (Gaudio, 1994).


This Study


The primary purpose of this study was to explore differences between the cognitive ability profiles of homosexual and heterosexual males. In addition, comparisons were conducted on somatic measures, measures of voice and speech, and masculinity-femininity, all of which were expected to show male sexual orientation differences.


A unique approach to testing cognitive ability differences between homosexual and heterosexual men presented itself when the first author was on the faculty of a large, Midwestern university. A set of triplets, three brothers, who were attending the university, learned of the author's interest in biological influences on sexual orientation and introduced themselves to him. The brothers were 21 years of age. Even with the increase in multiple births caused by assisted reproductive technology, MZ triplets are still relatively rare, representing 1 in 50,000 births (Reynolds, Schieve, Martin, Jeng, & Macaluso, 2003). In general, triplets have been invaluable sources of information about the effects of heredity on human behavior, but these triplets had two especially noteworthy attributes: (1) they were monozygotic and (2) they were discordant for sexual orientation. One brother (henceforth to be referred to as HM) identified himself as homosexual, whereas the other two brothers (henceforth to be referred to as HT1 and HT2) identified themselves as heterosexual.


Clearly, if cognitive abilities differ between homosexual and heterosexual men, one would predict that HM's performance across a series of tests of cognitive abilities would exhibit a pattern different from those of HT1 and HT2. This represented a strong test of the hypothesis, for one would expect that the triplets' monozygosity would diminish these differences. All three agreed to participate in a study examining this hypothesis, but were unaware of specific predictions.


METHOD


Participants


It was instructive to examine the triplets' personal perspectives on developmental issues relevant to their discordant sexual orientation. The second author acquired this material during telephone interviews conducted separately with each triplet as part of an ongoing book project. The triplets, who were naturally conceived, were born on July 18, 1975, making them 21 years of age at the time of the interviews. They were delivered vaginally in a vortex position and born 3 and 4 min apart. Their birth occurred 6.5 weeks prematurely, requiring incubation of all three infants in a high-risk nursery. They were healthy but, given the lung difficulties associated with premature births, it became critical to monitor their early breathing; however, breathing problems never developed.


The family was Caucasian and middle class. The mother was 30 years of age and the father was 35 years of age at the time of their birth. The parents already had an older son who was 20 months of age at the time. Having triplets was regarded as a positive experience by their mother and father. The infants were color coded in blue (HT1), red (HM), and green (HT2), with respect to birth order, to tell them apart. Their birth weights were 4 lb, 1 oz; 3 lb, 14 oz; and 4 lb, 0 oz, respectively. They arrived home individually, HM at 9 days, HT1 at 5 days, and HT2 at 7 days so as not to overwhelm their older brother. They developed no remarkable illnesses or allergies, although colds and stomach flu occurred frequently. They were not nursed, but were administered a variety of formulas with medications to relieve their colic that persisted for 6 months. They began sleeping regularly at approximately 8 months of age.


Two sources of information were instructive: (1) home videotapes made of the triplets as young children and (2) HM's recollections of childhood perceptions and feelings. "It's all clearer looking back," he remarked. In the films, HM's mannerisms and reactions were perceived by family members as strikingly different from those of his two brothers. In fact, their mother referred to him as her "sensitive, artistic one." His cotriplets were known as the "stubborn one" and the "athletic one." Other commonly used descriptive terms were "delicate," "willful," and "cocky," respectively. There was a scene in one video in which one triplet (then age 6) is boxing with his older brother, leaving HM and HT1 to spar with one another; however, HM was crying because he did not want to participate.


When HM was "little," he recalled being at a ball game and visiting the restrooms at the stadium. There he experienced a fascination with the opportunity to inspect the variety of male genitalia. He was aware that many children "like to look," but his remembrance of this experience was extremely "vivid." It was a feeling that has not abated. At age 17, he became fixated on a high school teacher much older than he. During his high school years, HM coped, in part, by "hiding behind" his two brothers. When HM directly revealed his sexual preference to his brothers in college, it did not completely surprise them.


Following high school graduation, the triplets attended the same university away from home where they variously roomed together and apart during the next 4 years. HM majored in theater and psychology, HT1 majored in journalism, and HT2 majored in education and health. Their occupations at the time of the interview were hospital consultant, project coordinator for telecommunications, and medical supplier, respectively. HM was currently living at home and making plans to move out on his own. HT1 was married, and HT2 was unmarried and living out of state.


The triplets' differing sexual orientations have not impaired the strong social bonds they have always felt for one another. In this respect, they resembled the majority of other MZ twins and triplets for whom the social relationship is profound and enduring (see Segal, 2000). All believed they were treated equally and fairly by both parents.


Before commencing the study, the monozygosity of the triplets was confirmed through four sources of information, ordered here from weakest to strongest: (1) the parents of the triplets were certain of their sons' zygosity, having been informed of this by the attending physician; (2) responses to a standard zygosity questionnaire, which included items about adult height, weight, eye color, hair texture, and hair curliness; whether strangers, friends, or family members confused them; and whether they were as "similar as two peas in a pod"; (3) the mother's report that the triplets shared the same placenta; and (4) blood samples that were typed for 18 polymorphic markers.


Over the course of a semester, a number of cognitive ability, personality, and biographical measures were administered to the triplets. The triplets also underwent audiometric, anthropometric, and speech and voice measurement in various laboratories at the university. These assessments were completed by trained individuals blind to the triplets' zygosity and sexual orientation status. One projective test of personality and psychological functioning, the Rorschach, was administered by a trained clinical psychologist, who was also blind to the triplets' zygosity and sexual orientation status. The first author and a clinical psychologist, different from the one who administered the test, scored the Rorschach.


The first author obtained Institutional Review Board approval from his university where the data were collected. Informed consent was obtained from the triplets prior to the beginning of the study. Permission was also obtained from the triplets to submit a final report of the study's results for publication. Before its submission, the triplets reviewed the present report of the study and approved its contents.


Measures


The measures used in this report are listed in Table I.


Sexual Orientation and Behavior


To more confidently label the triplets as either "homosexual" or "heterosexual," a sexual orientation and behavior questionnaire was administered. This questionnaire consisted of items that asked respondents to identify their sexual orientation, to describe their sexual fantasies and behaviors involving partners of both sexes from 12 to 18 and from 19 to 21 years of age, to reveal the number of lifetime sexual partners of both sexes, and indicate the age at which their sexual orientation was revealed to others if they ever did so.


Rorschach HS (Schafer Homosexuality Signs). Schafer (1954) proposed a set of nine signs of male homosexual orientation. These signs are as follows: (1) reversal, combining, blurring, and arbitrary assignment of sex characteristics; (2) feminine emphasis; (3) reference to perversions; (4) hostile, fearful conception of masculine role; (5) hostile, fearful, rejecting characteristics of women; (6) preoccupation with feminine bodies and pleasures; (7) anal perspective and preoccupation; (8) castration emphasis; and (9) general increase in sexual imagery. The percentage of total responses (R) that are Schafer signs (HS%) can be used as an indicator of male homosexual orientation. Schafer signs have been shown to successfully differentiate male homosexuals from male heterosexuals (Andersen & Seitz, 1969; Hooker, 1958; Raychaudhuri & Mukerji, 1971; Seitz, Andersen, & Braucht, 1974).


The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--2: Homosexuality Scale. Panton (1960) proposed a homosexuality scale (HSX), on the basis of his finding that 22 items from the original version of MMPI significantly distinguished homosexual from heterosexual men. Subsequent studies also found that the HSX scale distinguished homosexual and heterosexual men (Krippner, 1964; Pierce, 1972). In MMPI-2, 17 of the 22 items remained, which permitted the creation of an HSX score for each of the triplets.



Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Sixteen primary factors and five global personality factors are measured by 16PF (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1988). Of particular interest were three scales that differed significantly between men and women in the normative sample: warmth, dominance, and sensitivity. Thus, one hypothesis might be that heterosexual and homosexual men differ significantly on these three scales as well; however, it turns out that differences between heterosexual and homosexual men have been better represented by profile differences across all 16 personality factors (Bernard & Epstein, 1978).


Anthropometric


A series of anthropometric measurements was obtained, including detailed measures of head and facial dimensions and fingerprints. A graduate student in physical anthropology made these measurements, blind to the zygosity and sexual orientation of the triplets. A colleague, Dr Lynn Hall, an expert on dermatoglyphics who has published studies on finger ridge patterns and sexual orientation (e.g., Hall, 2000), measured the fingerprint ridge count on both the left and the right hands of the triplets. She was also unaware of their zygosity and sexual orientation.


Speech and Voice


Audio recordings were made of the triplets reading the first section of the Rainbow Passage (Fairbanks, 1960), counting to 20, and reading lists of words containing the four vowels, /a/, /i/, /u/, /ae/; the three syllabi, /pa/, /ta/, /ka/; and the three words, /kait/, /piknik/, and /dag/. From these recordings, several speech and voice measures were extracted for each of the triplets using the Computerized Speech Lab-Model 4300B and the DSP Sona-Graph, both manufactured by Kay Elemetrics.


Fundamental Frequency. Fundamental frequency (FO) is the vibratory rate of the vocal cords, as measured in hertz (Hz), and is synonymous to the more common term, pitch. FFO is a function of the length and density of the vocal cords, as well as the amount of stress placed on them during speech. This measurement reflects the "physiological limits" (strength) of the voice. For adult men the average FO is 125 Hz during normal conversation, whereas for adult women the average is 215 Hz (Colton & Casper, 1996). The sex difference for fundamental frequency, which occurs for several other speech measures, has been primarily attributable to the shorter (by 15%) vocal cords of adult women.


Formant Frequencies. Each vowel sound has several characteristic amplitude peaks (measured in Hz), two of which are first formant (F1) and second formant (F2). F1 has the lowest frequency peak and F2 the second lowest. The frequencies at which formants occur depend on the length of the vocal cords, the tongue position, and the height of the tongue. Different vowels have been distinguished by different formant frequencies. For neutral vowels, the average value of F1 has been 500 Hz in adult men, whereas the average value for F2 has been 1,500 Hz. For adult women, the values have been 600 and 1,800 Hz, respectively (Pickett, 1999).


Speech Rate. The number of syllables produced in 1 s (syllables/seconds) is referred to as the speech rate. Women have typically shown higher speech rates than have men (Feldstein, Dohm, & Crown, 1993; Nicholson & Kimura, 1996; Wu & Childers, 1991).


Total Duration. Total duration is the total amount of time (in second) to produce one syllable, including respiration and pauses.


Vowel Duration. Vowel duration is the length of time (in millisecond) to produce one vowel, less the time spent on respiration and pauses.


Word Duration. Word duration is the length of time (in millsecond) to produce one word, syllable, or number, less the time spent on respiration and pauses.


Men have typically shown longer total, vowel, and word duration times than women (Avery & Liss, 1996).


Because significant sex differences have been found for all of the above measures of speech and voice, sexual orientation differences were predicted as well.


Masculinity-Femininity


Rorschach M (Human Movement Responses). Rorschach M scores are a count of human movement responses. A response is scored as a human movement response if it is characterized by one of the following: (1) human-like action attributed to a portion of a figure; (2) animals in human-like action; (3) caricature and statues in human-like action; (4) human facial expressions; and (5) human-like facial expressions in animals.


Rorschach M% (Femininity). Evidence exists that the percentage of human movement responses (using R as a base) can be interpreted as a measure of femininity. Coursol (1996). Kleinman and Higgins (1966), and Raychaudhuri and Rabindra (1971) found that M% was significantly higher in adult females than in adult males. Additionally, Raychaudhuri and Rabindra (1971) reported that M% predicted femininity in adult males. Results reported by Benveniste (1995) and Voigt (1966) indicated interrater reliability for scoring responses as human movement.


Rorschach B (Barrier Responses). Barrier responses are those attributable to concern for the vulnerability of the human body, and more broadly, interest in erecting barriers between the respondent and the outer world. A response was characterized as a barrier response if it included at least one of the following: (1) animals wearing clothing; (2) humans wearing unusual clothing; (3) reference to the skin of an animal; (4) enclosed openings in the earth (e.g., wells); (5) animals used as containers (e.g., milk in cow udders); (6) overhanging or protective surfaces (e.g., umbrellas); (7) armored objects; (8) covered, surrounded, or concealed objects, people or animals; (9) objects with container-like properties or shapes (e.g., chairs); (10) vehicles; and (11) buildings. Most studies have reported interrater reliabilities for barrier responses above. 90 (e.g., Fisher & Cleveland, 1958).


Rorschach P (Penetration Responses). Penetration responses include references to penetrating boundaries. A response was characterized as a penetration response if it included at least one of the following: (1) open human or animal mouths; (2) penetrating objects; (3) injured or degenerated objects, people, or animals; (4) boundary-less openings (e.g., a bottomless lake); (5), transparent objects; and (6) all other types of openings (e.g., the anus). As in the case of barrier responses, penetration responses have also been reliably identified by different raters (e.g., Fisher & Cleveland, 1968).


[[|B-P|]/[B+P]] X 100 (Femininity). Several researchers have found that women obtain significantly higher barrier scores than do men and that men obtain significantly higher penetration scores than do women (e.g., Fisher, 1964; Fisher & Cleveland, 1968; Hartley, 1967). Thus, a comparison between barrier and penetrations scores might provide some indication as to the "femininity" of the respondent.


Bem Sex Role Inventory. The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) is a 60-item measure of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny, in which respondents rank each item as to how well the adjective describes them. Twenty of the items are stereotypically feminine, 20 are stereotypically masculine, and 20 are gender neutral. The masculinity items can also be interpreted as measuring "instrumentality"; the femininity items can be interpreted as measuring "expressiveness" (Lippa, 2002). Items are scored from 1 (never or almost true) to 7 (always or almost always true). Bem reported Cronbach's alpha reliabilities of .80-.86 for femininity and masculinity, respectively. Comparable alphas have been reported from other studies (e.g., Ballard-Reisch & Elton, 1992). The test-retest reliability of BSRI, over an 8-week period, has been .80 for femininity, .93 for masculinity, and .86 for androgyny (Rowland, 1977). Other studies have shown that BSRI correctly assigned individuals to their sex-role classification on the basis of external criteria (Myers & Finn, 1985).


The Boyhood Gender Conformity Scale. The Boyhood Gender Conformity Scale (BGCS; Hockenberry & Billingham, 1987) consists of 20 items constructed to classify adult male respondents for sexual orientation on the basis of their reported boyhood gender conformity or nonconforming behavior and identity. Each item is scored from 0 (Never or almost never true) to 6 (Always or almost always true). Ten of the items are "masculine," and the other 10 are "feminine." The 10 masculine items are reverse scored to be in the feminine direction so that higher scores represent higher levels of gender nonconformity. In BGCS, the mean of the 20 items for homosexual males was 2.96, and for heterosexual males, the mean was 1.80. The authors reported a test-retest reliability of .92 after a 2-week interval based on discriminant function scores obtained from a discriminant analysis of 13 of the scale's items. Indicative of the scale's validity, the discriminant analysis correctly classified homosexual and heterosexual respondents. Phillips and Over (1992) also found that BGCS significantly discriminated homosexual from heterosexual respondents. The average of the 20 BGCS items was reported for each triplet in this study.


The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--2: Masculinity-Femininity Scale. The masculinity-femininity scale (Mf-m) is a 56-item scale derived from the 567 items of MMPI-2. According to the authors of MMPI, this scale measures respondents' nonconformity to gender roles (including homoerotic sexual fantasies) and to several variables on which men and women differ (Hathaway & McKinley, 1989). The scale's mean based on the normative sample is 26.01 (SD = 5.08).


Cognitive


Rorschach R (Response Productivity). R is the total number of responses given to the inkblots. Typically, more than one response is given to each inkblot. If response quality is adequate, R can be interpreted as a measure of general intelligence or creativity (Aronow & Reznikoff, 1976).


Rorschach A (Animal Content Responses). The Rorschach A is the total number of responses that include references to animals.


Rorschach 1-A% (Intellectual Functioning). This score, which is a function of the percent of the total number of responses (R) which are A, can be used as a measure of general intelligence (e.g., Klopfer, Ainsworth, Klopfer, & Holt). Ramzy and Pickard (1949) reported an interrater reliability of .99. As evidence of its validity as a measure of general intelligence, 1-A% correlates significantly with Raven's Progressive Matrices (Wysocki, 1957), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Consalvi & Canter, 1957), and college performance (Rust & Ryan, 1953).


Water Level Task. The triplets completed a paper-and-pencil version of the water-level task (Wegesin, 1998). The triplets were first shown an outline drawing of a jar capped with a cork. The jar was resting cork-side up on a horizontal line that was identified as a "table." The triplets were told that the jar was half-full of water as indicated by the horizontal line (the "water" line) parallel to the table. The triplets were told that on the following pages the jar would be shown in various orientations and that they were to draw the water line as it should appear using a pencil and a straight-edge. The jar was depicted in eight different orientations (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 o'clock) arranged in a random sequence. Each item was scored as correct (if a triplet's line was within 4[degrees] of the horizontal); otherwise, it was incorrect.


Mental Rotation. The triplets were allowed a total of 6 min to complete the 20 items on the Mental Rotation Test (Vandenburg & Kuse, 1978). This test required participants to identify which of four stimuli can be produced by mentally rotating a target stimuli. Each test item had two correct and two incorrect choices. On each item, participants received 2 points if they marked both correct choices and 1 point if they marked only one correct choice. All other responses received a score of 0 for the item.


Shipley-Hartford Vocabulary Test. The Shipley-Hartford Vocabulary Test is a paper-and-pencil test composed of a list of 40 target words. The correct synonym to each target word was selected from among a group of four words beside each target word.


The Educational Testing Service Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. All 72 tests of the ETS Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests (Ekstrom, French, & Harman, 1976) were administered. These 72 tests were constructed to act as "marker" tests for 23 factors of cognitive ability. The psychometric characteristics of the Kit have been examined extensively (e.g., Ekstrom et al., 1976).


RESULTS


Each triplet was certain about his sexual orientation upon entering the study. This was confirmed by the sexual orientation results presented in Table II; however, several responses were of note. First, HM experienced a notable change in his Kinsey rating for sexual feelings and behavior between the period from 12 to 18 years of age (Kinsey 2) and from 19 to 21 years of age (Kinsey 6). This change represented a change of sexual feeling and not a change of sexual behavior. Before the age of 19, HM had entertained the idea that he might possibly be bisexual on the basis of the partial heterosexual content of his fantasies and his desire to have female dating partners, but he now dismissed this possibility at the time of testing, fully endorsing an exclusive homosexual orientation. When the first author interviewed HM, he had the impression that HM's relationships with girlfriends were not substantively serious, not progressing beyond flirtation. HM first had sex with another male at 18 years of age; he has never had sex with a female. At 19 years, HM first defined himself as exclusively homosexual in feeling and behavior. It was interesting to note that although HM reported having sex with 14 different male partners, he had not had sex in the past year.



A second notable result reported in Table II was HT1's strong endorsement of the "desirability of having male sexual partners." This appeared anomalous, considering his Kinsey score of 1 for sexual feelings and behavior. When asked specifically whether he "had ever been sexually attracted to a man or boy," HT1 responded "not sure." HT1 has never had sex with another male, although he did report having had nine different female sexual partners, only one of which was during the past year. This single female partner, whom he eventually married at 24 years of age, was from a committed relationship. Thus, the reason as to why HT1 would report at 21 years of age that the idea of having sex with another male was "desirable," especially when in a committed relationship with a female, was unclear.


Another notable anomaly of HT1's scores in Table II is his high HSX score. As explained in the Discussion, this result is probably related to HT1's relatively high MMPI-2 masculinity-femininity score in Table V; it is very likely that HSX scores partly reflect gender nonconformity, perhaps as much as they reflect sexual orientation. Table II also reports Schafer homosexuality (HSX) scores for the triplets that are consistent with their self-identified sexual orientations: HM's score was the highest; HT1's and HT2's scores were considerably lower and more similar to each other's than either was to HM's score. The two raters who scored the Rorschach for Schafer signs differed by only four responses for HM, and by only two responses for HT1 and HT2; thus the two raters' scores were averaged.


Table III shows the anthropometric measurements. Given their monozygosity, it was not surprising that they showed little difference on most of the physical traits. The only exception was the difference between the right- and left-hand ridge counts. HT1's left-hand ridge count was much greater than that for his right hand, whereas for HM and HT2, the right-hand ridge count was greater, although disparity between the two hands was much less. Thus, whereas the results for HT1 and HM were as predicted, the results for HT2 were not: In fact, HT2, who on most indicators was the most masculine of the triplets, had a ridge count disparity most consistent with the disparity of a homosexual male.


Table IV reports sexual orientation differences for the speech and voice measures. As predicted, with the exception of /a/, the fundamental frequency (FO) means indicated that HM spoke with a higher pitched (in a female direction) voice than did his brothers. For example, HM's mean oral reading frequency was 176.9 Hz, whereas HT1's and HT2's frequencies were 155.0 and 148.4 Hz, respectively. Also as predicted, HM had higher formant frequencies (agin in the female direction) on a greater number of vowels than did his brothers. For instance, HM's F1 frequency for /a/ was 520 Hz, whereas HT1's and HT2's F1 frequencies were 500 and 460 Hz, respectively. However, there were a few exceptions reported in Table III: HM's F1 frequency was lower for /i/ than are both of his brothers' frequencies, is lower than HT2's frequency for F1 on /ae/, and is equal to at least one of his brothers' frequencies on F1 for /u/. On the other hand, there was little difference among the brothers for the speech rate of oral reading. Lastly, total duration, vowel duration, and word duration have been shown to be longer in women than in men. Consistent with these findings were the sexual orientation differences shown in Table IV, with HM mostly having longer duration times than HT1 and HT2.


The results from measures of masculinity-femininity are provided in Table V. Clearly, HM consistently obtained scores indicating a greater degree of femininity compared to his brothers. In addition, the brothers maintained a consistent ordering for each measure: HM was most feminine, HT1 was in the middle, and HT2 was least feminine. As for the Schafer signs, the two raters were in substantial agreement in scoring the Rorschach for human movement, femininity, barrier, and penetration responses. At most, the two raters disagreed by three responses on any of the scores; in such cases, their two scores were averaged.


Fig. 1 plots the 16PF profiles of the three brothers. The prediction was that the 16PF profile of HM would differ from the profiles of HT1 and HT2. This was indeed the case for 10 of the 16 personality factors. In contrast to his brothers, HM (represented by the bold line) could be characterized as more intelligent (B+), more affected by feelings (C-), more expedient (G-), more tenderminded (I+), less conventional (M+), more guilt prone (O+), more open to new experiences ([Q.sub.1]), more self-sufficient ([Q.sub.2]), less controlled emotionally ([Q.sub.3]), and more tense and frustrated ([Q.sub.4]). On the basis of a scoring system suggested by Krug (1981), HM could be described as moderately extraverted, highly anxious, low in tough-mindedness, moderately independent, and low in self-control. This pattern has often been seen particularly in those who have a mild degree of conflict in interpersonal relationships. This pattern suggested that HM liked to be around people, but found them difficult to accept at face value; and was outgoing, but intimidated by social situations. Low tough-mindedness was also indicative of low masculinity/high femininity. Individuals with HM's profile have scored highest on the 16PF career theme scale of nurturing-altruistic (e.g., physician) and have scored lowest on the mechanical-operative scale (e.g., machine operator).


The profiles of HT1 and HT2, while more similar to each other than to the profile of HM, showed some differences. HT1 could be described as someone who took a practical approach to life, was not very flexible, and was highly dependent, whereas HT2 had a less practical approach to life, was more flexible, but was still highly dependent. Both HT1 and HT2 were more masculine than HM. Individuals with HT1's and HT2's profiles have scored highest on the 16PF career-theme scales of procedural-systematic (e.g., navy officer) and venturous-influential (e.g., sales manager), and lowest on nurturing-altruistic (e.g., Cattell et al. 1970). Correlations among the triplets' 16PF profiles also provided evidence of personality differences between HM and HT1/HT2. The correlations between the profile of HM with the profiles of HT1 and HT2 were -.27 and -.43, respectively, whereas the correlation between the profiles of HT1 and HT2 was .48. To examine whether sexual orientation differences were related to sex differences, two difference scores were computed for each of the 16PF scales: (a) the difference between HM and the average of HT1 and HT2 and (b) the difference between males and females from the normative sample results reported by Cattell et al. (1970, p. 70). The correlation between sexual orientation differences and sex differences across the 16PF scales was .35.




Table VI provides the results of several cognitive ability measures. These results are in line with our predictions: On the water level and mental rotation tasks, HM did least well; on the vocabulary test (analogous to the negligible difference found between men and women), the triplets did not differ greatly. Interestingly, the Rorschach variables indicated that HM was more intelligent than were his two brothers, or at the very least, more creative.


To compare the cognitive ability profiles of the triplets, multidimensional scaling was used to construct a set of coordinates for each of the 23 ETS factors of cognitive ability. Determined by coordinate values, the ordering of the triplets on a dimension indicated how similar the triplets were to each other on the cognitive ability factor. From these coordinates, distances were computed between each of the triplets. Our hypothesis was that the distance between HM and both HT1 and HT2 would be greater than the distance between HT1 and HT2. The similarity coefficients in the association matrix used for the scaling were computed by taking the ratio of each triplet's performance to each of the other triplets' performance, resulting in six similarity coefficients for each cognitive ability. These six coefficients were placed into an asymmetric 3 X 3 association matrix, with the three brothers defining the rows and columns of the matrix. Zeros were placed in the main diagonal of the matrix, indicating that a triplet was not to be compared to himself.


Table VII details the results of the multidimensional scaling. Visual inspection of the table indicated that HM lies further away from HT1 and HT2 than HT1 and HT2 did from each other. This was confirmed by the average computed for each of the distances: The two average distances between HM and his two brothers were significantly greater than the distance between HT1 and HT2.



To further emphasize the differences between the cognitive ability profiles of the homosexual and heterosexual triplets, Fig. 2(a) and (b) graph the three profiles together, with the bold line representing HM's performance and the dashed lines, HT1's and HT2's performance. The differences between the homosexual and heterosexual profiles were striking: the correlations between the profile of HM with the profiles of HT1 and HT2 were -.90 and -.89, respectively, whereas the correlation between the profiles of HT1 and HT2 was .60. To examine whether sexual orientation differences were related to sex differences, two difference scores were computed for 11 of the 23 cognitive ability factors: (a) the difference between HM and the average of HT1 and HT2 and (b) the difference between males and females from the normative sample results reported by Ekstrom et al. (1976, pp. 11-15). (Ekstrom et al. only reported normative data by sex for 11 of the cognitive ability factors.) The correlation between sexual orientation differences and sex differences across the 11 cognitive abilities was .43.

DISCUSSION


The bases of sexual orientation have been explained with reference to multiple explanations, variously emphasizing genetic, biological, and experiential effects, as indicated above. It is impossible to determine the precise blend of causal factors eventuating in discordant sexual preferences among this MZ male triplet set. The finding that HM (but not his two brothers) showed signs of gender nonconformity as a child was consistent with previous findings in the twin literature. Specifically, gender nonconformity has been reported by both cotwins in male and female MZ twin pairs concordant for homosexuality, but only by homosexual cotwins in discordant pairs (Bailey & Pillard, 1993). The fact that this behavior appeared quite early in HM suggests either prenatal hormonal differences among the triplets and/or a genetic predisposition environmentally triggered in only one cotriplet as possible explanations.


While predictable from a neurohormonal theory of sexual orientation, the dramatic difference between the cognitive profiles of the homosexual and heterosexual cotriplets was still surprising, given the triplets' genetic identity. Because significant genetic effects have been found for most cognitive abilities (Sternberg & Kaufman, 1998) and for sexual orientation (Bailey & Pillard, 1995), cotwins and cotriplets are generally very similar in sexual behavior and cognitive ability. If one accepts that sexual orientation explains some of the cognitive ability differences between cotwins and cotriplets, then what explains sexual orientation differences between them? Genes are not the sole influence on the development of sexual orientation, and it might well be that differences in androgenic exposure prenatally are attributable to unique intrauterine conditions not under genetic control for prehomosexual cotwins or cotriplets. In fact, in some respects, twins and triplets, especially MZ, are subject to prenatal environmental effects that differ from those of their cotwins or cotriplets, the most well known of which is birth weight (Martin & Hershberger, 2001). It is not at all unusual to observe greater differences in birth weight between MZ than DZ twins.



Various theories have been proposed to explain how siblings occupying the same womb, either simultaneously or sequentially, might be exposed to different prenatal androgenic patterns. One theory proposed that the twin sisters of twin brothers or the twin brothers of twin sisters are exposed to the androgenization pattern of the opposite sex (Miller, 1994); the evidence for this theory in humans is tenuous at best, although strong in nonhuman animals (Rose et al., 2002). A theory similar to the opposite-sex hormonal exposure theory has concerned the possible variations in hormonal exposure that accompany different intrauterine positions (Ryan & Vandenbergh, 2002). Again, the evidence for the validity of this theory in humans has been questionable. In nonhuman animals, however, Clark, Vonk, and Galef (1997) have found intrauterine position to be associated with a number of sexually dimorphic characteristics: postnatal responsiveness to and levels of testosterone, fertility, sexual virility, sexual position, paw preference, social dominance, and muscle size. For human singletons, strong evidence exists that a late fraternal birth order in men is associated with homosexual orientation (Blanchard & Bogaert, 1996). It has been hypothesized that this fraternal birth order effect results from the progressive immunization of some mothers to Y-linked minor histocompatability antigens (H-Y antigens) by each succeeding male fetus, and its subsequent effect on the future sexual orientation of each succeeding male fetus (Blanchard, 2001).





Another explanation for sexual orientation differences could lie in the timing of zygotic splitting. (4) MZ twins result when a single fertilized zygote divides between the 1st and 14th days after conception (Bryan, 1992). If, during this period of time, one of the halves of the zygote itself splits, MZ triplets result. Thus, it is possible for several days to pass before the second splitting occurs. Given that the results were generally ordered as HM, HT1, HT2, we can speculate that HM and HT1 resulted from the first zygotic split, and HT1 split to create HT2. This time lapse between the first and second splitting might place HM on a developmental course different from the other two triplets. One way in which the developmental course may differ for HM is described by developmental instability theory (Gangestad, Bennett, & Thornhill, 2001). Developmental instability theory suggests that homosexuality might be due to general developmental disruption, which produces a shift from the developmental trajectory of sexual orientation from the typical heterosexual preference (Lalumiere et al., 2000). These "developmental disruptions" (e.g., chromosome mutations), experienced by HM alone, are offered as an alternative to exposure to atypical hormone patterns as an explanation of homosexuality.


The placental status of the triplets may also create developmental differences between one triplet and the other two. Under our scenario, HM and HT1, sbecause they resulted from early zygotic splitting, will likely have separate placentas (giving the appearance of one). It is very rare for triplets to share a placenta (Luke & Eberlein, 1999). On the other hand, the later zygotic split that hypothetically produced HT2 from HT1 may have resulted in a fused placenta, especially if the split occurred towards the end of the 14-day period following conception (Bryan, 1992). Late splitting is associated with opposite-handedness and we know that HT1 is left-handed. The separate or fused status of twins' placentas has been found to be related to twin concordance or discordance for some traits (e.g., schizophrenia: see James, Phelps, & Bracha, 1995; personality; see Sokol et al., 1995). Therefore, the sexual orientation difference among the triplets may have arisen from the status of their placenta. Unfortunately, the placental characteristics of HM, HT1, and HT2 cannot be reliably determined. Speculation suggests that developmental disruption from zygotes splitting and/or maternal immunization to H-Y antigens (from having delivered a male child, then three triplets) affecting HM could be contributing factors. HM was the lightest at birth, although he differed by 2 oz from HT2.


Although genes or hormones or both play a substantial role in the development of sexual orientation, the correlation between genes and nonshared environments are important, as well (e.g., Kendler, Thornton, Gilman, & Kessler, 2000). Nonshared environments are environmental experiences unique to an individual. Genotype-environment correlation (CovGE) refers to a correlation between the genetic and environmental influences affecting a trait. As in any other correlation, where certain values of one variable tend to occur in concert with certain values of another variable, a significant CovGE represents the nonrandom distribution of the values of one variable (genotype) across the values of another variable (environment). CovGE may be consequential for sexual orientation development, because when CovGE is present, we would expect different phenotypes to be selectively exposed to environmental experiences based upon their differing genetic propensities.



One area in which CovGE is likely to be of importance is the behavior of parents towards their children. Although the triplets asserted that they were equally and fairly treated by their parents, it is likely that, given their differing behavioral styles and corresponding nicknames, their mother and father did not treat them exactly alike, but modified their parenting practices in response to the behaviors expressed by each of their three sons. A substantial body of studies supports the view that parents respond to, rather then create, behavioral differences among twins and siblings. This would be a form of "reactive" genotype-environment covariance (Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hetherington, & Plomin, 2000). Even if parents tended to treat MZ twins alike or different, this would probably be of little consequence for the development of sexual orientation. A substantial body of research has suggested that, in general, treating MZ twins alike or different has not been related to behavioral similarities and differences (Loehlin & Nichols, 1978; see also Segal, 2000). Research specific to the relation between differences in parental treatment and sexual orientation has been focused largely on the "rejecting father" theory of sexual orientation development, whereby fathers have been closer and warmer towards their future heterosexual male children than their future homosexual male children, who were kept at an emotional and physical distance (Ellis, 1996).


One interesting measurement issued suggested by this study, and in others that attempt to measure both sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity, was the construct distinctiveness of sexual orientation and masculinity-femininity scales. Recall that HT1, who reported that he found the idea of having sex with other men desirable, had an MMPI-2 masculinity-femininity score very similar to HM's score. Lack of construct distinctiveness was especially likely when the two scales have been created from subsets of items from some larger, more general scale: Because both the masculinity-femininity scale and the HSX (homosexuality scale) were derived from items from MMPI-2. HSX scale may simply have been another measure of masculinity-femininity.


Several observations about the scales' items suggest that HSX may, in part, have been a measure of masculinity-femininity. First, the two scales share five items in common: liking the work of a librarian, collecting flowers or growing houseplants, indulging in unusual sex practices, frequently worrying, and liking the work of a building contractor. Furthermore, each of these five items was scored in the same masculine-feminine direction on both scales. For instance, a "true" response to liking the work of a librarian was scored in a feminine direction on both HSX and MMPI masculinity-femininity scales. In addition, although five items may not have appeared to be a large number to have in common, considering that the masculinity-femininity scale consisted of 56 items (5/56 = 8.93%), when looked at in terms of the 17 items on HSX, it was substantial: five items were 29.41% of the total number of items on HSX. On the other hand, the fact that the HSX scale does not contain many of the "obvious" occupation and hobby/interests items that are in the MMPI-2 masculinity-femininity scale (and which are found on most measures of masculinity-femininity) supports the construct distinctiveness of the two scales: for example, in addition to asking about liking the work of a librarian or a building contractor, the masculinity-femininity scale has items asking about liking to be a singer or a florist. Altogether, the masculinity-femininity scale has 11 occupation and 7 hobby/interests items. In addition, if the HSX scale were simply another measure of masculinity-femininity, one would expect that of all the masculinity-femininity items, item 62 of MMPI-2, "I have often wished I were a girl," would have distinguished homosexual from heterosexual males in Panton's (1960) original study. Given the difficulty in distinguishing the meaning of responses to sexual orientation scales from masculinity-femininity scales, studies should, as in the present one, use several measures of each. If only a single measure of each construct is possible, then at the very least, the two measures should not have items in common; that is, they should not be derived from the same scale.


In summary, this study has shown that MZ cotriplets, despite their genetic identity, manifested substantial differences in sexual orientation, cognition, personality, and gender conformity. The common source of these interrelated differences was thought to be attributable to differences in prenatal androgen exposure. Further insight into the origins of sexual orientation could be obtained if the how and why of differences in prenatal androgenization between MZ twins or triplets become the focus of intense study.

It for instance claims that heterosexuality is the most common ("dominant") sexuality among animals, which is simply not true.

Can you back that statement up with evidence?

This thread is gay! :rolleyes:
Yes, but is it by choice???

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept information published on a religious site. Even if it came from what appears to be a scientific study, the fact that it is related to a religious site shows that the authors have bias. I don't even have to read it to know that I can totally dismiss it as a scientist.

Now, were it to be published in Nature or Genetics or the Journal of Human Sexuality or other respected scientific journal, then I would read it and consider its merit. However, if the peer review process hasn't deemed it worth reading, I am not going to waste my time.

Anyone who does year 7 histroy will tell you that bias in a source makes it valueless. Anyone who does GCSE or above history will tell you that the year 7 opinion is a complete mistake and rather stupid. Please dont act like a year 7 and actually look at the science used, rather than who is saying it.

Anyone who does year 7 histroy will tell you that bias in a source makes it valueless. Anyone who does GCSE or above history will tell you that the year 7 opinion is a complete mistake and rather stupid. Please dont act like a year 7 and actually look at the science used, rather than who is saying it.
That's a little simplistic. If the bias is in the opposite direction to the conclusion, the conclusion is reinforced. If the bias is in the same direction, the conclusion is discounted.

Longest. First Post. Ever.

Omg I'm so late for the thread. Too lazy to start reading from the beginning :D

I believe It's psychological. Might not be choice. But it can or maybe corrected.

Probably like somoene having a fetish for paraphilia for example.

Longest. First Post. Ever.

She/he could have just linked us the site.

Meh. All that was, was problematising heterosexism (by mormons!).

As any queer-theorist will tell you: Answer why people are straight, and you will answer why people are gay. It isn't homosexuality that needs answering - it's heterosexuality.

As a gay person I happen to know why I am gay (for the same reason a straight person is straight), that I have always been it, that I never chose it, and that I would never want to be straight.

There was a time (filled with shame instilled in me by evil people) I would have sold my soul for it, for the ability to change, and I am very well aware of the self-loathing that can make gay people convince themselves that they are straight, even though they can suck copious amounts of cock in back alleys adjacent to video clubs and then suppress it like some bad memory, so excuse me if you friend's story leaves me unconvinced.
Nice one Fass. I mean, if we can't trust gay people on this who can we trust? Certainly not Mormons...

Nice one Fass. I mean, if we can't trust gay people on this who can we trust? Certainly not Mormons...

Never. Trust. A Mormon!

Never. Trust. A Mormon!
Had a bad experience there Potaria? :p

If by bad, you mean being forced to hear thirty minutes of Bible verses, then yes.

Another word for the viewpoint that says "this was written by someone who is biased, therefore its invalid" is Ad Hominem fallacy. A fallacy that is extremely common among the less educated.

A fallacy that is extremely common among the less educated.Common. Yes, Of course. So is trying to imply your opponent is less educated then yourself, but that is not here nor there in the matter I would suppose ...

Common. Yes, Of course. So is trying to imply your opponent is less educated then yourself, but that is not here nor there in the matter I would suppose ...

I dont have opponents, its my first post on the issue, and even if I did, it doesnt change the fact that saying "mormons wrote this so Im discarding it" is a common logical fallacy.

I discarded the bible, along with other related matters, because of, in part, who wrote it.

Welcome to atheism county. Population, myself and some other folk.

Don't be so quick to label a fallacy what may, in part, be related to a belief system. Just because you think it is wrong, doesn't mean it actually is.

( Nope, I'm not on anyones side, realy. Of course, I'd only express what side I'm on off-site because of posting rules here, hee )

I discarded the bible, along with other related matters, because of, in part, who wrote it.

Welcome to atheism county. Population, myself and some other folk.

Don't be so quick to label a fallacy what may, in part, be related to a belief system. Just because you think it is wrong, doesn't mean it actually is.

I do not need to label it a fallacy. The definition of an ad hominem logical fallacy has already been established. If something fits the definition of what an ad hominem fallacy is then it is in fact an ad hominem fallacy. What you described and what I spoke against fit the definition of an ad hominem fallacy, therefore it is in fact an ad hominem fallacy by definition.

Here is a link to a page written by people who are atheists enumerating some of the well known logical fallacies, among them the ad hominem fallacy. I link to an atheist source so that you wont have the excuse of saying "oh, its written by people who are biased...I wont believe it"

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Here are some snippets:

There's a lot of debate on the net. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of logical reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate.

...

There are a number of common pitfalls to avoid when constructing a deductive argument; they're known as fallacies. In everyday English, we refer to many kinds of mistaken beliefs as fallacies; but in logic, the term has a more specific meaning: a fallacy is a technical flaw which makes an argument unsound or invalid.

...

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"

...

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

So you see, it isnt necessary to label it an ad hominem fallacy. It is an ad hominem fallacy because it fits the definition of what an ad hominem fallacy is, not because I have judged it to be so. It is a fact, not an opinion.

I think the focus of the argument here is sliding toward whether you can trust people who are deeply religious with matters that are, well, scientific-ish if we are still harking back to the arguments in the original post.

I'm educated to the degree that I would consider myself a scientist, but I also have a belief in a concept of god. Any scientist worth his salt/research funding knows not to let those philosophical biases taint the experiment, otherwise they're going to find themselves working for NARTH. *shudder*

If we're giving evidence here, and not just unfounded social opinion like I did in that last paragraph, and you want to be taken seriously, try and cite your source. Even if it's a mormon site. Even if it's NARTH.

*Author reserves right to make academic demands on readers, at risk of being told to stick it.

Why are we searching for a reason?

Because we still regard it as something we need to cure.

Personally, I think the questions isn't "What makes people gay?", it's "What the hell does it matter if they are or not?" Ergo, I'm done with this discussion because it really doesn't matter to me why - we're meant to have freedom of choice.

Can you back that statement up with evidence?

Pick up a biology book. See how most animals don't comply with human notions on sexuality or procreation. Nature is far more diverse than to have as its crowning achievement "heterosexuality".

I do not need to label it a fallacy. The definition of an ad hominem logical fallacy has already been established.Thank-good-ness. Else we'd have nothing else to talk about, I guess. At least I'll be able to get to sleep now. This really does mean the very most to me. I thank you, kind soul you are.If something fits the definition of what an ad hominem fallacy is then it is in fact an ad hominem fallacy.Because an orange is not an apple, but both are fruit. no, never-mind. Else we'll turn an obtuse tangent into an accute oneWhat you described and what I spoke against fit the definition of an ad hominem fallacy, therefore it is in fact an ad hominem fallacy by definition.Thank-fully, no matter what I said we can see your biased against my post and so I can just dis-regard what-ever you say, eh ? Joke, joke.

Of course, I'll choose not to do so in-so-far as my point was not to instantly fall back on the " OMG RULES OF DEBATE " ( <- I'm picking up the lingo here ) when we go to face off our opinion with that of some one else, especially if there is th slightest chance of mitigating circumstances we might other-wise wish to avoid. Especially when such rules of debate involve concise and, not so concise, " this thing some-where else says your saying something which is wrong, ergo I'll say it is wrong because the something some-where else says it has been said wrong and so it will end becuse just because it has been said wrong means it must be wrong, and evil, and bad, and shall so and now, and I shall be seen as being in the right because of the something some-where else saying it is so " or something else along those lines.

( Which may or may not be some-where else, just to complicate it a bit ! )

Here is a link to a page written by people who are atheists enumerating some of the well known logical fallacies, among them the ad hominem fallacy. I link to an atheist source so that you wont have the excuse of saying "oh, its written by people who are biased...I wont believe it"Thank-you, because its not a fallacy at all to say I'll not agree your source is valid in every cicrumstance of our communication because it's not come from people of the same particular faith, degree of faith, lack of faith, or what have you, as I. Or is it. I don't know. It is a bit insulting though. Pity that.

BOLD TEXT AND CIRCUSES FOR THE MASSESI hope you realise posting is not quite like speaking to some one " slower " then you. Ergo - you - need - not - speak - as - clear - and - slow - as - you - can, - you - know - .So you see, it isnt necessary to label it an ad hominem fallacy.But thank you yet again, for not only taking your time to do it, but mine.It is an ad hominem fallacy because it fits the definition of what an ad hominem fallacy is, not because I have judged it to be so. It is a fact, not an opinion.Really ? I'm so glad to hear it. Again.

Is there any-one up the back, yes, next to the soda machine, who hasn't heard it yet ?

Now, your next task, if you choose to accept it, is to qualify why it is a precise fact and not an personal opinion you happen to share wih the author, nor is it just the opinion of the author rather then an actual fact. this time, I'd like you to focus your paper on qualitative arguments rather then risk missing the original point of the essay questiion and using quantitatives instead.

And bring me an organge. Or an apple, thanks.

In the mean-time, I plead the fifth and that its post 1 am here in the Good Colony.

over all, i found this thread-founding post to be an exceptionally poor effort. the distortion and lack of understanding of the scientific material was so overwhelming that i almost gave up part way through my reply. i would urge the thread founder to take some basic biology and human genetics courses, and to stop getting his information on homosexuality from religious websites, lest he continue to embarass himself in this manner.
Evidence 2:
Twin Studies – Result So Far: No
*clipped for length*
In conclusion, twin studies are consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of free choice.

totally and completely wrong. twin studies definitively show that there IS, for certain, some genetic or uterine component to determining sexuality. you really, REALLY, need to read up on twin studies before you try to make this claim, since they very clearly establish the opposite of what you are saying.


Evidence 3:
Brain Sizes – Result So Far: No

*clipped for length*

The researchers concluded that if you use your brain differently from other people, it will grow differently. It has nothing to do with being born that way – it is down to freedom of choice.

partially true; brain size CAN indicate genetic or inherent biological difference, but it also can come about other ways. you are wrong for asserting that "it is down to freedom of choice," because the evidence doesn't establish that. the evidence is inconclusive, not definitively in support of choice on this subject.


Evidence 4A:
Fruit Flies and Rats – Result So Far: Yes (But It Favours the 'Choices' Model)
*clipped for length*

again, you really need to read up on the studies you claim to be citing, since the methods you described were barely the tip of the iceberg in these techniques. your "dysfunctional" castrated and hormone-injected rats do not provide compelling evidence, that is true, but you totally ignore the data that are of actual impact: the mutant strains of rodents which conclusively establish a genetic component to sexual behavior. these are genetically modified rats which are born and reared in a completely natural and normal manner, and which display "homosexual" behaviors naturally, spontaneously, and in precisely the same context that non-mutants display heterosexual behavior.

now, granted, rats are not humans, and human sexual behavior is clearly more complex than that of rodents, but it is obvious that there IS a genetic component to our sexual predisposition. nobody with any sense is claiming that genetics will determine all your behavior, sexual or otherwise, but we know for a fact that your genetics will influence your behavior. your genes can predispose you to certain things; whether or not you act on the natural feelings and inclinations you experience is your business, and your choice, but you cannot simply choose not to experience your natural reactions.


Evidence 5:
Some Animals Are Homosexual – Yes, and Some Animals Also Eat Their Young
See www.newscientist.com/ns/19990807/queercreat.html for details. Researchers have documented a wide variety of homosexual behaviours across the animal kingdom. One prominent researcher of the subject "stresses that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform phenomenon. His mission is to document its sheer diversity." Given that homosexual behaviour in animals is essentially counter-productive (it does not result in passing on more genes) the easiest explanation is to note that animals exhibit all kinds of behaviours– some beneficial, some less so. It is only humans who group some behaviours together and call them all "homosexual." It seems clear that a proportion of all animals will show these behaviours. That is how "natural selection" works. In the absence of sufficient intelligence, variety is the only way to cope with the unexpected. Those with extremely counter-productive lifestyles (e.g. those that get themselves killed, do not eat, or mate with the same sex) do not pass their genes on to the next generation.

homosexuality is a persistent, evolutionarily stable solution for dozens of known species. were it simply a "variation" to cope with the unexpected, this would not be the case. also, selection favors homosexual behavior in the species it appears in (that is the definition of a "stable solution"), so your assumption that homosexual behavior is counter-productive is not supported in any way by the data. as i have cited on many other threads, engaging in homosexual behavior will very often INCREASE the reproductive success of an individual, and this has been thoroughly proven in at least a dozen species that i know of.


It could be argued that because animals do it, that makes it "right," or at least "normal." But many animals also kill their own young, and certainly kill each other. Sexual behaviour in general in the animal kingdom is closer to what we would call "rape." So I would suggest that animals are not a good guide to how life "should" be. Humans have a great advantage over animals. We have a greater degree of free choice, reasoning ability and accountability.

true, and nobody of substance is claiming we should do everything that animals do. this is a bait-and-switch created by opponents. the fact that animals exhibit homosexuality is presented to refute the claim that homosexuality is a conscious, unnatural choice, but then you swap things around to start talking about whether it is RIGHT or not. that wasn't the question being addressed.


Could It Be Beneficial in Any Way?

With the bonobos, it has been suggested that male-male sexual behaviour is a result of pressure – they live in large groups, and the potential for stepping on each other is great. They need some way to diffuse the situation, and sex seems to work. This seems to support Desmond Morris's statement that such behaviour is a result of being forced together.

frankly, i am amazed at the utter quakery of this theory. those who have studied wild bonobos as well as bonobos in capitivity have long since thrown out the "crowding causes gay monkeys" theory when it comes to these amazing chimps. also, female-female sex among wild bonobos is the MOST COMMON FORM of sexual contact, more common than heterosexual contact. i find it interesting that you choose not to address that tiny detail.


But there is another alternative, a better way to live in groups. It is to devise structures and institutions that allow individual freedom. Heterosexual marriage is one such institution. Homosexual marriage has been suggested as another, but (as noted in the page on "what's wrong with it?") this would tend to decrease freedom, decrease variety, and increase tension.

do i even need to point out the hillariously obvious absence of logic in this?


Finally, it should be remembered that homosexual behaviour in animals is still in a minority pursuit (which is one reason it has taken so long to be recognised). The dominant (and therefore more successful) strategy is heterosexuality.

your blithe assertion that heterosexuality is "dominant" and "more successful" simply because it is more frequently observed is totally incorrect based on all current available data. if homosexual behavior were not evolutionarily stable, it would not be maintained. it is, and for very clearly proven reasons. i am disappointed by the derth of anything approaching real evidence in your post so far.


Evidence 6:
A 'Gay Gene?' Result So Far: No

nobody with a basic understanding of human genetics would claim that a single gene could be responsible for regulation of human sexuality. there's not a single gene for fear, and fear is a relatively simple set of reactions compared to sexuality. the idea of the "gay gene" is a straw man.


Evidence 7:
Hormones – Result: No
*clip*
Researchers have just about given up on this idea. But a similar idea – that hormone levels were different in the womb, before a baby was born – are still popular.

you know why those ideas are still popular? because evidence supports them. so far. the jury is still out, but you certainly seem quick to ignore what evidence we have at this time.

as with genes, it is clear that hormones alone could not dictate human sexuality. we have the power to resist our hormonal urges, no matter what it is they are driving us toward, so a particular level of hormones would not necessarily make a person gay or straight.


Evidence 8A:
Hormones in the Womb – Results Can Be Explained By the Environment
"The evidence from hormonal research may circumstantially implicate biology in sexual orientation, but it is far from conclusive. William Byne raises a warning flag: 'If the prenatal-hormone hypothesis were correct, then one might expect to see in a large proportion of homosexuals evidence of prenatal endocrine disturbance, such as genital or gonadal abnormalities. But we simply don't find this.'"

um, that's really a wild supposition on his part. given that we don't even know if this occurs, it seems odd that he assumes "prenatal endocrine disturbance" would lead to more homosexuals. my quackery flag is going up again...


Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a condition where a baby in the womb is flooded with far too much male hormone. A baby girl can then look physically a little similar to a boy. But this is superficial – internally and by chromosomes she is indeed a girl. Corrective surgery then allows her to be raised as a girl. If hormones determine sexual orientation, surely all such women would be lesbians? In fact, the majority are heterosexual.

wow, cluelessness abounds. where to start?

first of all, there are many chromosomal and hormone disorders in which an individual's genotype (what their chromosomes say) does not match their phenotype (what their body looks like). psychologically it is best to NOT force these individuals to conform to their genotype, but to let them decide which genders feels most appropriate. i personally know a very beautiful and girlie girl who found out at 14 that she had "male" chromosomes; she is every inch a girl, and doesn't have any intention of undergoing unnecessary "corrective" surgery to change herself.

second, and more pertinent, abnormalities in expression of physical gender are NOT linked to sexual orientation. just because somebody's physical gender is abnormally expressed does NOT, in any way, mean they "should" or "should not" be gay. we have no data supporting your theory that the two "should" be linked.


Evidence 8C:
Older Brothers

Evidence 8D:
Finger Length

these were bunk theories when they were presented, little more than urban myths. congrats, you've disproved what everybody already knew was a crock.


Evidence 8E:
Sex-typical Play Behaviour

you say it yourself in this part; adults are more capable of overcoming hormonal or biological influences than children. that doesn't mean those influences are gone, nor does it prove we have absolute freedom of choice (because we will still be impacted by those influences), it just means that humans aren't subject to biological determinism. sexuality, like most complex human behaviors, is influenced by our biology, our environment, and our consciousness, and the end product will be a compelation of all of these.


Evidence 8F:
Damage in the Earliest Stages

you seem to think that we shouldn't pursue a theory if it makes people feel bad...that's poor science. i don't think this particular theory will hold up, but if it does then we have an obligation to honesty in science. whether or not people like the truth should not sway science.


What If, One Day, a Biological Influence Was Discovered?
This has not happened yet, but who knows? Perhaps one day something will be discovered. But if it exists, it must be very weak – or else all identical twins would be always both gay or both straight.

totally wrong. just because genetics and/or uterine environment fails to determine sexuality completely does not mean it is a "very weak" biological influence. indeed, twin studies show that the influence of these factors on sexuality is stronger than the influence of these factors on intelligence, and intelligence is considered very strongly influenced.


Clearly the biggest factor is choice.

you have failed to support that claim.


If a biological predisposition to homosexuality was discovered, it would be no different in principle from a predisposition to be athletic, or obese, or alcoholic, or musical. It would be easier to go one way and more difficult to go another way, but the most powerful influence is still free choice. As someone who is currently on a diet (I need to lose w-a-y too many pounds – and keep it off) I know what it is like to have a deep-felt desire to put on weight. Since everyone in my family seems to be the same, I assume there is some biological influence. But I also know that by changing my lifestyle I can choose for myself. Even though dieting can be psychologically damaging, being fatter does not necessarily mean being happier.

and being skinny doesn't necessarily mean being happier. given that obesity can be medically shown to be inherently unhealthy, but homosexuality is actually MORE medically healthy for women than heterosexuality, i think you are choosing a very silly argument in this case.


The important question is not "is there a biological influence?"
The important question is "is there anything wrong with it?"

very true. whether or not homosexuality is biologically determined or influenced should not dictate our permissiveness of homosexual behavior. many unnatural acts are cherished in human society, and many natural acts are as well, so the "naturalness" of something is clearly not the critical factor in our morality. so why have you wasted all our time posting incorrect and/or irrelevant arguments about the biological basis of sexuality?


First I would like to contribute a bit from my own life. I am personally friends with a man who "was once gay" as he will quite willingly explain to most anyone interested. In my mind he remains the strongest evidence I have that homosexuality is pure choice. I literally watched this man take control of his life and his feelings and make a decision that has shaped his life for the past several years. In college he was a gay man, he is now married with two kids and does not have any regrets about his choice. He is not bisexual, he completely insists upon being called a heterosexual and his choice had NOTHING to do with religious beliefs of any kind or outside pressure for that matter. Apart from that he is a rather brilliant individual as for as creative talent goes.

annecdotes such as this one just bore me. i have several dozen stories of individuals who tried to repress their sexuality and were unsuccessful, and i know at least two cases where this repression lead to suicide. for every annecdote you describe i am sure there will be two more for the con position, so it's stupid to go down this road.


Well anyway, it seems most everyone here seems to think that homosexuality has been "proven" to be inborn. Sorry to burst your collective bubble.

homosexuality has been thoroughly proven to have SOME biological component. my "bubble" in this area remains unburst by your poorly constructed, poorly reasoned, and ludicrously inaccurate attempt to warp scientific evidence to conform with your personal opinion.


If anyone here can give some evidence that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin to refute any of this feel free.
if you provide evidence with the integrity of a piss-soaked napkin (as you have in this post), you should not be surprised when people respond in kind.

I like it when people waste their time...

Frankly, I don't think this topic should even be attempted to be tackled. YOU can't prove anything unless you go out and try and specialise in the field. Looking at websites cannot give you a factual, conclusive statement that you should outwardly use to 'prove' something to other people. My own personal evidence is that:

a) My mum's best friend married a man, had two children and was married for two years, only to decide she could no longer lie to herself any longer and ran off with a woman. People use this circumstance saying that her husband turned her gay... I spoke to her and she told me deep down she always felt wrong being with men.

b) My friend who is gay - but hates being gay.

There's no choice in this. Of course, they could/have both decided that they could have relationships with members of the opposite sex - perhaps to conform and feel right - but that doesn't mean they are straight people.

But I wouldn't bring this up - nor would I use it to prove why I am right about homosexuality and other people are wrong - because I'm not sure I am right... I just know what I know. You can't conclude anything about homosexuals and it's quite stupid trying to do so using the internet as your aide and not your own research.

Anyone who does year 7 histroy will tell you that bias in a source makes it valueless. Anyone who does GCSE or above history will tell you that the year 7 opinion is a complete mistake and rather stupid. Please dont act like a year 7 and actually look at the science used, rather than who is saying it.


It's not who said it. It's who published it. For the last time:

Articles published by religious groups do not go through rigorous scientific peer review. This means that there is NO quality control, NO one checking facts, NO one making sure that as little bias as possible creeped in. I agree with what was said earlier that all humans are biased--that is why peer review is so important. It was the only thing that greatly reduces the chance of bias. To argue otherwise just shows an ignorance of the way science works.

It's not who said it. It's who published it. For the last time:

Articles published by religious groups do not go through rigorous scientific peer review. This means that there is NO quality control, NO one checking facts, NO one making sure that as little bias as possible creeped in. I agree with what was said earlier that all humans are biased--that is why peer review is so important. It was the only thing that greatly reduces the chance of bias. To argue otherwise just shows an ignorance of the way science works.
indeed. i read peer-reviewed journals not because of who wrote the articles, but because of who READ the articles. experts in the field examined the work to see if it could pass muster. the people best able to judge the validity of the work were the ones who decided if it should be published. this does not mean all journal articles are perfect, or infallible, or should be taken as gospel, but it does mean that they are far more trustworthy than articles which are not reviewed in this manner.

Um, I hate to raise this, but WHO CARES!?!?

Homosexuals are homosexual. Why exactly does it matter why? It might be social pressure, but I doubt it. It might be genetic. It might be that the Gay Fairy drops by their house when the moon is full and dumps poofdust on their sleeping bodies. They might even, as the thread starter seems to imply, have woken up one day and thought 'You know what? Women suck. I think I want to sleep with men for the rest of my life' (though frankly, I think the Gay Fairy is more likely than that).I don't really give a toss. They feel more comfortable having relationships with members of their own gender than with members of the opposite sex. Why exactly does this bother people so much?

Let people live how they want to. If you disagree with homosexuality, then you're probably NOT gay yourself, so it's got cock all to do with you. Leave people to do what they feel is right, as long as it's consentual.

As for the example that animals eat their own young, that's a valid tactic in certain situations. If food is scarce, then the adults will die and their young will starve. We don't have this problem, so it's utterly irrelevant. Do you think that everyone will suddenly turn gay and humanity will die out overnight? Artificial insemination deals with that straight away, and anyway, given 6 billion people it's a pretty dumb perspective. Hell, homosexuality could save us from obscene overpopulation.

Listen, I asked for someone to come forward with something "that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin" and all I am getting is "the author is religious, therefore his work is worthless."
You know, it always amazes me that people think that a few offhand studies prove anything one way or another in something as complicated as sexuality. There is not nearly enough information out there to provide a definitive answer. If you actually look at scientific history you might realize that we have barely hit the tip of the iceberg where human habits and biology are concerned.

It's not who said it. It's who published it. For the last time:

Articles published by religious groups do not go through rigorous scientific peer review. This means that there is NO quality control, NO one checking facts, NO one making sure that as little bias as possible creeped in. I agree with what was said earlier that all humans are biased--that is why peer review is so important. It was the only thing that greatly reduces the chance of bias. To argue otherwise just shows an ignorance of the way science works.

BIAS DOES NOT MAKE A SOURCE INVALID. The only way that is the case if it is actually saying something that is not true and has no facts backing it up.

BIAS DOES NOT MAKE A SOURCE INVALID. The only way that is the case if it is actually saying something that is not true and has no facts backing it up.

True, but bias does distort findings. For example, Blair and Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq, so they distorted findings to make us think Saddam was going to bring about Armageddon.

You have to have information from several sources to have any certainty of it's validity. As this came from one site with a religious anti-homosexuality bias, it really needs to be checked up on. Also, come up with some answers to Bottle's post. He points out the logical errors in the 'scientific' findings, just for starters, which makes me wonder just HOW distorted the piece is.

OOC: Gay people are often born with thier 'condition'. Often a child in the womb will accidentally get splashed with a tiny bit on the wrong gender's hormone resulting in the brain developing in a slightly different way than that of one that hadn't had any contact with it. This happens in all animals. Often there are female dogs/rabbits/whatever that will hump thier owner's legs. A female dog that is gender confused will raise its leg to urinate, causing a disasterous mess. A Male dog will squat, same result only the liquid will shoot more forward. Besides, I act more male than most other females so. Particularly when I'm happy. *grin* You wouldn't like me when I'm happy.

IC:

The President has issued a constitutional ammendment to protect the sanctity of marriage between cats and dogs.

OOC: Gay people are often born with thier 'condition'. Often a child in the womb will accidentally get splashed with a tiny bit on the wrong gender's hormone resulting in the brain developing in a slightly different way than that of one that hadn't had any contact with it.

That's total conjecture. There's no scientific evidence backing this at all. Besides, all humans have all the hormones. It's just men have sensible levels of all of them apart from testosterone (where we seem to have got a little carried away), and women seem to simply being pissing about. You don't need progesterone REALLY, do you? ;)

Besides, I act more male than most other females so. Particularly when I'm happy. *grin* You wouldn't like me when I'm happy.

'Girly' girls piss me off. I like you more already. :)

I think most people are Bi sexual with a few at the extremes who really are only straight or gay.

Mostly i think christianity has skewered our view of homosexual relationships. look at pre christian societies and for most blokes it was "any old port in a storm" just look at roman artefacts in a museum. they really didnt mind who's hole it was.

One thing does puzzle me though, why many blokes hate gay men but would gladly watch gay women? You either like homosexuals or you dont. If you only dislike gay men, you arent homophobic, you're mentally disturbed with probabal submition issues.

I really hope that if there actually is an environmental cause for homosexuality that it's something completely random and uncontrollable. Like the temperature of bath water. Hehehe.

But I think I have to chalk all this up to a big fat don't care. Oh, I'm sure that behavioral scientists will continue to study it, and won't rest until they track down the root causes. But personally, I think it's much like the root causes for serial killers and preferring chocolate over strawberry ice cream. In other words, too complicated to predict.

I think this thread is gay :p

One thing does puzzle me though, why many blokes hate gay men but would gladly watch gay women? You either like homosexuals or you dont. If you only dislike gay men, you arent homophobic, you're mentally disturbed with probabal submition issues.

Well, no. The female form is a wonderful thing to behold for a man. The male one just isn't. So, two women going at it is kinda like 'Nice one!', where as two guys is just a bit of an unpleasent image.

As for guys hating gay men, I don't. In fact, most men don't dislike gay guys. They dislike the concept of gay men, but as individuals they don't mind them at all.

This is almost certainly because the human penis is the most grotesque object in the universe. It just looks daft. It's got to be in my top three body parts (after head and heart. Stuff you can't really be without), but it's also the one I'd least like to look at (and that's really saying something. Spleens look AWFUL). Having one of them kicking around in the bedroom during sex can only really be tolerated because it's vital to the process. Two? Forget it. One's enough. If some form of pouch could be created to cover one gay guy's cock during sex, the entire homophobia would vanish. Honest. ;)

snip

You seem to be confused. You are tying to argue it is a life choice, while providing evidence many animal species have homosexual individuals.

that is CLEAR evidence it is not a choice, unless you think animals are just as capable of chosing sexual preference as humans?

You then go on to argue this is not productive, while entirely missing the point that it backs up the idea that it is not a choice.

Well, no. The female form is a wonderful thing to behold for a man. The male one just isn't. So, two women going at it is kinda like 'Nice one!', where as two guys is just a bit of an unpleasent image.

As for guys hating gay men, I don't. In fact, most men don't dislike gay guys. They dislike the concept of gay men, but as individuals they don't mind them at all.

This is almost certainly because the human penis is the most grotesque object in the universe. It just looks daft. It's got to be in my top three body parts (after head and heart. Stuff you can't really be without), but it's also the one I'd least like to look at (and that's really saying something. Spleens look AWFUL). Having one of them kicking around in the bedroom during sex can only really be tolerated because it's vital to the process. Two? Forget it. One's enough. If some form of pouch could be created to cover one gay guy's cock during sex, the entire homophobia would vanish. Honest. ;)


I agree the penis is a comical organ, but don't forget many societies (such as Ancient Greece) revered the male form over and above the female one. It is social conditioning for us now to prefer the female.

it would seem to me the main reason for people to hate gays is fear. Either fear they will force you gay, or fear that you are gay, but can't accept it.

Well, no. The female form is a wonderful thing to behold for a man. The male one just isn't. So, two women going at it is kinda like 'Nice one!', where as two guys is just a bit of an unpleasent image.

If most men dont like the naked male form, why the statue of david? He is supposed to be perfection and he has a dangly bit and was sculpted by a man.

Sorry, you've just been prejudiced by christian beliefs in society.

and while we're on the female form, i'll bet the ones you like arent round shaped like botticellie's babes are they? Another societal preference.

I think many of you are missing the point. It doesn't matter whether homosexual orientation is a choice or a genetically- or environmentally-determined behavior. Either way, any decent society owes our queer brothers and sisters an equal share of rights and protections.

Agreed FCW. Men mostly like the type of woman who can hide behind a broomstick. The ones that would break in half if given a tight hug. It's something that leaves the majority, 95% of us I'm pretty sure, feeling fat, useless and ugly. =(

People need to drop these unrealistic approaches and be more open and accepting.

Um, I hate to raise this, but WHO CARES!?!?

:rolleyes:
We know! But for some God-forsaken reason there are people out there crying their eyes out every night over the fact that a random man across town likes other men.

:rolleyes:
We know! But for some God-forsaken reason there are people out there crying their eyes out every night over the fact that a random man across town likes other men.
well i know i do sometimes.... damn other men stealing all the random guys from accross town.

I hope this source isn't considered biased ;)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18424690.800

-Jimus-

I hope this source isn't considered biased ;)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18424690.800

-Jimus-
looks like a bunch of deviant sheep shaggers to me.

If most men dont like the naked male form, why the statue of david? He is supposed to be perfection and he has a dangly bit and was sculpted by a man.

David was actually a damned good-looking lad. The probalem is that almost no-one looks like that. In Western society, your average man has a beer gut, a fat ass and a broken nose. Which doesn't really do it for me.

Sorry, you've just been prejudiced by christian beliefs in society.

My own thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. I'm talking from the point of view of Western society. To be honest, even though I'm straight as a yardstick, I reckon that Dave Navarro is one of the best looking human beings alive today. I'd sleep with him. But no naughty stuff, Dave.

and while we're on the female form, i'll bet the ones you like arent round shaped like botticellie's babes are they? Another societal preference.

Actually, I look at it as my PERSONAL preference. I don't particularly like the 'supermodel' women of today, anyway. I like smiling eyes and a decent personality, rather than an evil rake with attitude problems.

Agreed FCW. Men mostly like the type of woman who can hide behind a broomstick. The ones that would break in half if given a tight hug. It's something that leaves the majority, 95% of us I'm pretty sure, feeling fat, useless and ugly. =(

People need to drop these unrealistic approaches and be more open and accepting.

This could be more a case of women being prejudiced by fashion beliefs in society. Men generally prefer women with a pulse, and fewer than four legs. The stick-figures you're talking about don't look capable of childbirth, and also disconcerting remind me of 'grey' aliens.

It must be said, I'm still not going to be interested in a blind 102 year old woman from Beruit with one leg. But is that a personal preference or a societal one?

My problem with the topic creator's article: The guy never actually cites any sources we can go and check. He says "this study" or "a research program" without actually ever giving so much as a single name.

Not only that, but his whole arguement rests on the assumption that sexuality is effected by a single gene. I forget the exact phrase (been years since biology), but many different phenotypes depend on several different genes (poly-genomal?).

David was actually a damned good-looking lad. The probalem is that almost no-one looks like that. In Western society, your average man has a beer gut, a fat ass and a broken nose. Which doesn't really do it for me.

Actually, if you're looking for hunky men, they gay sector is where they are. They're always on diets, at the gym and doing basically all they can to be as attractiva as they can be. (straight guys could take note but they dont)

Actually, I look at it as my PERSONAL preference. I don't particularly like the 'supermodel' women of today, anyway. I like smiling eyes and a decent personality, rather than an evil rake with attitude problems.

:D :D :D :D :D Oh, i'm sorry, He he! let me get my laughter back under controle!...

Hmm, give me a size then. I know UK and US sizes differ but over here the average woman is a size 16 (i believe your size 12) and they're called FAT!(botticelli's babes also had stretch marks, the marks of life and childbirth and i'd put then at an english size 18-22)

So whats the fattest woman you'd date? size 6, 8. 10? Bear in mind i have my crap detector switched on

Actually, if you're looking for hunky men, they gay sector is where they are. They're always on diets, at the gym and doing basically all they can to be as attractiva as they can be. (straight guys could take note but they dont)

Clearly, you've never been to the Gay Village in Manchester. Oh, and do you really think gay men are better dressed than straight guys? They tend to look like their wardrobe exploded.

Oh, and I want to make it quite clear right now that I'm NOT on the lookout for hunky guys. Ahem. :)

Hmm, give me a size then. I know UK and US sizes differ but over here the average woman is a size 16 (i believe your size 12) and they're called FAT!(botticelli's babes also had stretch marks, the marks of life and childbirth and i'd put then at an english size 18-22)

So whats the fattest woman you'd date? size 6, 8. 10? Bear in mind i have my crap detector switched on

If it's the same as our size 12, then their the right size for a woman to be. Less than a 10 and you're looking at anorexics, heroin addicts and children. I don't mind a 14, and I was once with a girl who was size 16. To be frank, I'd draw the line at weight rather than dress size. Once a girl weighs more than I do, I'm not interested. This is, of course, linked to MY weight, so the fatter I get the more ladies get the chance to refuse to go out with me. I'm 12 stone at the moment ('boput 180 pounds?)

If homosexuality is a choice, then so it heterosexuality. Thus everyone is 50/50 bisexual, and chooses. Interesting eh?

If homosexuality is a choice, then so it heterosexuality. Thus everyone is 50/50 bisexual, and chooses. Interesting eh?

This is the wisest thing anyone's said so far to shut up homophobic bigots. Someone e-mail this to the Pope.

If homosexuality is a choice, then so it heterosexuality. Thus everyone is 50/50 bisexual, and chooses. Interesting eh?

you're missing the point. If it is a choice, it is open to just as much criticism as religion and ideology. If it is genetic, then it is lumped in with skin colour, gender and disability

you're missing the point. If it is a choice, it is open to just as much criticism as religion and ideology. If it is genetic, then it is lumped in with skin colour, gender and disability

Umm skin colour, gender and disability often is met with far more 'criticism' than religion and ideology.

Umm skin colour, gender and disability often is met with far more 'criticism' than religion and ideology.

no, they are met with prejudice. You cannot alter the way you were born. you can make different decisions though, about religion etc.

And if you can decide people have a legitimate right to question your decisions.

no, they are met with prejudice. You cannot alter the way you were born. you can make different decisions though, about religion etc.

And if you can decide people have a legitimate right to question your decisions.

same with heterosexuality then. I have the right to question your choice to be straight.

same with heterosexuality then. I have the right to question your choice to be straight.

But it's NATURAL and it makes cute little babies and Jesus loves babies!

She/he could have just linked us the site.

actually I couldn't, the article I posted was published in a journal. I have access to it through a database program which requires authorization to use.

Either way it doesn't seem that many people read it, but I found it much more interesting than the article used in the first thread, and it should be considered mostly unbiased as it was peer reviewed and published in an academic journal.

It uses triplets as its study, rather interesting how one turned out gay while the other two did not. Debuncts rather nicely the conclusions found in the first article.

My overall problem with people trying to find the source for homosexuality is that people treat it is as a disease. If the source turns out to be the so called "gay" gene, what then? Will someone try gene therapy to "correct" it? Being gay isn't a disease, nor a crime. It is simply who you are. Whether you choose to be or not is irrevelant. If someone enjoys being with someone of the same sex who cares? It has no impact what so ever on the life of another person, except for the two involved in the relationship. Live and let live, and stay out of other peoples private affairs. If everyone did, people would be much happier.

actually I couldn't, the article I posted was published in a journal. I have access to it through a database program which requires authorization to use.

Either way it doesn't seem that many people read it, but I found it much more interesting than the article used in the first thread, and it should be considered mostly unbiased as it was peer reviewed and published in an academic journal.

It uses triplets as its study, rather interesting how one turned out gay while the other two did not. Debuncts rather nicely the conclusions found in the first article.

My overall problem with people trying to find the source for homosexuality is that people treat it is as a disease. If the source turns out to be the so called "gay" gene, what then? Will someone try gene therapy to "correct" it? Being gay isn't a disease, nor a crime. It is simply who you are. Whether you choose to be or not is irrevelant. If someone enjoys being with someone of the same sex who cares? It has no impact what so ever on the life of another person, except for the two involved in the relationship. Live and let live, and stay out of other peoples private affairs. If everyone did, people would be much happier.

I read it. :(

same with heterosexuality then. I have the right to question your choice to be straight.

yes, that's the point. I'm not saying it makes homosexuality bad, but it makes it subjective. If it is genetic, then no-one has any right questioning it.

what makes you think I'm striaght, prejudice perhaps?

A female dog that is gender confused will raise its leg to urinate, causing a disasterous mess. A Male dog will squat, same result only the liquid will shoot more forward.
My old dog was a girl and she would lift her leg from time to time. Sometime she did, sometimes she didn't. I don't think she made a huge mess when she did though.

Meh, Bottle tore apart the first post already, so there's no point...

If it's the same as our size 12, then their the right size for a woman to be. Less than a 10 and you're looking at anorexics, heroin addicts and children. I don't mind a 14, and I was once with a girl who was size 16. To be frank, I'd draw the line at weight rather than dress size. Once a girl weighs more than I do, I'm not interested. This is, of course, linked to MY weight, so the fatter I get the more ladies get the chance to refuse to go out with me. I'm 12 stone at the moment ('boput 180 pounds?)
Uh... what?


I'm a size six or eight in dresses (it varies from store to store usually, at old navy, i'm a 4) and I've got plenty of body fat and have a medium sized frame.

Size 0 is what you're looking for if you want toothpicks/children.

Uh... what?


I'm a size six or eight in dresses (it varies from store to store usually, at old navy, i'm a 4) and I've got plenty of body fat and have a medium sized frame.

Size 0 is what you're looking for if you want toothpicks/children.


i suspect that the previous post was in UK sizes, which are something like 4 bigger number for the same size

Fass said "As any queer-theorist will tell you: Answer why people are straight, and you will answer why people are gay. It isn't homosexuality that needs answering - it's heterosexuality."

This bears thinking about. If we want to know so badly why some people are homosexual, and some are heterosexual, and for that matter, some are bisexual. Why is it that we choose to examine the causes of homosexuality alone?

We like to call it "deviant behavior", and "abnormal," but if we really wanted a cause for something, we would investigate the causes for both results, not merely one over the other. We assume that heterosexuality is some sort of "Default" and that straying from this Default is abnormal. Perhaps, yes, heterosexuality is dominant, and the most pervasive. But this does not indicate anything quite like "Default" Brown eyes occur more often than blue, does this make blue eyes a abnormality that occured? Many people are Conservative, does this make Liberals an abnormality? (im not picking a political fight here) Many people are Christian, are other religions abnormalities? I find it hard to believe, that while we say that we want to talk of the "scientific" nature of homosexuality, we often do so in a manner that strikes me as baised.

The questions we need to be asking are far simpler than this entire thread has really led us to. I agree with Fass after a fashion.

The questions should look something more like:

In Sexuality, what are the causes, biological or environmental, that create the different sexuality options?

If mostly biological, what genes produce which results?

If mostly environmental, in which habbitats and life experiences drive which sexuality outcomes?

These questions imply a genuine want to actually undertand, as opposed to "justify or explain" a position already taken.

Finally, i have a problem with calling "environmental factors" - Choice.
Growing up in certain circumstances around certain stimuli, does not mean that people can "choose" one way or the other. Children who grew up in Nagasaki post world war two, could no more "choose" to have radiation problems than anyone can "choose" to be where they are from.

If we speak on homosexuality, and we talk about gay men in particular, and we want to have the notion of "choice" involved, it implies that other options were clear and valueable, and available. Someone will say to me "heterosexuality is always an option," but frankly, we do not so much "choose" most of our lives as automatically fall into it through our programming at an early age. Once discovered, any behavior can be controlled with time, help, or counceling, but these are behaviors im talking about. WHen we talk about a sexuality, were not talking about the actual processes of sex...giveing a blow job, insertation of a penis, were talking about the orientation of the mind to feel arousal from a certain (or both) gender(s). Homosexuality is not "one man giving another a blowjob"...homosexuality is "one man sexualy lusting/wanting or becoming aroused by another man." Or of course, the female variants.

Gender is a social construct, in that what "defines a man" is not merely anotomical, expectations are placed on people to be indicitive to what society tells us a man and a woman should be. In this, i partially agree with the premise that society can affect sexuality. Ancient Greece, for example, did promote a "healthy" love between men, True Love, Aristotle said could only happen between two men. Now look at our own society, we obsess with making things "not gay". In Troy, a horrible remake of the Illiad, Achielles wasnt gay, and Petrocolis was just his "cousin." The Origional Illiad, begs to differ, but TROY had to have a reason why Achielles would care that Petrocolis dies...we dont want a manly hero to be gay, so ....Petrocolis is "his cousin" instead of "special friend". You can also take a look (you're the internet community after all) at pornography, or modern sexuality. WOmen are encouraged to experiement. Many men find lesbian acts (not homosexuality persay) very errotic. Some men like the ideas of women being sexual with each other, usually with the hope that they too might get involved. In college, it is seemed to be almost expected that women will experiement with other women. Why is this? Is this biological? or enviromental? So yes, after a fashion sexuality is manipulated by environs, but this is not to say that the actual orientation is a choice.

So.......the question becomes one of value. If people are inclined to be homosexual, should they be discouraged from acting sexually with the same gender? To this....I say no. Marraige, and partnership is no longer about procreation in the modern era...we like to believe Love is Love. So then, why should it matter, heterosexual, or Homosexual, or bixesual, which way a person is oriented? I do not ask "why is someone homosexual" anymore...i ask "why should anyone care?"

-Scott

no, they are met with prejudice. You cannot alter the way you were born. you can make different decisions though, about religion etc.

And if you can decide people have a legitimate right to question your decisions.
ok, im going to take issue with you pretty much saying gender isnt seen by some as changeable

there are quite a few people that say that transsexuals should just get therapy, so they think that even gender is changeable, and not something you are born with

ok, im going to take issue with you pretty much saying gender isnt seen by some as changeable

there are quite a few people that say that transsexuals should just get therapy, so they think that even gender is changeable, and not something you are born with

a majority of transexuals are likely to say they were born in the opposite gender to their body. Perhaps I should have said 'sex'

a majority of transexuals are likely to say they were born in the opposite gender to their body.
thats what i believe

Perhaps I should have said 'sex'
well, if thats what you meant then disregard my post

OOC: woooooooooooooooooooooooooow! Dang, this seems to be a pretty hot topic now... can I get an update since page 3 please? Free cookie to whoever gives me the most indepth (but short) summary! :)

OOC: woooooooooooooooooooooooooow! Dang, this seems to be a pretty hot topic now... can I get an update since page 3 please? Free cookie to whoever gives me the most indepth (but short) summary! :)

everyone has been rambling in circles and no real progress has been made.

Research in the area is fitted to whatever people want it to say.

Ok, about and hour and a half ago I went looking for evidence that homosexuality is innate, whether or not gays are born gay. What I found? Well the overwhelming majority of what I found was biased opinions and pure unmasked speculation (with a healthy dash of lame ass bullshit from just about every camp imaginable.) I did find one particular site that seemed to at least scrounge up past scientific studies and neatly refute them all (from a mainly secular perspective no less.) So, after finishing reading it, I decided to share it along with some of my own contributions.

Ok, lets get started
_____________________________________

The Evidence For a Biological Cause

Evidence 1:
"I feel like I cannot change"
This is the most common reason for saying that homosexuality has a biological basis. But the same argument could be used for any learned belief or behavior that becomes deeply ingrained. People often say "I cannot change how I feel" about a person or a topic. But when they find out more about that person or topic, their feelings often do change.

Evidence 2:
Twin Studies – Result So Far: No
The obvious way to find if gays are genetically programmed to be gay is to look at identical twins, who are (of course) genetically identical. If being gay has a simple genetic cause like eye colour, we would expect each pair of twins to be either both gay or both straight (given the choice). That is not the case. So the only thing we can say with absolute certainty is your genes alone did not make you gay.

But perhaps certain genes make being gay more likely? To find out, you would need to find a large number of identical twins, who were all separated at birth (to eliminate the possibility that upbringing makes someone gay). And you would need enough gay men to make the study statistically significant. It is unlikely that anyone will find enough sets of gay identical twins who were separated at birth to make any kind of general conclusions, so this avenue of study is not very helpful.

Identical Twins Tend to Choose the Same Things:
If you look the same as someone else, have the same level of physical strength and agility, and think of the other person as your extra-special friend, you are more likely to choose the same kind of thing. For example, if one twin likes sports, goes to the movies a lot, and thinks he looks good wearing denim, an identical twin is more likely to think the same, compared with a non-identical twin who may be bad at sports, prefer music to movies, and looks better in leather. All these things are affected by whether of not the twins share the exact same genes. But they are all the result of choice.

Naturally, since identical twins are more likely to make the same choices, if one chooses to be gay, the other is a little more likely to choose that as well (compared with a non-identical twin). There are also other possible explanations – such twin studies usually have very small sample sizes, and are thus easily biased by random fluctuations.

In conclusion, twin studies are consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of free choice.

Evidence 3:
Brain Sizes – Result So Far: No
In 1991 and 1992, research was published which suggested that two parts of the brain were slightly different sizes in gay men as compared with straight men.

It seemed pretty conclusive at he time – gays ARE different. The gay lobby got excited. But this was dealt a serious blow in March 2000, when research was published that showed that taxi drivers also had different brain structures. In taxi drivers, the part that dealt with navigation – the hippocampus – was larger than in non-taxi drivers. Does that mean that there is a taxi driving gene too? That some babies are pre-programmed to drive taxis?

The researchers concluded that if you use your brain differently from other people, it will grow differently. It has nothing to do with being born that way – it is down to freedom of choice.

Evidence 4A:
Fruit Flies and Rats – Result So Far: Yes (But It Favours the 'Choices' Model)
It has been discovered that a single transplanted gene can cause fruit flies to display homosexual behaviour. However, when you experiment with moving genes, you are in effect damaging an otherwise normal brain. The easiest thing is to cause some kind of harmful damage. You can induce some very strange behaviour (or strange mutations) by changing genes in fruit flies (although by careful trial and error you could in theory also create neutral or beneficial changes). This kind of research could most easily be interpreted as saying that homosexuality is a kind of brain damage, which I am sure is not what was intended. (Actually, in this case no conventional illnesses result, but the 'bisexual' fruit flies are unable to perform sexually.)

"This 'bisexual' fly strain has existed behaviorally unchanged through hundreds of generations." (Not because the bisexual flies have offspring, but because two normal flies can carry half the gene, which becomes complete in a percentage of their offspring. Some of their other offspring will have half genes, ready for the next generation, and so on.) If this is the mechanism in humans, we should expect homosexuality to appear consistently in some families and not at all in others. But this is not the case. So if the fruit fly results mean anything, they show that, even if you are 'born to be gay', you can quite happily choose otherwise.

Evidence 4B:
Dysfunctional Rats
Similarly it has been found that if you castrate a male rat and pump it it full of female hormones, it makes some of the sexual movements seen in female rats. But this to me is the sign of a very confused rat having dysfunctional behaviour. An even bigger problem is assuming that humans act like lab rats – as if we just respond to chemical stimuli without the conscious ability to choose and interpret. Are we to believe that gay men have no more freedom of thought than a damaged fruit fly or a drugged rat?

Perhaps referring to rats and flies is unfair. Perhaps similar behaviour can be prompted in monkeys. But the same principle applies. We are comparing a creature of instinct to a creature of free thought. It is true that people, when we are young, lazy, or misled, can give up freedom to drugs or biological urges. But is that how we want to classify ourselves? Is this the self image we are choosing? "Hi – my name's David. I have decided to shut down my freedom of choice and become a slave to whatever forces happen to push me around. Why not join me?"

Evidence 5:
Some Animals Are Homosexual – Yes, and Some Animals Also Eat Their Young
See www.newscientist.com/ns/19990807/queercreat.html for details. Researchers have documented a wide variety of homosexual behaviours across the animal kingdom. One prominent researcher of the subject "stresses that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform phenomenon. His mission is to document its sheer diversity." Given that homosexual behaviour in animals is essentially counter-productive (it does not result in passing on more genes) the easiest explanation is to note that animals exhibit all kinds of behaviours– some beneficial, some less so. It is only humans who group some behaviours together and call them all "homosexual." It seems clear that a proportion of all animals will show these behaviours. That is how "natural selection" works. In the absence of sufficient intelligence, variety is the only way to cope with the unexpected. Those with extremely counter-productive lifestyles (e.g. those that get themselves killed, do not eat, or mate with the same sex) do not pass their genes on to the next generation.

It could be argued that because animals do it, that makes it "right," or at least "normal." But many animals also kill their own young, and certainly kill each other. Sexual behaviour in general in the animal kingdom is closer to what we would call "rape." So I would suggest that animals are not a good guide to how life "should" be. Humans have a great advantage over animals. We have a greater degree of free choice, reasoning ability and accountability.

What is 'Natural'?
We need to be clear what we are advocating when we say something is "natural." The natural world operates by the law of the jungle – the strong survive and the weak starve. Life is pleasant only to the extent that animals do not think about the dangers. Homosexuality, like all other animal behaviours, exists in this context. From a human point of view, natural life is "nasty, brutish and short." Humans have the opportunity to rise above this by developing rules. "Natural," on its own, is not a good argument.

Could It Be Beneficial in Any Way?
It could also be argued that homosexual behaviour may have some social role (this was argued in the case of bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) who exhibit these behaviours more than most. But even if proven, we need to be very careful. A strategy that works for a relatively simple society that also relies on relatively low intelligence and a certain amount of killing, may not be so ideal for human society.

With the bonobos, it has been suggested that male-male sexual behaviour is a result of pressure – they live in large groups, and the potential for stepping on each other is great. They need some way to diffuse the situation, and sex seems to work. This seems to support Desmond Morris's statement that such behaviour is a result of being forced together. But there is another alternative, a better way to live in groups. It is to devise structures and institutions that allow individual freedom. Heterosexual marriage is one such institution. Homosexual marriage has been suggested as another, but (as noted in the page on "what's wrong with it?") this would tend to decrease freedom, decrease variety, and increase tension.

Finally, it should be remembered that homosexual behaviour in animals is still in a minority pursuit (which is one reason it has taken so long to be recognised). The dominant (and therefore more successful) strategy is heterosexuality.

Evidence 6:
A 'Gay Gene?' Result So Far: No
The best known evidence was published in 1993 (plus a couple of follow-up studies) by Dean Hamer. He claimed to find a correlation (not a cause, but a correlation – a coincidence) between a certain gene and gay men. The media started talking of a "gay gene," even though the researchers did say that many people had this gene who were not gay, and some gay men did not have the gene. Even so, it looked hopeful, although statisticians pointed out that, to be certain, the sample group would have to be much, much larger. But in 1999, a different researcher carried out the same experiment, and found no evidence at all that this so-called gay gene existed. He found that the occurrence of the so-called "gay gene" was no greater in gay men than in straight men. (See "Where Did the Gay Gene Go?" on the ABC News site.

Evidence 7:
Hormones – Result: No
Men have more testosterone, and women have more oestrogen. So homosexual men are somewhere in between? Twenty years ago, the research here was like the research into hormones in the womb (see below). It all looked very promising. But as more and more studies were completed, the evidence began to look weaker and weaker.

"Three studies did show that homosexuals had significantly lower levels of testosterone, but [a scientist who studied all the results together] believed that two of them were methodologically unsound and that the third was tainted by psychotropic drug use on the part of its subjects. Two studies actually reported higher levels of testosterone in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, and one unhelpfully showed the levels to be higher in bisexuals than in either heterosexuals or homosexuals."

Researchers have just about given up on this idea. But a similar idea – that hormone levels were different in the womb, before a baby was born – are still popular.

Evidence 8A:
Hormones in the Womb – Results Can Be Explained By the Environment
This is the 'The prenatal-hormone hypothesis" – that gay men and lesbians are the result of unusual amounts of male and female hormones acting on the unborn child. But the evidence is weak (as I shall show), and the whole theory is pretty shaky:

"The evidence from hormonal research may circumstantially implicate biology in sexual orientation, but it is far from conclusive. William Byne raises a warning flag: 'If the prenatal-hormone hypothesis were correct, then one might expect to see in a large proportion of homosexuals evidence of prenatal endocrine disturbance, such as genital or gonadal abnormalities. But we simply don't find this.'"

The rest of this section looks at the individual evidences for the hormone theory. (Sources: Most quotes are from the Chandler Burr article. The remainder are from articles in a San Francisco newspaper, Newsweek, Reuters, and NewScientist, all available on the web.)

Evidence 8B:
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a condition where a baby in the womb is flooded with far too much male hormone. A baby girl can then look physically a little similar to a boy. But this is superficial – internally and by chromosomes she is indeed a girl. Corrective surgery then allows her to be raised as a girl. If hormones determine sexual orientation, surely all such women would be lesbians? In fact, the majority are heterosexual.

But about a third describe themselves as either 'lesbian' or 'bisexual.' This is much higher than average, but entirely consistent with a 'free choices' model of development. Imagine that you were a child, a girl. All children feel they are different and look to their environment to help them decide who they are. Imagine discovering that you really were physically different at birth – a little like a boy. Wouldn't you grab on to that as an important proof that you really were different? Wouldn't you identify strongly with bisexuals and others who also appeared to cross the gender gap? It would be 'only natural' to feel that way, and we do not need to look to a different brain structure for a cause.

Evidence 8C:
Older Brothers

"Ray Blanchard [has] shown that boys who have greater numbers of older brothers have a higher likelihood of being gay. Blanchard says he thinks Breedlove's study furthers the theory that hormones in the womb have an effect on the eventual sexual orientation of the fetus."

Note that there is no direct evidence for the hormones – they are only inferred as a possible cause. "Breedlove said it's a complete mystery as to how a mother's body could 'remember' how many male children she had borne, where this signal was kept and how it could influence hormone levels of a later-born child."

As usual, the effect, if real, is only slight. There are plenty of younger brothers in the world who are not gay. And many men who consider themselves gay have no older brothers. "Indeed, when asked how he accounted for men with no older brothers who are still homosexual, Breedlove replied that 'we have no explanation for their sexual orientation." And once again, this can easily be explained in terms of upbringing. If you are surrounded by older brothers, you are more likely to either a) be bullied by them, which might lead you to reject conventional aggressive heterosexual norms, or b) admire and respect them, which admiration might be transferred to males in general. Neither effect would be enough to make every young brother gay, but each could be enough to distort the statistics as observed.

Evidence 8D:
Finger Length

Newsweek summed it up like so: "Scientists have long believed that finger lengths may indicate the levels to which a fetus was exposed to male sex hormones, such as androgen, while in the womb. ... A person's finger-ratio is the index finger's length divided by the ring finger's length. In men, the average ratio is 0.95. For women, 0.97. Lesbians who participated, the Berkeley team found, scored 0.96" (It should be emphasised that these were averages – some heterosexual men have ratios above 0.97, and some lesbian women have rations below 0.95.)

This only applies to women. In gay men there was no overall difference. There may have been some effect linked to having older brothers or not, but the sample was not large enough to say.

I don't know how this was received in the US, but the next day, one of the best selling newspapers in the UK (which was not known for being anti-Gay) published a double page spread on the subject. Researchers have searched newspaper archives for clear photos of the hands of the world's most famous gay and straight celebrities. All the famous gay men and lesbians had "heterosexual" hands, and all the famous heterosexuals (such as those famous for heterosexual desire) had "gay" hands. Of course, this wasn't a scientific study – it was a piece of mischievous fun. But it was all genuine.

Plainly, it is silly to say "my finger length means I was born to be gay." As usual, personal choice is far more important. One observer comments wryly:

"The researchers caution – in a disclaimer that probably will be widely ignored – that these differences apply only as broad averages in large samples, not to individuals. One stubby-fingered father of two, who ignored the business about averages over large populations, was surprised to discover he was lesbian."

Similar research has suggested that lesbians are more likely to have more masculine-looking inner ears.

But how do we explain the effect, no matter how small? Perhaps because having more masculine hands would suggest a more masculine body in general. Even as young children, peers and parents would notice this and make subtle (usually unconscious) judgements. This affects the person's self image. So a more masculine looking person is less likely to identify with the feminine norm. They are thus more susceptible to choosing an orientation that accepts and values their more masculine outlook.

Is the Evidence Really So Strong?
At the time of writing, the finger length study is hot news. Some newspapers (the New York Post online edition, for example) describe the research with words like "stunning," and write as if it was all proven.

But another possibility is that it is all a statistical fluke in a single study. The recent finger study suggested that gay men had more male hormones than normal. It goes against all the other theories, where gay men are more like women:

"John Manning of the University of Liverpool has found the opposite in gay men: that their finger ratios veer more towards the feminine. ... Manning also wonders if Breedlove's data may have been slightly muddied because the research did not take account of ethnicity. He has found big population variations in 2D:4D ratios. 'The geographical differences swamp the sex differences,' says Manning. 'There's more difference between a Pole and a Finn than between a man and a woman.'"

Evidence 8E:
Sex-typical Play Behaviour

"Robert Goy [at the University of Wisconsin at Madison] has done many studies over the years showing that you can reverse the sex-typical play behavior of infant monkeys by hormonal manipulations in prenatal life. [Play] is an example of a sex-reversed trait in gay people that's not directly related to sex. It's not sex, it's play. When you get to adulthood, these things become blurred. It's easier to tell a gay kid than a gay adult–kids are much of a muchness. Most gay men, even those who are very macho as adults, recall at least some gender-atypical behavior as children."

The assumed cause – hormonal changes in the womb – is pure speculation. But even if true, this supports the 'free choice' theory of sexuality. When we are young, we are less aware of our choices. (In the Church for example, children are not considered accountable until the age of eight. In the legal system it is often later.) So it is notable that young children could be manipulated by their hormones, but adults show more freedom of choice.

Evidence 8F:
Damage in the Earliest Stages

"[One theory is] what Green refers to as male "vulnerability" during the process of sexual differentiation. A considerably larger number of male embryos come into existence than female embryos, and yet males and females come into the world in about the same numbers. Therefore, phenomena linked to sex must reduce the number of males who survive to term. Many disorders are, in fact, more common in men than women, and some of these could result from problems originating in masculine differentiation. Although good statistics do not exist, it appears that there may be two gay men for every gay woman, which would be consistent with the vulnerability theory."

Is this the publicity that gay men want? That they are basically damaged, babies who narrowly escaped the 'reject' bin?
Conclusion

What If, One Day, a Biological Influence Was Discovered?
This has not happened yet, but who knows? Perhaps one day something will be discovered. But if it exists, it must be very weak – or else all identical twins would be always both gay or both straight. Clearly the biggest factor is choice.

If a biological predisposition to homosexuality was discovered, it would be no different in principle from a predisposition to be athletic, or obese, or alcoholic, or musical. It would be easier to go one way and more difficult to go another way, but the most powerful influence is still free choice. As someone who is currently on a diet (I need to lose w-a-y too many pounds – and keep it off) I know what it is like to have a deep-felt desire to put on weight. Since everyone in my family seems to be the same, I assume there is some biological influence. But I also know that by changing my lifestyle I can choose for myself. Even though dieting can be psychologically damaging, being fatter does not necessarily mean being happier.

The Bottom Line

The important question is not "is there a biological influence?"
The important question is "is there anything wrong with it?"

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/gay_gene.htm
Source ^^^
_____________________________________

First I would like to contribute a bit from my own life. I am personally friends with a man who "was once gay" as he will quite willingly explain to most anyone interested. In my mind he remains the strongest evidence I have that homosexuality is pure choice. I literally watched this man take control of his life and his feelings and make a decision that has shaped his life for the past several years. In college he was a gay man, he is now married with two kids and does not have any regrets about his choice. He is not bisexual, he completely insists upon being called a heterosexual and his choice had NOTHING to do with religious beliefs of any kind or outside pressure for that matter. Apart from that he is a rather brilliant individual as for as creative talent goes.

Second I would like to address Sparta. Sparta as I'm sure some of you know was a Greek city state renowned for it's extremely efficient military (Thermopylae anyone?) and on a related note, it's homosexuals. Spartan education for men was almost entirely based on the military. All Spartan males where sent to Military Academies at a very young age, there they where openly encouraged to form homosexual relationships with fellow students and teachers. The idea behind this was that in the Phalanx formation where you were expected to provide protection to the man standing directly to your side by covering him with part of your Hoplon (the man on your other side was expected to do the same for you.) Their belief was that a soldier would be more willing to protect the man standing beside him if that man were his lover. Sure enough, Spartan Academies consistently mass produced homosexuals (who then had to go through a "readjustment period" in which they where expected to take a wife and have kids.) Of course to Greek culture in general homosexuality was simply a non issue, their was no societal pressure against them. To them it was completely "natural" and as such was extremely prevalent. To me at least the entire civilization just reeks of "choice."

Well anyway, it seems most everyone here seems to think that homosexuality has been "proven" to be inborn. Sorry to burst your collective bubble. If anyone here can give some evidence that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin to refute any of this feel free.
I believe that that must be the longest post on any forum in the history of the internet. Now that I have quoted you, however, mine is longer.

We like to call it "deviant behavior", and "abnormal," but if we really wanted a cause for something, we would investigate the causes for both results, not merely one over the other. We assume that heterosexuality is some sort of "Default" and that straying from this Default is abnormal. Perhaps, yes, heterosexuality is dominant, and the most pervasive. But this does not indicate anything quite like "Default" Brown eyes occur more often than blue, does this make blue eyes a abnormality that occured? Many people are Conservative, does this make Liberals an abnormality? (im not picking a political fight here) Many people are Christian, are other religions abnormalities? I find it hard to believe, that while we say that we want to talk of the "scientific" nature of homosexuality, we often do so in a manner that strikes me as baised.


The domminance is overwhelming, which is why hetrosexuality is seen as defult. In the largest ever study of sexual patterns of behaviour carried out by Kaye Wellings, Anne Johnson and others (largest refering to largest sample population) only 0.4% of those studied claimed either to be homosexual or have any kind of homosexual tendencies. Moreover, there is an observable logic to male-female attraction as it can produce ofspring nautrally. Attraction leads to pro-creation (note here - I am not saying that sex for non procreational purposes is wrong, just that hetrosexuality has an observable logic) which in turn leads to the continuation of the speices. The same can't be said of homosexuality. While homosexuality is not a disease, it is an abnormality with no obserable logic to it, unlike hetrosexuality.

I believe that that must be the longest post on any forum in the history of the internet. Now that I have quoted you, however, mine is longer.

nope, seen longer in the LIFE antiabortion forum

OOC: woooooooooooooooooooooooooow! Dang, this seems to be a pretty hot topic now... can I get an update since page 3 please? Free cookie to whoever gives me the most indepth (but short) summary! :)
I can sum it up in one word!
Floccinaucinihilipilification.

The domminance is overwhelming, which is why hetrosexuality is seen as defult. In the largest ever study of sexual patterns of behaviour carried out by Kaye Wellings, Anne Johnson and others (largest refering to largest sample population) only 0.4% of those studied claimed either to be homosexual or have any kind of homosexual tendencies. Moreover, there is an observable logic to male-female attraction as it can produce ofspring nautrally. Attraction leads to pro-creation (note here - I am not saying that sex for non procreational purposes is wrong, just that hetrosexuality has an observable logic) which in turn leads to the continuation of the speices. The same can't be said of homosexuality. While homosexuality is not a disease, it is an abnormality with no obserable logic to it, unlike hetrosexuality.

that 0.4% doesn't fit with the 10% I have seen in every study I have read. Are you sure you are correct?

that 0.4% doesn't fit with the 10% I have seen in every study I have read. Are you sure you are correct?

Yes, 10% is an estimate figure most of the time. Very few verified sociological studies have come up with anything over 5%.

Ok, about and hour and a half ago I went looking for evidence that homosexuality is innate, whether or not gays are born gay. What I found? Well the overwhelming majority of what I found was biased opinions and pure unmasked speculation (with a healthy dash of lame ass bullshit from just about every camp imaginable.) I did find one particular site that seemed to at least scrounge up past scientific studies and neatly refute them all (from a mainly secular perspective no less.) So, after finishing reading it, I decided to share it along with some of my own contributions.

Ok, lets get started
_____________________________________

The Evidence For a Biological Cause

Evidence 1:
"I feel like I cannot change"
This is the most common reason for saying that homosexuality has a biological basis. But the same argument could be used for any learned belief or behavior that becomes deeply ingrained. People often say "I cannot change how I feel" about a person or a topic. But when they find out more about that person or topic, their feelings often do change.

Evidence 2:
Twin Studies – Result So Far: No
The obvious way to find if gays are genetically programmed to be gay is to look at identical twins, who are (of course) genetically identical. If being gay has a simple genetic cause like eye colour, we would expect each pair of twins to be either both gay or both straight (given the choice). That is not the case. So the only thing we can say with absolute certainty is your genes alone did not make you gay.

But perhaps certain genes make being gay more likely? To find out, you would need to find a large number of identical twins, who were all separated at birth (to eliminate the possibility that upbringing makes someone gay). And you would need enough gay men to make the study statistically significant. It is unlikely that anyone will find enough sets of gay identical twins who were separated at birth to make any kind of general conclusions, so this avenue of study is not very helpful.

Identical Twins Tend to Choose the Same Things:
If you look the same as someone else, have the same level of physical strength and agility, and think of the other person as your extra-special friend, you are more likely to choose the same kind of thing. For example, if one twin likes sports, goes to the movies a lot, and thinks he looks good wearing denim, an identical twin is more likely to think the same, compared with a non-identical twin who may be bad at sports, prefer music to movies, and looks better in leather. All these things are affected by whether of not the twins share the exact same genes. But they are all the result of choice.

Naturally, since identical twins are more likely to make the same choices, if one chooses to be gay, the other is a little more likely to choose that as well (compared with a non-identical twin). There are also other possible explanations – such twin studies usually have very small sample sizes, and are thus easily biased by random fluctuations.

In conclusion, twin studies are consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of free choice.

Evidence 3:
Brain Sizes – Result So Far: No
In 1991 and 1992, research was published which suggested that two parts of the brain were slightly different sizes in gay men as compared with straight men.

It seemed pretty conclusive at he time – gays ARE different. The gay lobby got excited. But this was dealt a serious blow in March 2000, when research was published that showed that taxi drivers also had different brain structures. In taxi drivers, the part that dealt with navigation – the hippocampus – was larger than in non-taxi drivers. Does that mean that there is a taxi driving gene too? That some babies are pre-programmed to drive taxis?

The researchers concluded that if you use your brain differently from other people, it will grow differently. It has nothing to do with being born that way – it is down to freedom of choice.

Evidence 4A:
Fruit Flies and Rats – Result So Far: Yes (But It Favours the 'Choices' Model)
It has been discovered that a single transplanted gene can cause fruit flies to display homosexual behaviour. However, when you experiment with moving genes, you are in effect damaging an otherwise normal brain. The easiest thing is to cause some kind of harmful damage. You can induce some very strange behaviour (or strange mutations) by changing genes in fruit flies (although by careful trial and error you could in theory also create neutral or beneficial changes). This kind of research could most easily be interpreted as saying that homosexuality is a kind of brain damage, which I am sure is not what was intended. (Actually, in this case no conventional illnesses result, but the 'bisexual' fruit flies are unable to perform sexually.)

"This 'bisexual' fly strain has existed behaviorally unchanged through hundreds of generations." (Not because the bisexual flies have offspring, but because two normal flies can carry half the gene, which becomes complete in a percentage of their offspring. Some of their other offspring will have half genes, ready for the next generation, and so on.) If this is the mechanism in humans, we should expect homosexuality to appear consistently in some families and not at all in others. But this is not the case. So if the fruit fly results mean anything, they show that, even if you are 'born to be gay', you can quite happily choose otherwise.

Evidence 4B:
Dysfunctional Rats
Similarly it has been found that if you castrate a male rat and pump it it full of female hormones, it makes some of the sexual movements seen in female rats. But this to me is the sign of a very confused rat having dysfunctional behaviour. An even bigger problem is assuming that humans act like lab rats – as if we just respond to chemical stimuli without the conscious ability to choose and interpret. Are we to believe that gay men have no more freedom of thought than a damaged fruit fly or a drugged rat?

Perhaps referring to rats and flies is unfair. Perhaps similar behaviour can be prompted in monkeys. But the same principle applies. We are comparing a creature of instinct to a creature of free thought. It is true that people, when we are young, lazy, or misled, can give up freedom to drugs or biological urges. But is that how we want to classify ourselves? Is this the self image we are choosing? "Hi – my name's David. I have decided to shut down my freedom of choice and become a slave to whatever forces happen to push me around. Why not join me?"

Evidence 5:
Some Animals Are Homosexual – Yes, and Some Animals Also Eat Their Young
See www.newscientist.com/ns/19990807/queercreat.html for details. Researchers have documented a wide variety of homosexual behaviours across the animal kingdom. One prominent researcher of the subject "stresses that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform phenomenon. His mission is to document its sheer diversity." Given that homosexual behaviour in animals is essentially counter-productive (it does not result in passing on more genes) the easiest explanation is to note that animals exhibit all kinds of behaviours– some beneficial, some less so. It is only humans who group some behaviours together and call them all "homosexual." It seems clear that a proportion of all animals will show these behaviours. That is how "natural selection" works. In the absence of sufficient intelligence, variety is the only way to cope with the unexpected. Those with extremely counter-productive lifestyles (e.g. those that get themselves killed, do not eat, or mate with the same sex) do not pass their genes on to the next generation.

It could be argued that because animals do it, that makes it "right," or at least "normal." But many animals also kill their own young, and certainly kill each other. Sexual behaviour in general in the animal kingdom is closer to what we would call "rape." So I would suggest that animals are not a good guide to how life "should" be. Humans have a great advantage over animals. We have a greater degree of free choice, reasoning ability and accountability.

What is 'Natural'?
We need to be clear what we are advocating when we say something is "natural." The natural world operates by the law of the jungle – the strong survive and the weak starve. Life is pleasant only to the extent that animals do not think about the dangers. Homosexuality, like all other animal behaviours, exists in this context. From a human point of view, natural life is "nasty, brutish and short." Humans have the opportunity to rise above this by developing rules. "Natural," on its own, is not a good argument.

Could It Be Beneficial in Any Way?
It could also be argued that homosexual behaviour may have some social role (this was argued in the case of bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) who exhibit these behaviours more than most. But even if proven, we need to be very careful. A strategy that works for a relatively simple society that also relies on relatively low intelligence and a certain amount of killing, may not be so ideal for human society.

With the bonobos, it has been suggested that male-male sexual behaviour is a result of pressure – they live in large groups, and the potential for stepping on each other is great. They need some way to diffuse the situation, and sex seems to work. This seems to support Desmond Morris's statement that such behaviour is a result of being forced together. But there is another alternative, a better way to live in groups. It is to devise structures and institutions that allow individual freedom. Heterosexual marriage is one such institution. Homosexual marriage has been suggested as another, but (as noted in the page on "what's wrong with it?") this would tend to decrease freedom, decrease variety, and increase tension.

Finally, it should be remembered that homosexual behaviour in animals is still in a minority pursuit (which is one reason it has taken so long to be recognised). The dominant (and therefore more successful) strategy is heterosexuality.

Evidence 6:
A 'Gay Gene?' Result So Far: No
The best known evidence was published in 1993 (plus a couple of follow-up studies) by Dean Hamer. He claimed to find a correlation (not a cause, but a correlation – a coincidence) between a certain gene and gay men. The media started talking of a "gay gene," even though the researchers did say that many people had this gene who were not gay, and some gay men did not have the gene. Even so, it looked hopeful, although statisticians pointed out that, to be certain, the sample group would have to be much, much larger. But in 1999, a different researcher carried out the same experiment, and found no evidence at all that this so-called gay gene existed. He found that the occurrence of the so-called "gay gene" was no greater in gay men than in straight men. (See "Where Did the Gay Gene Go?" on the ABC News site.

Evidence 7:
Hormones – Result: No
Men have more testosterone, and women have more oestrogen. So homosexual men are somewhere in between? Twenty years ago, the research here was like the research into hormones in the womb (see below). It all looked very promising. But as more and more studies were completed, the evidence began to look weaker and weaker.

"Three studies did show that homosexuals had significantly lower levels of testosterone, but [a scientist who studied all the results together] believed that two of them were methodologically unsound and that the third was tainted by psychotropic drug use on the part of its subjects. Two studies actually reported higher levels of testosterone in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, and one unhelpfully showed the levels to be higher in bisexuals than in either heterosexuals or homosexuals."

Researchers have just about given up on this idea. But a similar idea – that hormone levels were different in the womb, before a baby was born – are still popular.

Evidence 8A:
Hormones in the Womb – Results Can Be Explained By the Environment
This is the 'The prenatal-hormone hypothesis" – that gay men and lesbians are the result of unusual amounts of male and female hormones acting on the unborn child. But the evidence is weak (as I shall show), and the whole theory is pretty shaky:

"The evidence from hormonal research may circumstantially implicate biology in sexual orientation, but it is far from conclusive. William Byne raises a warning flag: 'If the prenatal-hormone hypothesis were correct, then one might expect to see in a large proportion of homosexuals evidence of prenatal endocrine disturbance, such as genital or gonadal abnormalities. But we simply don't find this.'"

The rest of this section looks at the individual evidences for the hormone theory. (Sources: Most quotes are from the Chandler Burr article. The remainder are from articles in a San Francisco newspaper, Newsweek, Reuters, and NewScientist, all available on the web.)

Evidence 8B:
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a condition where a baby in the womb is flooded with far too much male hormone. A baby girl can then look physically a little similar to a boy. But this is superficial – internally and by chromosomes she is indeed a girl. Corrective surgery then allows her to be raised as a girl. If hormones determine sexual orientation, surely all such women would be lesbians? In fact, the majority are heterosexual.

But about a third describe themselves as either 'lesbian' or 'bisexual.' This is much higher than average, but entirely consistent with a 'free choices' model of development. Imagine that you were a child, a girl. All children feel they are different and look to their environment to help them decide who they are. Imagine discovering that you really were physically different at birth – a little like a boy. Wouldn't you grab on to that as an important proof that you really were different? Wouldn't you identify strongly with bisexuals and others who also appeared to cross the gender gap? It would be 'only natural' to feel that way, and we do not need to look to a different brain structure for a cause.

Evidence 8C:
Older Brothers

"Ray Blanchard [has] shown that boys who have greater numbers of older brothers have a higher likelihood of being gay. Blanchard says he thinks Breedlove's study furthers the theory that hormones in the womb have an effect on the eventual sexual orientation of the fetus."

Note that there is no direct evidence for the hormones – they are only inferred as a possible cause. "Breedlove said it's a complete mystery as to how a mother's body could 'remember' how many male children she had borne, where this signal was kept and how it could influence hormone levels of a later-born child."

As usual, the effect, if real, is only slight. There are plenty of younger brothers in the world who are not gay. And many men who consider themselves gay have no older brothers. "Indeed, when asked how he accounted for men with no older brothers who are still homosexual, Breedlove replied that 'we have no explanation for their sexual orientation." And once again, this can easily be explained in terms of upbringing. If you are surrounded by older brothers, you are more likely to either a) be bullied by them, which might lead you to reject conventional aggressive heterosexual norms, or b) admire and respect them, which admiration might be transferred to males in general. Neither effect would be enough to make every young brother gay, but each could be enough to distort the statistics as observed.

Evidence 8D:
Finger Length

Newsweek summed it up like so: "Scientists have long believed that finger lengths may indicate the levels to which a fetus was exposed to male sex hormones, such as androgen, while in the womb. ... A person's finger-ratio is the index finger's length divided by the ring finger's length. In men, the average ratio is 0.95. For women, 0.97. Lesbians who participated, the Berkeley team found, scored 0.96" (It should be emphasised that these were averages – some heterosexual men have ratios above 0.97, and some lesbian women have rations below 0.95.)

This only applies to women. In gay men there was no overall difference. There may have been some effect linked to having older brothers or not, but the sample was not large enough to say.

I don't know how this was received in the US, but the next day, one of the best selling newspapers in the UK (which was not known for being anti-Gay) published a double page spread on the subject. Researchers have searched newspaper archives for clear photos of the hands of the world's most famous gay and straight celebrities. All the famous gay men and lesbians had "heterosexual" hands, and all the famous heterosexuals (such as those famous for heterosexual desire) had "gay" hands. Of course, this wasn't a scientific study – it was a piece of mischievous fun. But it was all genuine.

Plainly, it is silly to say "my finger length means I was born to be gay." As usual, personal choice is far more important. One observer comments wryly:

"The researchers caution – in a disclaimer that probably will be widely ignored – that these differences apply only as broad averages in large samples, not to individuals. One stubby-fingered father of two, who ignored the business about averages over large populations, was surprised to discover he was lesbian."

Similar research has suggested that lesbians are more likely to have more masculine-looking inner ears.

But how do we explain the effect, no matter how small? Perhaps because having more masculine hands would suggest a more masculine body in general. Even as young children, peers and parents would notice this and make subtle (usually unconscious) judgements. This affects the person's self image. So a more masculine looking person is less likely to identify with the feminine norm. They are thus more susceptible to choosing an orientation that accepts and values their more masculine outlook.

Is the Evidence Really So Strong?
At the time of writing, the finger length study is hot news. Some newspapers (the New York Post online edition, for example) describe the research with words like "stunning," and write as if it was all proven.

But another possibility is that it is all a statistical fluke in a single study. The recent finger study suggested that gay men had more male hormones than normal. It goes against all the other theories, where gay men are more like women:

"John Manning of the University of Liverpool has found the opposite in gay men: that their finger ratios veer more towards the feminine. ... Manning also wonders if Breedlove's data may have been slightly muddied because the research did not take account of ethnicity. He has found big population variations in 2D:4D ratios. 'The geographical differences swamp the sex differences,' says Manning. 'There's more difference between a Pole and a Finn than between a man and a woman.'"

Evidence 8E:
Sex-typical Play Behaviour

"Robert Goy [at the University of Wisconsin at Madison] has done many studies over the years showing that you can reverse the sex-typical play behavior of infant monkeys by hormonal manipulations in prenatal life. [Play] is an example of a sex-reversed trait in gay people that's not directly related to sex. It's not sex, it's play. When you get to adulthood, these things become blurred. It's easier to tell a gay kid than a gay adult–kids are much of a muchness. Most gay men, even those who are very macho as adults, recall at least some gender-atypical behavior as children."

The assumed cause – hormonal changes in the womb – is pure speculation. But even if true, this supports the 'free choice' theory of sexuality. When we are young, we are less aware of our choices. (In the Church for example, children are not considered accountable until the age of eight. In the legal system it is often later.) So it is notable that young children could be manipulated by their hormones, but adults show more freedom of choice.

Evidence 8F:
Damage in the Earliest Stages

"[One theory is] what Green refers to as male "vulnerability" during the process of sexual differentiation. A considerably larger number of male embryos come into existence than female embryos, and yet males and females come into the world in about the same numbers. Therefore, phenomena linked to sex must reduce the number of males who survive to term. Many disorders are, in fact, more common in men than women, and some of these could result from problems originating in masculine differentiation. Although good statistics do not exist, it appears that there may be two gay men for every gay woman, which would be consistent with the vulnerability theory."

Is this the publicity that gay men want? That they are basically damaged, babies who narrowly escaped the 'reject' bin?
Conclusion

What If, One Day, a Biological Influence Was Discovered?
This has not happened yet, but who knows? Perhaps one day something will be discovered. But if it exists, it must be very weak – or else all identical twins would be always both gay or both straight. Clearly the biggest factor is choice.

If a biological predisposition to homosexuality was discovered, it would be no different in principle from a predisposition to be athletic, or obese, or alcoholic, or musical. It would be easier to go one way and more difficult to go another way, but the most powerful influence is still free choice. As someone who is currently on a diet (I need to lose w-a-y too many pounds – and keep it off) I know what it is like to have a deep-felt desire to put on weight. Since everyone in my family seems to be the same, I assume there is some biological influence. But I also know that by changing my lifestyle I can choose for myself. Even though dieting can be psychologically damaging, being fatter does not necessarily mean being happier.

The Bottom Line

The important question is not "is there a biological influence?"
The important question is "is there anything wrong with it?"

http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/gay_gene.htm
Source ^^^
_____________________________________

First I would like to contribute a bit from my own life. I am personally friends with a man who "was once gay" as he will quite willingly explain to most anyone interested. In my mind he remains the strongest evidence I have that homosexuality is pure choice. I literally watched this man take control of his life and his feelings and make a decision that has shaped his life for the past several years. In college he was a gay man, he is now married with two kids and does not have any regrets about his choice. He is not bisexual, he completely insists upon being called a heterosexual and his choice had NOTHING to do with religious beliefs of any kind or outside pressure for that matter. Apart from that he is a rather brilliant individual as for as creative talent goes.

Second I would like to address Sparta. Sparta as I'm sure some of you know was a Greek city state renowned for it's extremely efficient military (Thermopylae anyone?) and on a related note, it's homosexuals. Spartan education for men was almost entirely based on the military. All Spartan males where sent to Military Academies at a very young age, there they where openly encouraged to form homosexual relationships with fellow students and teachers. The idea behind this was that in the Phalanx formation where you were expected to provide protection to the man standing directly to your side by covering him with part of your Hoplon (the man on your other side was expected to do the same for you.) Their belief was that a soldier would be more willing to protect the man standing beside him if that man were his lover. Sure enough, Spartan Academies consistently mass produced homosexuals (who then had to go through a "readjustment period" in which they where expected to take a wife and have kids.) Of course to Greek culture in general homosexuality was simply a non issue, their was no societal pressure against them. To them it was completely "natural" and as such was extremely prevalent. To me at least the entire civilization just reeks of "choice."

Well anyway, it seems most everyone here seems to think that homosexuality has been "proven" to be inborn. Sorry to burst your collective bubble. If anyone here can give some evidence that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin to refute any of this feel free.


I believe that that must be the longest post on any forum in the history of the internet. Now that I have quoted you, however, mine is longer.


Ywned.

I believe i did my best to answer the question at hand by changing it into the one that people are really thinking.

Its not "why is someone gay" but "why do we care if you are?"

When it comes down to it, there are two camps...those who want to justify it with "choice" and those who want to justify it with Genetics....the former, because then the choice is one controllable and one side can point their finger at the other and say "witch!"....The other because then they can point their finger at the other side and say "nanner nanner, you cant hate us without being an asshole!"

My question i think is underlying fervor in peole.

Yes, 10% is an estimate figure most of the time. Very few verified sociological studies have come up with anything over 5%.

check out this study

ON THE PREVALENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND BISEXUALITY IN A RANDOM COMMUNITY SURVEY OF 750 MEN AGED 18 TO 27
Christopher Bagley, Ph.D. and Pierre Tremblay, B.Sc., B.Ed. Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary.

why do you care?

If people want to be gay then let them be gay, its nothing to do with anyone except the person himself/herself

just leave gay people alone, who cares if itsa biological, through nuture, because of abuse or whatever, just accept them as they are now instead of demeaning them by trying to find a root caused of homosexuality like you'd fine a root cause of a disease.

check out this study

ON THE PREVALENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND BISEXUALITY IN A RANDOM COMMUNITY SURVEY OF 750 MEN AGED 18 TO 27
Christopher Bagley, Ph.D. and Pierre Tremblay, B.Sc., B.Ed. Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary.

750 people is nothing compared to the 100,000's in Kaye Welling's paper. Its the largest single study into sexual behavior ever undertaken and sucessfully published.

750 people is nothing compared to the 100,000's in Kaye Welling's paper. Its the largest single study into sexual behavior ever undertaken and sucessfully published.
Now how does the Welling paper define homosexual as opposed to considering both homsexuality and bisexuality?

The domminance is overwhelming, which is why hetrosexuality is seen as defult. In the largest ever study of sexual patterns of behaviour carried out by Kaye Wellings, Anne Johnson and others (largest refering to largest sample population) only 0.4% of those studied claimed either to be homosexual or have any kind of homosexual tendencies. Moreover, there is an observable logic to male-female attraction as it can produce ofspring nautrally. Attraction leads to pro-creation (note here - I am not saying that sex for non procreational purposes is wrong, just that hetrosexuality has an observable logic) which in turn leads to the continuation of the speices. The same can't be said of homosexuality. While homosexuality is not a disease, it is an abnormality with no obserable logic to it, unlike hetrosexuality.


The "logic" your talking about here is based on the idea that procreation is necessary and/or good. If you justify Heterosexuality with its ability to procreate and continue the life processes, then all sexuality must be goverened on those basis'. If producing life is the only means by which we judge a sexuality to have merit, value, or logic to it, then it will be the most logical choice, with bisexuality comeing in a close second, homosexuality a distant third and asexuality (yes i know people who are attracted to nothing) coming in last.

Logic is a funny thing, in that often enough it shows bias. Yes, heterosexuality produces (often enough) future generations....why is this a justification of orientation? If sex, and therefore sexuality, is only aimed at one end, procreation, then the pleasures derived from it are soley in order to GET a species to procreate. In which case, this implies that procreation is not something that a species would want to do (like carrying a child to term and birth) and has to be tricked into doing. In this, homosexuality would seem to excape mother natures demands and be a MORE logical choice for pleasure. The question is.......upon which demands is logic defined, pleasure? companionship? procreation? or something even other.

-Scott

why do you care?

If people want to be gay then let them be gay, its nothing to do with anyone except the person himself/herself

just leave gay people alone, who cares if itsa biological, through nuture, because of abuse or whatever, just accept them as they are now instead of demeaning them by trying to find a root caused of homosexuality like you'd fine a root cause of a disease.

Here Here! Let people be people, let us be compassionate regardless.

Kaye Welling's study was based on 19,000, not 100,000s as you claim.

be careful with your exaggerations, people may start to dismiss you as a liar

Now how does the Welling paper define homosexual as opposed to considering both homsexuality and bisexuality?

The Welling paper said in its research paper that homosexuality included

- Those who were attracted to members of the same sex (not nessecarly exclusively)
- Those who considered engaging in homosexual sex more than hetrosexual sex
- Those who were in or had been in a serious relationship with a member of the same sex

There were more complex questions I am sure, but these were the ones mentioned in my sociology textbook (where this infomation comes from).

Kaye Welling's study was based on 19,000, not 100,000s as you claim.

be careful with your exaggerations, people may start to dismiss you as a liar

Not according to my textbook. It says that it covered over 100,000 people in the UK.

Bottle already took care of most of the initial post, but she didn't mention a response to this:

"The evidence from hormonal research may circumstantially implicate biology in sexual orientation, but it is far from conclusive. William Byne raises a warning flag: 'If the prenatal-hormone hypothesis were correct, then one might expect to see in a large proportion of homosexuals evidence of prenatal endocrine disturbance, such as genital or gonadal abnormalities. But we simply don't find this.'"

Actually, there are studies which show that gay men, on average, have larger penises than their heterosexual counterparts, thus disputing William Byne's claim.

Let me first be sure that everyone knows I'm basically unbiased on this issue at least I'm certainly not biased in favour of gays (though I'm not biased agains them either).

1) I'm a conservative republican
2) I'm not gay


Now, I work in theatre (yes, I know, a republican in the theatre, who'da thunk it?). This means that I know and am friends with a LOT of gay people. As much as I hate continuing the stereotype of the gay men in musical theatre, it's just true. There's a lot of them. I've often debated with myself as to whether or not it's biological. And I believe it isn't. But it's also NOT A CHOICE. The simple fact is that, though they are gay, it is very, very rarely a choice. If you could choose to be gay, why would you? It's much easier being straight. We don't have people who think we're going to burn in hell or are otherwise biased against us. We don't get strange or disapproving looks when we walk down the street with a significant other (by we, I mean heterosexuals). So, are 95% of the gay people on this planet lying and they decided to be gay even though it would make their lives much much harder? Or is it possible that being gay is neither a choice nor is it biological? I say it is.

The "logic" your talking about here is based on the idea that procreation is necessary and/or good. If you justify Heterosexuality with its ability to procreate and continue the life processes, then all sexuality must be goverened on those basis'. If producing life is the only means by which we judge a sexuality to have merit, value, or logic to it, then it will be the most logical choice, with bisexuality comeing in a close second, homosexuality a distant third and asexuality (yes i know people who are attracted to nothing) coming in last.

I am not saying that it "justifies" hetrosexuality as being "good" but that it does mean that homosexuality is an abnormality. Much like an appendix, it is something there with no visable purpose and there is no significent impact if it is removed. You must see that the reason people see homosexuality as an abnormality is that unlike hetrosexuality it has no logical conculison. The ultimate expression of a hetrosexual relationship can be said to be children. Children are nessecary to continue the human race. Homosexuality can be said to be an abnormality in this sense.

Actually, there are studies which show that gay men, on average, have larger penises than their heterosexual counterparts, thus disputing William Byne's claim.
Perhaps there are gay men with small penises, but rather than getting out of the closet and hooking up with someone to whom they'd feel inadequate, they pretend they're straight and find a woman who has never seen one and marry her on the spot.

Perhaps there are gay men with small penises, but rather than getting out of the closet and hooking up with someone to whom they'd feel inadequate, they pretend they're straight and find a woman who has never seen one and marry her on the spot.
It is possible that gay men with small penises might be less likely to volunteer for such a study, but your comment seems to confuse sexual orientation with sexual behavior.

I am not saying that it "justifies" hetrosexuality as being "good" but that it does mean that homosexuality is an abnormality. Much like an appendix, it is something there with no visable purpose and there is no significent impact if it is removed. You must see that the reason people see homosexuality as an abnormality is that unlike hetrosexuality it has no logical conculison. The ultimate expression of a hetrosexual relationship can be said to be children. Children are nessecary to continue the human race. Homosexuality can be said to be an abnormality in this sense.

Im not sure i like either the "no significent impact if it is removed." or the "The ultimate expression of a hetrosexual relationship can be said to be children." Parts, but ill express this: Why is the continuence of the race, an end? Is propogation in your mind an end unto itself? Many a philosopher would ask you why we propogate at all? Or why life exists at all? TO what END do we propogate ourselves?

Hetrosexuality's tendency to reproduce, doesnt really make sense either. The fact that children CAN result from a coupling doesnt mean that it will. And the Fact that Homosexuality coupling can't Doesnt mean there are no other ends. If someone was to say that the ultimate end of sexuality was pleasure, wouldnt then the Homosexual have an advantage in that it would not cause a byproduct of offspring? Or further still, Bisexuality would have an advantage in that individuals would have more to choose from.

I simply have a problem with you justifying Heterosexuality's Logic on its end in offspring, yes, that is a result, but that doesnt mean it justify's Heterosexualities existance. To do that, youd have to also justify LIFE's existance. And now we'd be on another topic entirely.

First I would like to contribute a bit from my own life. I am personally friends with a man who "was once gay" as he will quite willingly explain to most anyone interested. In my mind he remains the strongest evidence I have that homosexuality is pure choice.

I'm sure you intended to be 'objective'... but the Scientific Method is not best observed when you walk into a situation with a pre-concluded result.

The fact that you have an 'ex-gay' friend, whom you cite as an 'evidence', and that you say is a strong influence in your beliefs on the matter - shows that you approached the subject with at least SOME bias.

Congratulations on the scope of your research. I strongly disagree with some of your 'conclusions', and think that you would also - if you viewed them utterly objectively.

Homosexual marriage DECREASES variety?

Homosexuals in a group are less productive to that society?

It is an unfortuante truth, but scientists often find themselves having to accept things that conflict with what they previously 'knew'.

I am not saying that it "justifies" hetrosexuality as being "good" but that it does mean that homosexuality is an abnormality. Much like an appendix, it is something there with no visable purpose and there is no significent impact if it is removed. You must see that the reason people see homosexuality as an abnormality is that unlike hetrosexuality it has no logical conculison. The ultimate expression of a hetrosexual relationship can be said to be children. Children are nessecary to continue the human race. Homosexuality can be said to be an abnormality in this sense.

Imagine a group of five people.

Two of those people are heterosexual, and have a child.
Two of those people are brother or sister to the child-bearing couple... one is 'gay' (and the fifth 'person' is that person's lover) nd one is straight.

A believable model, yes?

Okay - the 'straight couple' love their offspring, and the uncles/aunts love the offspring... as does the member of the extended family (the unrelated homosexual).

Now - Imagine the house catches fire... and someone needs to get to the child to save him/her.

The child has a MUCH BETTER chance of survival, with this extended family, yes?

So - the 'homosexual couple' might not produce their OWN offspring (although they CAN still have offspring)... but they vastly increase the survival prospects of other children WITHIN their community.

It is possible that gay men with small penises might be less likely to volunteer for such a study, but your comment seems to confuse sexual orientation with sexual behavior.
How so?
In my experience with heterosexual men, it seems that a number of them are insecure about the size of their penis. If a homosexual man was insecure about size, do you think he would want to be with someone who owns equipment that dwarfs his own? I think it would be more likely that he would enter a sham marriage kind of deal with a woman who lacks experience to know anything about how big penises usually are and perhaps act the part of a homophobe to cover for the fact that he is in fact gay and insecure about the size of his member.

yes, that's the point. I'm not saying it makes homosexuality bad, but it makes it subjective. If it is genetic, then no-one has any right questioning it.

what makes you think I'm striaght, prejudice perhaps?

Yes, probably :)

I think it was the use of "your" which implied an otherness to the discussion.

And, with many thanks to Bottle (again) I don't think it is ever going to be an absolute answer between genetics and choices - I think this is a false "versus."

I also don't subscribe to the view that anyone has the right to "question" my lesbianism

None of the people arguing that homosexuality is a choice have addressed the APA findings yet, which have been posted in this thread at least twice.

I would find it most interesting to see someone with that point of view addressing that information here.

None of the people arguing that homosexuality is a choice have addressed the APA findings yet, which have been posted in this thread at least twice.

I would find it most interesting to see someone with that point of view addressing that information here.


Thats becuase no matter of scientific inquiry can answer a metaphysical question.

Those studies, dont bloody well matter...in the least.

There really IS NO question of Environment Vs choice vs Genetics

Becuase even if every variable was accounted for, it doesnt answer why we care if someone IS or Is not gay. I just dont think most of the populace are champions of the propigation of the race to no specific end. I dont think most people are champions of anything. People who argue these sides want their lives more comfortable, and if they can justify their own predetermined views, then their lives are made that much more comfortable. Some argue for their right to exist, others want to curb that right. Its all a matter of what makes us comfortable, and frankly it sickens me.

I am.....I feel is obvious, in Favor of Gay rights. Cause who the hell am I...in my bastion of Heterosexualitidom, to deny them what i would want for myself? I have no more importance, deriving from my sexuality than they do from theirs. I am no more or less justified in my orientation or choices to act on that orientation, than anyone else. Life is. People are. Stop hating differences.

Look, you aren't going to "find" an answer. However, the APA (which I really doubt anyone is looking at because they haven't made comment) has already determined that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

Look 'em up if you want. They're scientists and can't afford to be wrong when so many fields look back to their work fo use in whatever decision needs to be made. Whether or not you agree doesn't matter... this is what is legitly declared by science as far as now. So just lay off and let it be. Gays aren't going away even if you DO decide it's a choice because you can't deny a man's choice to be with another man either.

Choice or not, it's a matter of human rights. Let the couple have sex, be happy, and be a family. It's of no consequence to anyone else besides businesses who will make a HUGE profit from capitalizing on them. :fluffle:

And please give the APA note. Their actual studies done aren't linked to, but really, if all you want is scientific verification, there it is.

If a homosexual man was insecure about size, do you think he would want to be with someone who owns equipment that dwarfs his own? I think it would be more likely that he would enter a sham marriage kind of deal with a woman who lacks experience to know anything about how big penises usually are and perhaps act the part of a homophobe to cover for the fact that he is in fact gay and insecure about the size of his member.

Oh Dakini, do you actually know any gay men with small dicks? I do, medically small, so much so his mother took him to professionals in his teens to see if it could be fixed.

Add to that he had a homophobic father.

No sham marriage, no in the closet, he came out at 18. His mother was devistated, his father didnt speak to him until he was dieing 20 yrs later (the father that is). And he had a small dick and has had at least 3 long term relationships since i can remember (he's my uncle so older than I) and many many short term relationships.

Please dont talk crap about stuff you dont understand! :sniper:

Oh Dakini, do you actually know any gay men with small dicks? I do, medically small, so much so his mother took him to professionals in his teens to see if it could be fixed.

Add to that he had a homophobic father.

No sham marriage, no in the closet, he came out at 18. His mother was devistated, his father didnt speak to him until he was dieing 20 yrs later (the father that is). And he had a small dick and has had at least 3 long term relationships since i can remember (he's my uncle so older than I) and many many short term relationships.

Please dont talk crap about stuff you dont understand! :sniper:
Huh. You think you could have been ruder in your post?

Fuck. I know straight guys with tiny dicks who are fine with it. I know straight guys with above average ones who think they're small. I know guys who probably have really small ones but claim to be 13 inches (I onyl guess they're small because... well, come on... it seems rediculous that there would be so many guys with 13 inch cocks) I know guys who are apparantly well endowed who claim they're two inches just because they feel like it. Guys are strange about their cocks.

I never said that every gay man does this or that. That woudl be fucking retarded. Yet you seem to have jumped and made that assumption and were incredibly rude to me in the process. Thanks for being a jerk to a comment that was half joking in the first place.

How so?
In my experience with heterosexual men, it seems that a number of them are insecure about the size of their penis. If a homosexual man was insecure about size, do you think he would want to be with someone who owns equipment that dwarfs his own? I think it would be more likely that he would enter a sham marriage kind of deal with a woman who lacks experience to know anything about how big penises usually are and perhaps act the part of a homophobe to cover for the fact that he is in fact gay and insecure about the size of his member.
No, but he has the option of entering a relationship with a man who has a smaller penis than he does. I find it difficult to believe that someone could be so difficult about their penis size that they could completely repress their sexuality to the opposite of what it is.

No, but he has the option of entering a relationship with a man who has a smaller penis than he does. I find it difficult to believe that someone could be so difficult about their penis size that they could completely repress their sexuality to the opposite of what it is.
See my last post.

I was joking. fuck.

Huh. You think you could have been ruder in your post?

Well yes. Could you have been more ignorant and striotypical? Sex isnt the be all and end all for a lot of gay men!

I grew up with gay men, i know a hell of a lot of which i speak. can you say the same? then dont assume, you make an ass out of you, not me!

Well yes. Could you have been more ignorant and striotypical? Sex isnt the be all and end all for a lot of gay men!

I grew up with gay men, i know a hell of a lot of which i speak. can you say the same? then dont assume, you make an ass out of you, not me!
How do we make font sizes bigger so that this can get through to you?



I WAS JOKING!


I never said sex was the be all and end all for gay men, I know it fucking isn't, ok? Geez. Don't break out some retarded fucking bigot card on me, if you'd read any of my other posts on this subject you would fucking know that that isn't the case.

Now get your head out of your ass. Your assumption has made an ass out of you as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, honestly, couldn't you detect the absolute absurdity of the post?

See my last post.

I was joking. fuck.
Yes, I saw that you were joking after I made my post.

Yes, I saw that you were joking after I made my post.
Sorry.

I get a little testy when someone claims I'm a bigot when they don't know anything at all about me, such as the person I replied to in the post previous to yours.

Sorry.

I get a little testy when someone claims I'm a bigot when they don't know anything at all about me, such as the person I replied to in the post previous to yours.
Understandable.

Especially considering the part where I take a shot at homophobes suggesting that they may be that way because they're really secretly gay but are insecure about their tiny penises. I mean... geez. I'm surprised someone didn't jump over that bit and claim that I was reusing the "homophobes must have underlying homosexual tendencies that they're afraid of" stereotype.

I get a little testy when someone claims I'm a bigot when they don't know anything at all about me, such as the person I replied to in the post previous to yours.

I never called you a biggot, i just said you should not speak of that which you do not know. I stand by that.

And it wasnt a funny joke since i have a gay relative with a micro penis. i get testy! (my joke! :D )

I never called you a biggot, i just said you should not speak of that which you do not know. I stand by that.

And it wasnt a funny joke since i have a gay relative with a micro penis. i get testy! (my joke! :D )
You called me ignorant and stereotypical... that's about the same thing as being a bigot in my books.

It wasn't so much a joke perse, it was intended to be in a joking, lighthearted tone, like the grand majority of my posts on this board. There have been too many of these threads to take them seriously anymore.

I'm surprised someone didn't jump over that bit and claim that I was reusing the "homophobes must have underlying homosexual tendencies that they're afraid of" stereotype.
There are also studies which support this, too. :D

There are also studies which support this, too.

There are studies to support everything.

Like i've read 3 not too long ago that say ketchup, red wine and beer are good for you. I think these scientists go home at night, get nagged for bad habbits and say to themselves "i'm gonna prove it's good for me" et voila, they do! :D

There are also studies which support this, too. :D
I know, but try to get a homophobe to admit that.

I personlly think the sexuality spectrum theory kind of thing has merit. So it would make sense if someone has some slight tendency to attraction to members of the same gender but are mostly attracted to members of the opposite gender would be confused and concerned about these feelings of attraction and fight against those feelings by attacking those who are open in expressing such feelings.

I personlly think the sexuality spectrum theory kind of thing has merit. So it would make sense if someone has some slight tendency to attraction to members of the same gender but are mostly attracted to members of the opposite gender would be confused and concerned about these feelings of attraction and fight against those feelings by attacking those who are open in expressing such feelings.

I do believe you've just summed up my homophobic grandfather!

What I can't understand is why people spend their time looking for a REASON for homosexuality, and I include science in this. Can't it just be a given? Give me a great case for heterosexuality. Where's the gene? Nature or nurture? Who cares?

What I can't understand is why people spend their time looking for a REASON for homosexuality, and I include science in this. Can't it just be a given? Give me a great case for heterosexuality. Where's the gene? Nature or nurture? Who cares?

It's curiosity, people always want to know why.

It's like the mind, very little is known about the whys of it (honosexuality included) and people wont stop looking into it. We're a very curious race.

Now if only they could tell me why i crave Belgian Chocolate Hagen Daz and cure it! :D

And I shall keep posting it until someone reads it... :headbang:

Look, you aren't going to "find" an answer. However, the APA (which I really doubt anyone is looking at because they haven't made comment) has already determined that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

Look 'em up if you want. They're scientists and can't afford to be wrong when so many fields look back to their work fo use in whatever decision needs to be made. Whether or not you agree doesn't matter... this is what is legitly declared by science as far as now. So just lay off and let it be. Gays aren't going away even if you DO decide it's a choice because you can't deny a man's choice to be with another man either.

Choice or not, it's a matter of human rights. Let the couple have sex, be happy, and be a family. It's of no consequence to anyone else besides businesses who will make a HUGE profit from capitalizing on them. :fluffle:

And please give the APA note. Their actual studies done aren't linked to, but really, if all you want is scientific verification, there it is.

APA (American Psychological Association)
APA
APA
APA
APA

Okay... I'm done. And know I'm not being pushy... but I hate random speculation when this is clearly (as far as I can tell) what you are looking for.

Don't go any deeper because straighs haven't experienced it and can't just jump to conclusions, and gays or GBLT can't PROVE how they think anymore than straights can PROVE to me that breasts are fascinating.

Gays are gay.. because they are. Straights are straigth ... because they are.
What you SHOULD be arguing is whether ther actually is ANY reason at all to prohibit gays from marrying, because frankly.. I can't find a logical one. It will bring in SO many new economic markets, keep the people concerned happy by giving them human rights that many European countries seem to be fine with, and it's not going to make gays any more predominant than they are. You'll just have to see them as an actual family now instead of socially stigmatized individuals. Oh.. no. Not... that. :rolleyes:

I refuse to post on this, aside from one liners.

Some Animals Are Homosexual – Yes, and Some Animals Also Eat Their Young

So being gay is comparible to eating your children...LOL Genius :D

BIAS DOES NOT MAKE A SOURCE INVALID. The only way that is the case if it is actually saying something that is not true and has no facts backing it up.

Dude, do you actually read what I write? Bias makes me distrustful of a source. It might be right, it might be wrong, you just don't know. Bias exists in all humans. However, scientific journals hav ea peer review process for a reason--the minimize bias and to ensure that the facts and methods are valid and do their best to avoid bias. No peer review process exists within church websites. It's simply not the way its done. For all I know this, article could be great science (though based upon what other sources like the APA say, its bogus). However, I don't know that because it was denied the peer review process. Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time reading something that may or may not be valid and that hasn't undergone considerable scrutiny by experts that can at least make me reasonably assured.

:sniper: ok listen i have no problem with the gay minority the problem would be if a gay male tryed to flert with me then i would eather walk away very fast of punch him in the head and keep on doing it :mp5: :fluffle:

Speaking as a gay male, let me assure that we very rarely hit on guys we aren't sure is gay. Granted, I live in Mississippi, so things might be different elsewhere. However, should I ever hit on you, all you have to do is tell you are straight and not interested--I will blush, apologize profusely, and then leave you alone. It really only takes a polite response.

Speaking as a gay male, let me assure that we very rarely hit on guys we aren't sure is gay. Granted, I live in Mississippi, so things might be different elsewhere. However, should I ever hit on you, all you have to do is tell you are straight and not interested--I will blush, apologize profusely, and then leave you alone. It really only takes a polite response.
I had a crush on my best friend in high school. Unfortunately he turned out to be heterosexual *sob* But I tried anyway. I still think about how it would have been with him, had he been gay *sigh* But generally you're right. Most men, especially heterosexuals, overrate their own attraction for other people.

Wow, I'm so proud of you all that have for admitting that you are gay. It takes a very deep strength of character to do that in our society. Heck, it took me a while to admit I behave more manly than most girls (despite being straight). The true weaklings are the people who hide thier emotions behind bigotry and hatred for what they don't understand.

Well done :)

listen im a straite male and i dont have a problem being around men of the "opposite sex" its just different the fact im straite makes me feel a weird arround the gay minority :fluffle:

listen im a straite male and i dont have a problem being around men of the "opposite sex" its just different the fact im straite makes me feel a weird arround the gay minority :fluffle:
Translation:
Listen. I am a straight male, and I don't have a problem being around gays, its just that being straight makes me feel weird around the gay minority.

listen im a straite male and i dont have a problem being around men of the "opposite sex" its just different the fact im straite makes me feel a weird arround the gay minority :fluffle:

No one feels totally comfortable around people who are different than them--whether by culture or sexuality or simply interests. This is especially true when you don't have much exposure to those people or a close friend who can help you feel more comfortable. In short nothing is wrong with being uncomfortable around gays--just remember how many gay people spend their whole lives being uncomfortable in a world that abuses them.

Similar research has suggested that lesbians are more likely to have more masculine-looking inner ears.

That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on NS.

That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read on NS.

I knew a lesbian once and she had THE most manly looking cochlea. :D

I am not saying that it "justifies" hetrosexuality as being "good" but that it does mean that homosexuality is an abnormality. Much like an appendix, it is something there with no visable purpose and there is no significent impact if it is removed.

really? so removing a person's sexuality has no significant impact? changing who they choose for a lover or life-partner has no impact?

i guess your love life isn't important to you, but i know mine is to me.

You must see that the reason people see homosexuality as an abnormality is that unlike hetrosexuality it has no logical conculison. The ultimate expression of a hetrosexual relationship can be said to be children. Children are nessecary to continue the human race. Homosexuality can be said to be an abnormality in this sense.
first of all, i am getting really bloody sick and tired of explaining that THE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT DEFINED BY HOW MANY BABIES THEY PUMP OUT. i have no idea why it is so difficult for people to wrap their heads around this detail, but it's high time you did because i am really freaking bored of having to explain freshman bio to every wingnut homophobe who won't open a book on their own.

now, as for your post, what you are actually saying is that people see homosexuality as abnormal because homosexual relationships don't necessarily have the SAME "conclusion" as SOME heterosexual relationships may have. remember, many homosexuals DO have children (indeed, they often have the children who have been thrown away by heterosexuals, children who would never grow and prosper without the loving adoptive family that their heterosexual parents were unwilling to provide), and thus child-production and child-rearing is not the exclusive or inherent province of heterosexuals. remember that having a baby does not necessarily improve an individual's reproductive success...only if that baby successfully matures and procreates will it have contributed to its parent's reproductive fitness, so making lots of babies who fail to procreate is no different (fitness-wise) than having no babies at all. in nature's eye, having one really awesome kid who succeeds like mad is better than ten failure kids.

additionally, please do not ignore the fact that a great many heterosexual relationships do NOT have children as a "logical conclusion." over 4 million heterosexual married Americans describe themselves as "childless by choice" with no intent to ever have children, yet i would wager they feel there are many "logical conclusions" to their relationships.

of course, not everybody is so pathetic as to marry solely for procreative purposes. some people think marriage should be about more than sex and babies. perhaps, oh say, love? honor? companionship? the fulfillment of building and sharing a life with a person who is worthy of your trust and affections? i know these pitiful things do not seem "logical conclusions" for relationships to you, but there are many humans who believe our increased brain capacity makes it possible (and even favorable) to have more complex life goals than breeding. many humans go so far as to think there are ways a human can contribute to the world OTHER than having babies. it may seem a ludicrous fringe theory, but there are even people who think the purpose of human life is not simply to breed until we over-run our environment, that humanity could set goals for its children beyond "breed like bunnies."

remember that population control in animals is established by starvation and plague, and that the numbers of an animal population are kept in check by environmental pressures that human beings constantly seek to overcome. our numbers are not checked by nature the way those of an animal population would be, so it is up to us to show responsibility in the face of our massive power over the Earth; we must limit our own numbers, and recognise that trying to out-breed all other humans is going to be counter productive in the long run.

remember also: if we are to claim that those relationships which produce the most children are the ones with "logical conclusions," then you should be 100% supporting mandatory polygamy. the best way to maximize reproduction is for a single male to have many females, all of whom he keeps continually impregnated. think about the difference in baby-production between homosexuals and heterosexuals; homosexuals do make their own babies, but compared to heteros the numbers are very low, right? well monogamous heterosexual relationships stack up against polygamous relationships even WORSE than homosexual relationships do against heterosexual relationships. polygamous relationships are orders of magnitude more "logical" in their "conclusions," by your standards, so we are all being complete dopes by having these illogical and relatively non-productive monogamous relationships.

many humans even go so far as to think there are ways a human can contribute to the world OTHER than having babies.

What?
Like finding a cure for cancer and/or aids, ending hunger, poverty and war forever, free education for everyone, and all that stuff? Nonsense, we'll just make more babies instead. :rolleyes:

I'm contributed to the world by not having babies. Too many people already, and face it, my genes aren't that great.

What?
Like finding a cure for cancer and/or aids, ending hunger, poverty and war forever, free education for everyone, and all that stuff? Nonsense, we'll just make more babies instead. :rolleyes:

And why? Because sex is easier and more fun and popping out babies gives us justification to have lots and lots of it inspite of guilt.

What?
Like finding a cure for cancer and/or aids, ending hunger, poverty and war forever, free education for everyone, and all that stuff? Nonsense, we'll just make more babies instead. :rolleyes:
damn right. when speaking of the "logical conclusion" of any human effort, we clearly are refering not to the conclusion that would result in the best possible outcome, but the conclusion that matches best with what a non-sentient animal would do in the wild.

Its a choice, people are capable of thinking themselves into any condition. People that think positive when they have cancer are more likley to recover, I think that homosexuality is the same way.
It's not an illness...

really? so removing a person's sexuality has no significant impact? changing who they choose for a lover or life-partner has no impact?

i guess your love life isn't important to you, but i know mine is to me..

Nice way to take the quote out of context. I was not refering to the individual people, but to society as a whole. If you take hetrosexuality out of the demographic model then you end up with a species that will die off in a few years. Take homosexuality out of the model, culture changes but little else


first of all, i am getting really bloody sick and tired of explaining that THE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT DEFINED BY HOW MANY BABIES THEY PUMP OUT. i have no idea why it is so difficult for people to wrap their heads around this detail, but it's high time you did because i am really freaking bored of having to explain freshman bio to every wingnut homophobe who won't open a book on their own.

now, as for your post, what you are actually saying is that people see homosexuality as abnormal because homosexual relationships don't necessarily have the SAME "conclusion" as SOME heterosexual relationships may have. remember, many homosexuals DO have children (indeed, they often have the children who have been thrown away by heterosexuals, children who would never grow and prosper without the loving adoptive family that their heterosexual parents were unwilling to provide), and thus child-production and child-rearing is not the exclusive or inherent province of heterosexuals. remember that having a baby does not necessarily improve an individual's reproductive success...only if that baby successfully matures and procreates will it have contributed to its parent's reproductive fitness, so making lots of babies who fail to procreate is no different (fitness-wise) than having no babies at all. in nature's eye, having one really awesome kid who succeeds like mad is better than ten failure kids.

additionally, please do not ignore the fact that a great many heterosexual relationships do NOT have children as a "logical conclusion." over 4 million heterosexual married Americans describe themselves as "childless by choice" with no intent to ever have children, yet i would wager they feel there are many "logical conclusions" to their relationships.

of course, not everybody is so pathetic as to marry solely for procreative purposes. some people think marriage should be about more than sex and babies. perhaps, oh say, love? honor? companionship? the fulfillment of building and sharing a life with a person who is worthy of your trust and affections? i know these pitiful things do not seem "logical conclusions" for relationships to you, but there are many humans who believe our increased brain capacity makes it possible (and even favorable) to have more complex life goals than breeding. many humans go so far as to think there are ways a human can contribute to the world OTHER than having babies. it may seem a ludicrous fringe theory, but there are even people who think the purpose of human life is not simply to breed until we over-run our environment, that humanity could set goals for its children beyond "breed like bunnies."

remember that population control in animals is established by starvation and plague, and that the numbers of an animal population are kept in check by environmental pressures that human beings constantly seek to overcome. our numbers are not checked by nature the way those of an animal population would be, so it is up to us to show responsibility in the face of our massive power over the Earth; we must limit our own numbers, and recognise that trying to out-breed all other humans is going to be counter productive in the long run.

remember also: if we are to claim that those relationships which produce the most children are the ones with "logical conclusions," then you should be 100% supporting mandatory polygamy. the best way to maximize reproduction is for a single male to have many females, all of whom he keeps continually impregnated. think about the difference in baby-production between homosexuals and heterosexuals; homosexuals do make their own babies, but compared to heteros the numbers are very low, right? well monogamous heterosexual relationships stack up against polygamous relationships even WORSE than homosexual relationships do against heterosexual relationships. polygamous relationships are orders of magnitude more "logical" in their "conclusions," by your standards, so we are all being complete dopes by having these illogical and relatively non-productive monogamous relationships.

For the "insert medium sized but still signifently large number here"th time I am not saying that hetrosexuality is somehow supiror to homosexuality because it produces children. Nor am I saying that if you produce more children you are better of than someone who doesnt have any. What I am saying is that in terms of the demographic model, hetrosexuality can be seen to have its place. It enables the population to continue rising. While I am aware that many homosexual couples have children (via either adoption or other methods) the fact remains that they have to circumvent the "Normal" method. As you can see, therefore, purely in terms of demography (I hate it when people get emotively angry about this as it clouds the issue) you can see that homosexuality is a demographic abnormality, which is why people treat it like one. You can see the logic of hetrosexuality in that in sustains the population, granted not in all cases but generally. However the same is not true of homosexuality which is why people see it often as an abnormality.

Nice way to take the quote out of context. I was not refering to the individual people, but to society as a whole. If you take hetrosexuality out of the demographic model then you end up with a species that will die off in a few years. Take homosexuality out of the model, culture changes but little else


Neo. I realise this is going to be difficult for you to accept...

Homosexuals CAN have children.

Two of my best friends back in England have a fifteen-year-old son, despite being lesbians. Think how that COULD have happened.

Just because you don't 'like' something, doesn't mean you can't 'do' it, if you need to.

Nice way to take the quote out of context. I was not refering to the individual people, but to society as a whole. If you take hetrosexuality out of the demographic model then you end up with a species that will die off in a few years. Take homosexuality out of the model, culture changes but little else

For the "insert medium sized but still signifently large number here"th time I am not saying that hetrosexuality is somehow supiror to homosexuality because it produces children. Nor am I saying that if you produce more children you are better of than someone who doesnt have any. What I am saying is that in terms of the demographic model, hetrosexuality can be seen to have its place. It enables the population to continue rising. While I am aware that many homosexual couples have children (via either adoption or other methods) the fact remains that they have to circumvent the "Normal" method. As you can see, therefore, purely in terms of demography (I hate it when people get emotively angry about this as it clouds the issue) you can see that homosexuality is a demographic abnormality, which is why people treat it like one. You can see the logic of hetrosexuality in that in sustains the population, granted not in all cases but generally. However the same is not true of homosexuality which is why people see it often as an abnormality.
*deep breath*

*sigh*

no, you know, i just don't think i have the will to bother. i've already responded to all of this, so anybody who wants can just read what i've already posted.

Neo. I realise this is going to be difficult for you to accept...

Homosexuals CAN have children.

Two of my best friends back in England have a fifteen-year-old son, despite being lesbians. Think how that COULD have happened.

Just because you don't 'like' something, doesn't mean you can't 'do' it, if you need to.
don't bother. i've covered why homosexuality IS reproductively viable on about 50 threads at this point, but some people just don't want to hear. gay people won't suddenly become sterile just because the 'phobes don't get it, so there's really no reason to argue the point anyhow, and ability to produce children will never become criterion for legal marriage. it's a moot point in its entirety.

*deep breath*

*sigh*

no, you know, i just don't think i have the will to bother. i've already responded to all of this, so anybody who wants can just read what i've already posted.


Havent' you realized dear Bottle that they just read what they want to and ignore anything that opposes what they have to say? They don't hear what we are saying they hear what they THINK we should be saying.

don't bother. i've covered why homosexuality IS reproductively viable on about 50 threads at this point, but some people just don't want to hear. gay people won't suddenly become sterile just because the 'phobes don't get it, so there's really no reason to argue the point anyhow, and ability to produce children will never become criterion for legal marriage. it's a moot point in its entirety.

And the beauty of it is... one of the people that this has been an issue with, has been Neo on previous occasions, too.

Hence, my 'digest' version of what... a few months ago... would have been a half page of reasoning and explanation.

I'm not posting it here for Neo's benefit, really. Neo has seen the argument before, and I suspect that, deep down, he knows it... but has to keep using the same tired excuses for why this is a 'scientific' prejudice, rather than just blind hatred of difference.

I REALLY post the replies for others... people new to the forum who might never have seen Neo's tired responses before - and might think that Neo is making a good point.

It takes a few minutes of my time to clearly show such arguments for the sillyness they are.

I will admit though... if this thread carries on for a hundred pages, and Neo does the usual 'Neo trick' of bringing the SAME point up again later, a couple of times... I'll get bored with responding to it..

Nice way to take the quote out of context. I was not refering to the individual people, but to society as a whole. If you take hetrosexuality out of the demographic model then you end up with a species that will die off in a few years. Take homosexuality out of the model, culture changes but little else



For the "insert medium sized but still signifently large number here"th time I am not saying that hetrosexuality is somehow supiror to homosexuality because it produces children. Nor am I saying that if you produce more children you are better of than someone who doesnt have any. What I am saying is that in terms of the demographic model, hetrosexuality can be seen to have its place. It enables the population to continue rising. While I am aware that many homosexual couples have children (via either adoption or other methods) the fact remains that they have to circumvent the "Normal" method. As you can see, therefore, purely in terms of demography (I hate it when people get emotively angry about this as it clouds the issue) you can see that homosexuality is a demographic abnormality, which is why people treat it like one. You can see the logic of hetrosexuality in that in sustains the population, granted not in all cases but generally. However the same is not true of homosexuality which is why people see it often as an abnormality.

EDIT: And if you WERE referring to society as a whole, individuals make UP that whole. You're STILL missing the point. Society's motivations for relationships have changed from having babies to actually having a REAL relationship. That's why we don't have arranged marriages anymore and why we don't marry off children for property rights. Humanity has realized that there are more important things.

Okay.. here's the thing. NOBODY EVER SAID HETEROSEXUALS ARE POINTLESS. On top of THAT, they aren't just going to stop existing... and even if they DID (completely theoretically) and we HAD to ensure the survival of the species, we could still do it. You don't need to defend them, and the fact that they're a "demographic majority" does not mean that all other minorities have to be stigmatized. I have NO idea where you were going with this post other than maybe trying to give an explanation for homophobia. And I don't think you have to explain WHY people are homophobes. They were brought up without exposure, and they have been in a society where the most prolific religious sentiment is that gays are bad, which implies that they can change, because the "good Christian god" would never abandon one of his children to a fateful eternity in Hell.

That's it. It's quite very obvious because generally speaking, liberals, Athiests, pagans, and non-traditional Christians, are completely FINE with homosexuality. It's the uber-over-populated size of the Traditional Christian Republicans (republicans are entirely about keeping society the same where the rich can get richer and the poor get poorer) and their religious morality that attacks and targets the gay community. Liberals, who are more accepting of a changing social climate, are fine with gays because they aren't afraid of letting people actually socialize with gays rather than stigmatizing them.

The End. The right is what promotes homophobia, and I'm not stereotyping. You can choose to be rightist or leftist, and the very definition of what the right is is the cause for treating GLBT like second class citizens.

I'm gay and love being treated like crap. Maybe I should hook up with this Neo-Cannen. It is a he, right?

And the beauty of it is... one of the people that this has been an issue with, has been Neo on previous occasions, too.

Hence, my 'digest' version of what... a few months ago... would have been a half page of reasoning and explanation.

I'm not posting it here for Neo's benefit, really. Neo has seen the argument before, and I suspect that, deep down, he knows it... but has to keep using the same tired excuses for why this is a 'scientific' prejudice, rather than just blind hatred of difference.

I REALLY post the replies for others... people new to the forum who might never have seen Neo's tired responses before - and might think that Neo is making a good point.

It takes a few minutes of my time to clearly show such arguments for the sillyness they are.

I will admit though... if this thread carries on for a hundred pages, and Neo does the usual 'Neo trick' of bringing the SAME point up again later, a couple of times... I'll get bored with responding to it..
yeah, i often do the same thing myself...i sometimes "reply" for the benefit of other readers, rather than for the benefit of the person i am quoting who clearly is not going to listen. i'm feeling less and less like wasting my time with that, though, because it doesn't seem to make a difference. i have to admit that i am discouraged by how effective the anti-gay propaganda machine is, since they have infected so very many people with the exact same blatant lies and misinformation. i can hardly hope to compete.

still, stiff upper lip and all that, i'm sure i'll end up squaring my shoulders and charging back into the fray in the end :).

yeah, i often do the same thing myself...i sometimes "reply" for the benefit of other readers, rather than for the benefit of the person i am quoting who clearly is not going to listen. i'm feeling less and less like wasting my time with that, though, because it doesn't seem to make a difference. i have to admit that i am discouraged by how effective the anti-gay propaganda machine is, since they have infected so very many people with the exact same blatant lies and misinformation. i can hardly hope to compete.

still, stiff upper lip and all that, i'm sure i'll end up squaring my shoulders and charging back into the fray in the end :).

I look at the latest US elections... I look at the hard fought conflicts over gay-marriage, at the Republican domination of US politics, and the Christian-heavy flavour of society.

I look at Anti-Abortionists rebranding themselves as 'Pro-Life', and the right wing talking about maintaining the 'sanctity of marriage'. I look at Christian America having the stomach to claim that THEY are the persecuted group.

I look at all that - and I see a pendulum. Perhaps, we are paying now, for the successes of the 60s and 70s?

I see that image, and I picture myself, and those with similar ideologies, as the protectors of some kind of sacred flame... weathering a long, dark night of ignorance... but with the promise of a new dawn sometime soon.

We are defenders of a faith. Keepers of a 'secret' knowledge. And, we have to keep fighting these forces of darkness, so that the truth will be alive when the new day comes.

Or... something like that. :)

I see a pendulum. Perhaps, we are paying now, for the successes of the 60s and 70s?

that's what i try to tell myself: this is just reactionary, and it's going to pass. history supports that, and also supports that the pendulum swings a little less far in the reactionary direction each time the cycle goes 'round. each cycle, we lose a little more of that stupidity, that bigotry, that disgusting self-righteousness, and we gain a little more sanity and justice.

but man, it sure sucks to be sane these days.

You're STILL missing the point. Society's motivations for relationships have changed from having babies to actually having a REAL relationship.

For individual cases yes, but I am talking about the DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL. Hetrosexuality is required to sustain it, thus its existance is logical


"good Christian god" would never abandon one of his children to a fateful eternity in Hell.

Why exactly does God being "good" as you put it, demand that everyone go to heaven regardless of what they believe and do in this life. Surely it would be better for God to be "just" and not "good" in terms of your use of the word "good"


It's the uber-over-populated size of the Traditional Christian Republicans (republicans are entirely about keeping society the same where the rich can get richer and the poor get poorer) and their religious morality that attacks and targets the gay community. Liberals, who are more accepting of a changing social climate, are fine with gays because they aren't afraid of letting people actually socialize with gays rather than stigmatizing them.

The End. The right is what promotes homophobia, and I'm not stereotyping. You can choose to be rightist or leftist, and the very definition of what the right is is the cause for treating GLBT like second class citizens.

How exactly can a church be "over-populated". If its too big for its own building I can understand but are you saying that its somehow bad for churches to be large

You are making a common misconception about homosexuality and the church (or rather the denominations which oppose homosexuality). The Church does not promote homophobia. Hate sin, not sinners. What the Church does have a problem with is the idea of promoting the posibilty of being a Gay Christian. That idea is like openly saying "I'm a murder Christian who actively murders people and engages in murder regulally and has no problem with it". I could easily replace murder with stealing, adultering and any number of other sins but the point is that if you are a Christian, you try not to sin any longer. Naturally you do but you shouldnt and you should do your best not to. You should not be sinning and be forcing the idea that that sin is part of who you are and that other people should accept it. Thats the problem that the church has.

That idea is like openly saying "I'm a murder Christian who actively murders people and engages in murder regulally and has no problem with it".
So... then you are saying that Christians actively equate being a sociopathic murderer to being a homosexual?! BS!! I know plenty of Christians who have absolutely NO PROBLEM with people who are gay or lesbian. Plus I know a few homosexual Christians!

You are making a common misconception about homosexuality and the church (or rather the denominations which oppose homosexuality). The Church does not promote homophobia. Hate sin, not sinners. What the Church does have a problem with is the idea of promoting the posibilty of being a Gay Christian. That idea is like openly saying "I'm a murder Christian who actively murders people and engages in murder regulally and has no problem with it". I could easily replace murder with stealing, adultering and any number of other sins but the point is that if you are a Christian, you try not to sin any longer. Naturally you do but you shouldnt and you should do your best not to. You should not be sinning and be forcing the idea that that sin is part of who you are and that other people should accept it. Thats the problem that the church has.

Which is why Jesus said the bit about not casting stones. We're all sinners, according to the text. Having the church point out one group of sinners and not the others is fairly stupid.

The Church is actively casting stones. It needs to stop.

that's what i try to tell myself: this is just reactionary, and it's going to pass. history supports that, and also supports that the pendulum swings a little less far in the reactionary direction each time the cycle goes 'round. each cycle, we lose a little more of that stupidity, that bigotry, that disgusting self-righteousness, and we gain a little more sanity and justice.

but man, it sure sucks to be sane these days.

As far as I can tell, apart from a few 'Golden Age' moments... history supports the idea that the enlightened spend MOST of their time suffering fools.

Which is why Jesus said the bit about not casting stones. We're all sinners, according to the text. Having the church point out one group of sinners and not the others is fairly stupid.

The Church is actively casting stones. It needs to stop.

Jesus never supported the idea of actively promoting your own sin. That is what the church sees homosexuals as doing. Homosexuals want the church to just accept that they can actively sin and say the sin is part of their identy. The Bible never supports the notion of saying that your sin is part of your identity so its ok for you to do it. Thats the homosexual line. Other groups of sinners are not going round saying "I am a (X sin)er, you must accept what I do because there is no reason why I shouldnt".

For individual cases yes, but I am talking about the DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL. Hetrosexuality is required to sustain it, thus its existance is logical


No - Neo... heterosexual SEX is required.

Imagine a world filled with gay men and women... how many children would there be in the next generation?

You assume "none"?

Don't you think that many of those individuals will wander outside of their own preferences, for the purpose of continuing the species?


How exactly can a church be "over-populated". If its too big for its own building I can understand but are you saying that its somehow bad for churches to be large


The 'church' is over populated because it has so many 'christians', and so few Christians.

Jesus never supported the idea of actively promoting your own sin. That is what the church sees homosexuals as doing. Homosexuals want the church to just accept that they can actively sin and say the sin is part of their identy. The Bible never supports the notion of saying that your sin is part of your identity so its ok for you to do it. Thats the homosexual line. Other groups of sinners are not going round saying "I am a (X sin)er, you must accept what I do because there is no reason why I shouldnt".

You can stand up in church and witness. You can be baptized and say you accept Jesus. But until you actually get through those gates, we'll never know if you really repented.

We don't know, do we?

Leave the judgments to God, will you? It's not the Church's place to do that.

Jesus never supported the idea of actively promoting your own sin. That is what the church sees homosexuals as doing. Homosexuals want the church to just accept that they can actively sin and say the sin is part of their identy. The Bible never supports the notion of saying that your sin is part of your identity so its ok for you to do it. Thats the homosexual line. Other groups of sinners are not going round saying "I am a (X sin)er, you must accept what I do because there is no reason why I shouldnt".

Of course - Jesus didn't say that homosexuality was a sin, either....

Why is it so many 'christians' chose to follow Paul?

Of course - Jesus didn't say that homosexuality was a sin, either....

Why is it so many 'christians' chose to follow Paul?

I don't know. I find that if you eliminate all of Paul's letters, etc., you're left with a pretty nice guy with good ideas - Jesus.

No - Neo... heterosexual SEX is required.

Imagine a world filled with gay men and women... how many children would there be in the next generation?

You assume "none"?

Don't you think that many of those individuals will wander outside of their own preferences, for the purpose of continuing the species?


yet another point that has to be repeated far too many times. a million heterosexuals standing about telling each other how great Jesus is will be less effective at perpetuating the human race than a gay man and a lesbian who agree to go at it for the sake of the species.

yet another point that has to be repeated far too many times. a million heterosexuals standing about telling each other how great Jesus is will be less effective at perpetuating the human race than a gay man and a lesbian who agree to go at it for the sake of the species.

You'll need a turkey baster...

So... then you are saying that Christians actively equate being a sociopathic murderer to being a homosexual?! BS!! I know plenty of Christians who have absolutely NO PROBLEM with people who are gay or lesbian. Plus I know a few homosexual Christians!

1) Had you read my post in its entirity, instead of taking a part out of context, you would have seen at the begining that I made an important distinction between Chrisitans who do believe homosexuality is a sin and those who dont.

2) Basicly, the simmilarity I am drawing between homosexuality and murder is that they are both sins. Now an open homosexual would go along the lines of "I am gay, you must accept my homosexual nature because its a part of who I am and I am not going to change it. I am proud of my homosexuality and I make no excuses for it". Replace it with "I am a sinner, you must accept me for that because it is part of my identity and I am not going to change it. I am proud of my sin and I make no excuses for it". Basicly its being proud of a sin and being unrepentant about it. Thats just is wrong according to Christian belief. There is no place for pride in sin. Sin is ahorent to God and so should be abhorent to us. We should not hate people who do sin but sin itself, but if people are going to intentionally blur the line between the two by saying the sin is a part of them then our standpoint stands. They are wrong.

You'll need a turkey baster...
um, a gay man and a gay woman can still have sex together. they don't need artificial means to accomplish this. they may not LIKE doing it, but what's the problem there? for a great portion of our history sex was supposed to be a duty and a chore, not something done to please but something done to produce. a gay man and gay woman are as likely to be fertile as a straight man and woman.

yet another point that has to be repeated far too many times. a million heterosexuals standing about telling each other how great Jesus is will be less effective at perpetuating the human race than a gay man and a lesbian who agree to go at it for the sake of the species.

Yes... I agree - having to remake the same point within the SAME page is a little excessive - even by Neo's standards.

It's almost like he thinks that homosexuals have different 'components' to heterosexuals...

Sin is based on the concept that when we "sin" we actively choose to do so. Homosexuality is not a choice. When the bible was written, homosexuality was not properly understood and most either lived in fear or were actively persecuted, often killed. The common line of thought at the time was that homosexuals "chose" to live as disgusting sinners. That line of thought has nowadays been more or less completely debunkt.

Imagine a world filled with gay men and women... how many children would there be in the next generation?

You assume "none"?

Don't you think that many of those individuals will wander outside of their own preferences, for the purpose of continuing the species?

How often does the average Human think about how his choice of actions effect the entire race? I assure you, self-indulgance wins.

You know.. sometimes I wonder why people spend so much time wondering why some poeple are gay, than just accepting that they are and move on with their lives.

1) Had you read my post in its entirity, instead of taking a part out of context, you would have seen at the begining that I made an important distinction between Chrisitans who do believe homosexuality is a sin and those who dont.

2) Basicly, the simmilarity I am drawing between homosexuality and murder is that they are both sins. Now an open homosexual would go along the lines of "I am gay, you must accept my homosexual nature because its a part of who I am and I am not going to change it. I am proud of my homosexuality and I make no excuses for it". Replace it with "I am a sinner, you must accept me for that because it is part of my identity and I am not going to change it. I am proud of my sin and I make no excuses for it". Basicly its being proud of a sin and being unrepentant about it. Thats just is wrong according to Christian belief. There is no place for pride in sin. Sin is ahorent to God and so should be abhorent to us. We should not hate people who do sin but sin itself, but if people are going to intentionally blur the line between the two by saying the sin is a part of them then our standpoint stands. They are wrong.

Here's your problem, Neo - you always state YOUR OPINION as though it were fact.

YOU shouldn't be judging anyone else, OR their sin.

You should HATE sin in yourself - but you do not have the RIGHT to judge the sins of others.

Just another example of the modern church setting it's OWN agenda ABOVE the teachings of Jesus.

Sin is based on the concept that when we "sin" we actively choose to do so. Homosexuality is not a choice. When the bible was written, homosexuality was not properly understood and most either lived in fear or were actively persecuted, often killed. The common line of thought at the time was that homosexuals "chose" to live as disgusting sinners. That line of thought has nowadays been more or less completely debunkt.

It is however a choice to have homosexual sex, which is what the sin is. Perhaps I wasnt making that point clear enough

um, a gay man and a gay woman can still have sex together. they don't need artificial means to accomplish this. they may not LIKE doing it, but what's the problem there? for a great portion of our history sex was supposed to be a duty and a chore, not something done to please but something done to produce. a gay man and gay woman are as likely to be fertile as a straight man and woman.

I'm trying to be funny. Besides, it's what Jodie Foster used.

How often does the average Human think about how his choice of actions effect the entire race? I assure you, self-indulgance wins.

Missing out on a key point, friend.

I have two close friends. They have been together for about 20 years, and have a... fifteen year old son (15, I think...).

They are both lesbians... but WANTED a child.

So - their 'self-indulgence' (if you will) resulted in the continuation of the species.

Here's your problem, Neo - you always state YOUR OPINION as though it were fact.

YOU shouldn't be judging anyone else, OR their sin.

You should HATE sin in yourself - but you do not have the RIGHT to judge the sins of others.

Just another example of the modern church setting it's OWN agenda ABOVE the teachings of Jesus.
Writing like Urantia II is not going to do you any favours. (Though I may agree with you)

Here's your problem, Neo - you always state YOUR OPINION as though it were fact.


No Grave, thats the mistake you make. I always go about my posts very carefully to make sure that people know it is not a fact I am talking about but the opinion of a group or my own opinon and WHY they/I hold that opinion.


YOU shouldn't be judging anyone else, OR their sin.


Judgeing sin does not mean identifying what is and is not sin. That anyone can do. Judging implies that you treat someone diffrently as a result.


You should HATE sin in yourself - but you do not have the RIGHT to judge the sins of others.

I dont "Judge" the sins of others, in the sense that I believe I am better than them or that I have a right to pass judgement.

It is however a choice to have homosexual sex, which is what the sin is. Perhaps I wasnt making that point clear enough

Try reading the bible, Neo.

The 'sin' is lust.

You are confusing the sin itself, with how it is accomplished.

well now, it seems that homosexuality has become something for people to get excited about, almost as though it is to be celebrated. People live to consume the culture surrounding the very products they consume (which is another topic in itself), and become so involved in every possible avenue of collective individualism they can, that even homosexuality becomes something for people to boast about. Well fine, be homosexual, enjoy yourselves. All things are lawful, not all are profitable, but there's nothing stopping you. But you realise that by doing this, many homosexuals are subjecting the world to an increased risk of disease. And by the way, discounting a site because it is religious, is like discounting the comments of a homosexual because they too are bias. Show me something which cannot be interprited and I will show you something completely unbiased. The spread of homosexuality amongst society as an acceptable practice doesnt really seem to be helping make society a better place. In fact it puts the straight men in a state of confusion, much like a reversal of roles. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Much like the promotion of 'ghetto' culture, which also does not help make the world a better place.
Perhaps many people make a good point about the fact that they do not object to the people, it is the act itself which can offend people.

Have fun. Keep arguing. One day the sheep will be seperated from the goats

Ok, I know the topic has sort of wandered off from the original post, but I have read as far as I can at the moment and have yet to see this mentioned.

Well anyway, it seems most everyone here seems to think that homosexuality has been "proven" to be inborn. Sorry to burst your collective bubble. If anyone here can give some evidence that has more integrity then a piss-soaked napkin to refute any of this feel free.

George Roy Moriarty - died Jan 2, 1965; Matthew Shepard - died Oct 12, 1998; PFC Barry Winchell - died July 5, 1999; Fred Phelps - His work is a crusade against homosexuals; George W. Bush - His Amendment proposition; countless other that have been harrassed, beaten, raped, murdered, and tortured simply for being gay.

Why would anyone, being of sound mind and body, choose to be homosexual?

well now, it seems that homosexuality has become something for people to get excited about, almost as though it is to be celebrated. People live to consume the culture surrounding the very products they consume (which is another topic in itself), and become so involved in every possible avenue of collective individualism they can, that even homosexuality becomes something for people to boast about. Well fine, be homosexual, enjoy yourselves. All things are lawful, not all are profitable, but there's nothing stopping you. But you realise that by doing this, many homosexuals are subjecting the world to an increased risk of disease. And by the way, discounting a site because it is religious, is like discounting the comments of a homosexual because they too are bias. Show me something which cannot be interprited and I will show you something completely unbiased. The spread of homosexuality amongst society as an acceptable practice doesnt really seem to be helping make society a better place. In fact it puts the straight men in a state of confusion, much like a reversal of roles. However, two wrongs do not make a right. Much like the promotion of 'ghetto' culture, which also does not help make the world a better place.

Am I the only one who didn't understand what he just wrote?

Try reading the bible, Neo.

The 'sin' is lust.

You are confusing the sin itself, with how it is accomplished.

I have explained this to you before but I am quite happy to do it again, seeing as you dont listen

Biblical concept of marriage = man and women. There is no support in the Bible for any kind of man-man or women-women marriage

Biblical concept of adultery = sex outside marriage. This can mean sex between partners who are not married or where one is married and one is not.

Adultery is a sin.

Since homosexuals cannot be married in God's eyes, any sex they do have is therefore adultrey and sin.

Missing out on a key point, friend.

I have two close friends. They have been together for about 20 years, and have a... fifteen year old son (15, I think...).

They are both lesbians... but WANTED a child.

So - their 'self-indulgence' (if you will) resulted in the continuation of the species.

Adoption, artificial insemination, or did she just go out an get laid?

Sin is based on the concept that when we "sin" we actively choose to do so. Homosexuality is not a choice. When the bible was written, homosexuality was not properly understood and most either lived in fear or were actively persecuted, often killed. The common line of thought at the time was that homosexuals "chose" to live as disgusting sinners. That line of thought has nowadays been more or less completely debunkt.

Ahem...

Second I would like to address Sparta. Sparta as I'm sure some of you know was a Greek city state renowned for it's extremely efficient military (Thermopylae anyone?) and on a related note, it's homosexuals. Spartan education for men was almost entirely based on the military. All Spartan males where sent to Military Academies at a very young age, there they where openly encouraged to form homosexual relationships with fellow students and teachers. The idea behind this was that in the Phalanx formation where you were expected to provide protection to the man standing directly to your side by covering him with part of your Hoplon (the man on your other side was expected to do the same for you.) Their belief was that a soldier would be more willing to protect the man standing beside him if that man were his lover. Sure enough, Spartan Academies consistently mass produced homosexuals (who then had to go through a "readjustment period" in which they where expected to take a wife and have kids.) Of course to Greek culture in general homosexuality was simply a non issue, their was no societal pressure against them. To them it was completely "natural" and as such was extremely prevalent. To me at least the entire civilization just reeks of "choice."

I still fail to see how any of this matters. The fact of it is that whether or not homosexuality is a choice is a moot point. Gays exist and their needs must be met like any other. They don't infringe upon anyone elses rights and to think that they somehow should be given fewer rights than heterosexuals is utter bollocks. Whether you choose to be gay or whether you were born that wsay does not change the fact that you are as equal as anyone else.

I have explained this to you before but I am quite happy to do it again, seeing as you dont listen

Biblical concept of marriage = man and women. There is no support in the Bible for any kind of man-man or women-women marriage

Biblical concept of adultery = sex outside marriage. This can mean sex between partners who are not married or where one is married and one is not.

Adultery is a sin.

Since homosexuals cannot be married in God's eyes, any sex they do have is therefore adultrey and sin.

OT concept of marriage = fuck your wife's maid to have extra babies
NT concept of marriage = ditch your family and follow Jesus

next.

No Grave, thats the mistake you make. I always go about my posts very carefully to make sure that people know it is not a fact I am talking about but the opinion of a group or my own opinon and WHY they/I hold that opinion.



See - when you state something as a fact, like "but if people are going to intentionally blur the line between the two by saying the sin is a part of them then our standpoint stands. They are wrong". Well, then you have to expect that people are going to THINK you are stating it as a fact...

Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9
Romans 1:26-27
When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.



God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.



However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin that any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1Corinthians 6:11; 2Corinthians 5:17).


God does not hate homosexuals, only the act.
However, Christians who truly follow Jesus understand this, and refuse to hate homosexuals. True christians do not believe in works being their ticket to heaven or holliness or anything like that (by Grace saved through faith), and that they too live in bodies of flesh. But this should not be a biblical debate. The fact remains that christianity, Judaism, and many other religions see it as an unnacceptable practice AMONGST their people. Much like some scientists believe the religion of evolution. Every set of moral standards you have is a 'religion.' And the major religions of the world condemn the act, not the person. Because that person is a person none the less.

Jesus never supported the idea of actively promoting your own sin. That is what the church sees homosexuals as doing. Homosexuals want the church to just accept that they can actively sin and say the sin is part of their identy. The Bible never supports the notion of saying that your sin is part of your identity so its ok for you to do it. Thats the homosexual line. Other groups of sinners are not going round saying "I am a (X sin)er, you must accept what I do because there is no reason why I shouldnt".

Jesus did however support the idea of letting sin be between you and God and not having others interefere without invitation--why? Because everyone has sinned. If a homosexual can reconcile his or herself with God and believes it isn't a sin, why must you interefere?

OT concept of marriage = fuck your wife's maid to have extra babies
NT concept of marriage = ditch your family and follow Jesus

next.

I thought it was:

NT = go to a party on Friday night without your friends and don't come back for three days - and then come back with a whopper of a story

Adoption, artificial insemination, or did she just go out an get laid?


To repackage it in the vernacular of the commonalty... she 'got laid'.

Just because a woman is a lesbian, doesn't make her uterus 'man-proof', if she decides to follow that particular avenue.

How often does the average Human think about how his choice of actions effect the entire race? I assure you, self-indulgance wins.

Not when presented with a scenario where it is so blatantly obvious. Give more credit than that to yourself and your fellow man.

I have explained this to you before but I am quite happy to do it again, seeing as you dont listen

Biblical concept of marriage = man and women. There is no support in the Bible for any kind of man-man or women-women marriage

Biblical concept of adultery = sex outside marriage. This can mean sex between partners who are not married or where one is married and one is not.

Adultery is a sin.

Since homosexuals cannot be married in God's eyes, any sex they do have is therefore adultrey and sin.

We have been here before, haven't we Neo.

Marriage is never defined as man and woman, not EVEN in the Bible.

There is a reference to ONE marriage of man and woman, but it DOESN'T say that that is the ONLY valid model.

Also - of course - if you had read Genesis in Hebrew, you would understand that the 'marriage of Adam and Eve' is symbolic... it is the marriage of 'flesh' and 'spirit'.

Also - you are wrong about the biblical definition of 'adultery'.

Perhaps you mean 'fornication'?

Finally - I can show you where Paul favours gay marriage...

Jesus did however support the idea of letting sin be between you and God and not having others interefere without invitation--why? Because everyone has sinned. If a homosexual can reconcile his or herself with God and believes it isn't a sin, why must you interefere?

Because Neo thinks his 'organised' version of the faith is more IMPORTANT than the 'personal faith' that Jesus favoured.

Because Neo thinks his 'organised' version of the faith is more IMPORTANT than the 'personal faith' that Jesus favoured.

organised faith is easier to sell.

Jesus did however support the idea of letting sin be between you and God and not having others interefere without invitation--why? Because everyone has sinned. If a homosexual can reconcile his or herself with God and believes it isn't a sin, why must you interefere?

Probably insecurity, or fear of what's different. That's the usual reason for religion attacking something. In fact, it's the usual reason for religion full stop.

The institution of marriage is recorded in Genesis. "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24). God created man and then made woman out of "bone of his bone." The process as recorded tells us that God took one of Adam's "ribs" (Genesis 2:21-22). The Hebrew word literally means the side of a person.



Therefore, Eve was taken from the "side" of Adam and it is at his side that she belongs. "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:20). The words "help and meet" are the same Hebrew word. The word is "ezer" and comes from a primitive root word that means to surround, to protect or aid, help, helper succor. Therefore it means to help, assist or aid. Eve was created to be alongside of Adam as his "other half" to be his aid and his help.



The Biblical view of marriage is found in Genesis. A man and woman when married become "one flesh." The New Testament adds a warning to this "oneness." "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6).



Old Testament law given to Israel governed the relationship between husband and wife and they were meant to protect the wife and the family that came as a result of the marriage union. These laws are found in Numbers chapters 18 through 21 and again in Deuteronomy chapters 22 through 25. Penalties for abuse and adultery were harsh and called for the stoning of the guilty parties. We find an example of this penalty in the New Testament, as it was still active Jesus' day. The context is that a woman caught in adultery is brought to Jesus by a group of scribes and Pharisees (John 8:1-11). Jesus told them, "he who is with out sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8-7). One by one the woman's accusers left and she was alone with Jesus. "When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:10-11).



There are several epistles written by the Apostle Paul that speak to the issues that govern a Biblical view of marriage and how born again believers are to operate with in their marriage relationships. We find one such passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and another in Ephesians 5:22-33. When studied together these two passages provide the believer with Biblical principles that can be used to form a framework for a God pleasing marriage relationship.



The passage found in Ephesians is especially profound in its scope in reference to a successful Biblical marriage. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body" (Ephesians 5:22-23)" "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25)." So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church" (Ephesians 5:28-29). "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh" (Ephesians 5:31).



When these principles are chosen by a husband and wife in harmony with their relationship as born again believers, this brings about a Biblical marriage. This is not a lopsided relationship but one that is in balance with the concept of Christ as the head of the man and the wife together. Therefore, the Biblical concept of marriage is a oneness between two individuals that is a picture of the oneness relationship of Christ with His church, which is made up of born again believers.

organised faith is easier to sell.

So true...

Just slap your 'logo' across the front, and do a bit of brand-comparison advertising...

"Washing your soul in *NEW IMPROVED* Anglican Ultra removes those stubborn ground-in sins, that other Powers leave behind..."

etc...

Why is it that people who believe in something such as Jesus are so often attacked for being prejudice or worse, for refusing to compromise on their beliefs? Whereas everyone else is free to believe in whatever they want, change their ideas, support terrible things, and do whatever they want...but heaven forbid people stand up and say "NO I DONT BELIEVE THIS IS RIGHT!" Suddenly they arc up and begin to shout down religions because of their beliefs. But let no-one dare criticise the beliefs of someone who is not religious. Oh no, because they are hypocrites, so easy to shout down people for their beliefs, yet oh so happy to stand up for their own. So continue in your ways, and know that everything you say reflects who you are. And those who attack religions because of their beliefs, are very hollow. Those who make assumptions based on idle observations, are hollow. Enjoy your emptiness, I hope in it you find everything you need to make your next obnoxious judgement of someone else. We live in an age where homosexuality and anti-societal attitudes are supported by those who mock religion. Yet those who volunteer, go out to the homeless, give shelter to the needy, those who look after the most unfortunate people in society are critisised at every opportunity. Go on, take a look at the major churches and judge them all, because in doing so, you give others the right to judge all homosexuals the same way. Would it not be only fair to do so? or would that be more of your hypocracy saying "No you cant do that."???? Now the relatives or friends of people who are helped now turn around and blast churches for their beliefs. You must be very proud of yourselves. HOw nice it is to make yourself feel better at someone else's expense.

Why is it that people who believe in something such as Jesus are so often attacked for being prejudice or worse, for refusing to compromise on their beliefs? Whereas everyone else is free to believe in whatever they want, change their ideas, support terrible things, and do whatever they want...but heaven forbid people stand up and say "NO I DONT BELIEVE THIS IS RIGHT!" Suddenly they arc up and begin to shout down religions because of their beliefs. But let no-one dare criticise the beliefs of someone who is not religious. Oh no, because they are hypocrites, so easy to shout down people for their beliefs, yet oh so happy to stand up for their own. So continue in your ways, and know that everything you say reflects who you are. And those who attack religions because of their beliefs, are very hollow. Those who make assumptions based on idle observations, are hollow. Enjoy your emptiness, I hope in it you find everything you need to make your next obnoxious judgement of someone else. We live in an age where homosexuality and anti-societal attitudes are supported by those who mock religion. Yet those who volunteer, go out to the homeless, give shelter to the needy, those who look after the most unfortunate people in society are critisised at every opportunity. Go on, take a look at the major churches and judge them all, because in doing so, you give others the right to judge all homosexuals the same way. Would it not be only fair to do so? or would that be more of your hypocracy saying "No you cant do that."???? Now the relatives or friends of people who are helped now turn around and blast churches for their beliefs. You must be very proud of yourselves. HOw nice it is to make yourself feel better at someone else's expense.


judge not lest ye be judged

Therefore, Eve was taken from the "side" of Adam and it is at his side that she belongs. "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:20). The words "help and meet" are the same Hebrew word. The word is "ezer" and comes from a primitive root word that means to surround, to protect or aid, help, helper succor. Therefore it means to help, assist or aid. Eve was created to be alongside of Adam as his "other half" to be his aid and his help..

Irrelevant.

The Biblical view of marriage is found in Genesis. A man and woman when married become "one flesh." The New Testament adds a warning to this "oneness." "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6).

Again, irrelevant. The definition in Genesis is a description of ONE INSTANCE of marriage. It is not a definition of AL marriages in the eyes of God.

Old Testament law given to Israel governed the relationship between husband and wife and they were meant to protect the wife and the family that came as a result of the marriage union. These laws are found in Numbers chapters 18 through 21 and again in Deuteronomy chapters 22 through 25. Penalties for abuse and adultery were harsh and called for the stoning of the guilty parties. We find an example of this penalty in the New Testament, as it was still active Jesus' day. The context is that a woman caught in adultery is brought to Jesus by a group of scribes and Pharisees (John 8:1-11). Jesus told them, "he who is with out sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8-7). One by one the woman's accusers left and she was alone with Jesus. "When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:10-11)..

Irrelevant.

There are several epistles written by the Apostle Paul that speak to the issues that govern a Biblical view of marriage and how born again believers are to operate with in their marriage relationships. We find one such passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and another in Ephesians 5:22-33. When studied together these two passages provide the believer with Biblical principles that can be used to form a framework for a God pleasing marriage relationship..

Not the words of Jesus OR God, though. These are the views of Paul, who I always felt was a very dodgy apostle.

The passage found in Ephesians is especially profound in its scope in reference to a successful Biblical marriage. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body" (Ephesians 5:22-23)" "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25)." So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church" (Ephesians 5:28-29). "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh" (Ephesians 5:31)..

At no point in this passage is the wife referred to as a woman. Just as a 'wife'. No reason at all it coudn't be a man.

When these principles are chosen by a husband and wife in harmony with their relationship as born again believers, this brings about a Biblical marriage. This is not a lopsided relationship but one that is in balance with the concept of Christ as the head of the man and the wife together. Therefore, the Biblical concept of marriage is a oneness between two individuals that is a picture of the oneness relationship of Christ with His church, which is made up of born again believers.

Again, the two individual's sex is not at any point specified.

If God makes it clear in the beginning, and God's word does not change, nor come back void, then why is it one can interprit it however they want?
Why is it that people have to have something argued down to technicalities before they will agree on it? For one to state that it could have been a man or a woman, they must need a clear understanding of the Bible. No where in the Bible does it say that the Holocaust was wrong, but most people think it was. If marriage was for men and men, why would it have been a sin to do this? Hmm sounds paradoxical if you ask me, and it really makes your argument seem illogical to suggest that this could have been the case. Either way you're not about to change your opinion so I'm going to finish up here. Say whatever you will, and compromise and change and convince yourself of whatever you like, but how can you say you're a person of integrity if you look for technicalities in every issue in order to manipulate it to suit your own agenda. Sounds almost like you're scratching for something that really isnt there.