NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you have evidence of that? I have never heard of these differences and my understanding is that they cannot provided they are in the same environment.

There are identical twins that are of different genders.

Do you have evidence of that? I have never heard of these differences and my understanding is that they cannot provided they are in the same environment.

I'm not saying they are not the same genetically.. but identical twins are not identical because their genes are expressed a bit differently.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050708_identical_twins.html

Identical twins are not quite as identical as once thought, according to a new study of DNA.

Life, it seems, changes everyone in unique ways.

One twin might get cancer while the the other is not susceptible, for example. Many identical twins clearly behave differently as they grow older, and some even grow to look less alike.

Such differences have to do not with the twins' identical DNA, which is the software of life, but in how genes express themselves, the research found. The differences stem from chemical modifications in the genes over the years.

There are identical twins that are of different genders.

Your saying so does not count as evidence. I am asking for articles and studies on it.

Your saying so does not count as evidence. I am asking for articles and studies on it.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/identical_twin#Mixed_sex_identical_twins

Monozygotic twins are genetically identical unless there has been a mutation in development; they are only usually, but not necessarily, the same gender. They look alike, except that they are sometimes mirror images, but examination of details such as fingerprints can tell them apart. As they mature, identical twins often become less alike because of lifestyle choices or external influences such as scars.

I'm not saying they are not the same genetically.. but identical twins are not identical because their genes are expressed a bit differently.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050708_identical_twins.html

Identical twins are not quite as identical as once thought, according to a new study of DNA.

Life, it seems, changes everyone in unique ways.

One twin might get cancer while the the other is not susceptible, for example. Many identical twins clearly behave differently as they grow older, and some even grow to look less alike.

Such differences have to do not with the twins' identical DNA, which is the software of life, but in how genes express themselves, the research found. The differences stem from chemical modifications in the genes over the years.


That article talks about later in life. Saying twins can change in their lifetime. I don't dispute that. It seems to me that if people are genetically gay, it would be there from the very beginning. Therefore, both would have to be gay from the very beginning. If it is in fact environmental causes that make people gay, then of course twins can be different orientations but I still don't see how they can be with it being genetic.

That article talks about later in life. Saying twins can change in their lifetime. I don't dispute that. It seems to me that if people are genetically gay, it would be there from the very beginning. Therefore, both would have to be gay from the very beginning. If it is in fact environmental causes that make people gay, then of course twins can be different orientations but I still don't see how they can be with it being genetic.

The article talks about how the genetically code can be expressed differently even though it is similiar in identical twins. Nice dodging of the source. I discredit the environmental causes argument as I already presented sources showing it is heavily tied to genetics. You dispute the facts.. and that's your own problem.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/identical_twin#Mixed_sex_identical_twins

Monozygotic twins are genetically identical unless there has been a mutation in development; they are only usually, but not necessarily, the same gender. They look alike, except that they are sometimes mirror images, but examination of details such as fingerprints can tell them apart. As they mature, identical twins often become less alike because of lifestyle choices or external influences such as scars.

So then are you saying that in cases where one twin is homosexual and the other isn't, that either one lost the straight gene or one lost the homosexual gene and thus caused the difference?

The article talks about how the genetically code can be expressed differently even though it is similiar in identical twins. Nice dodging of the source. I discredit the environmental causes argument as I already presented sources showing it is heavily tied to genetics. You dispute the facts.. and that's your own problem.

I'm not dodging it. That was my interpretation of the article. I will reread it and try to see yours now.

So then are you saying that in cases where one twin is homosexual and the other isn't, that either one lost the straight gene or one lost the homosexual gene and thus caused the difference?

Are you totally ignoring everything I post? For goodness sakes, how many time do I have to hammer this in your head.. sexuality is not caused by one specific gene. It is influenced by several different chromosomes that have already been identified thus substantating my case.

I'm not dodging it. That was my interpretation of the article. I will reread it and try to see yours now.

http://www.psychdaily.com/article/734

Please read this one. It is the most vital to my argument.

Are you totally ignoring everything I post? For goodness sakes, how many time do I have to hammer this in your head.. sexuality is not caused by one specific gene. It is influenced by several different chromosomes that have already been identified thus substantating my case.

I am not debating you right now. I am trying to understand your position. I know you don't believe it is caused by one particular gene but for simplification, I am addressing it as being one.

The link you gave me that addresses different gendered identical twins says that both twins begin as boys, therefore both receiving XY chromosomes but one of the twins somehow loses the Y chromosome and thus become female. My question then, is if that is the way it happens, then wouldn't that mean for them to be different otherwise, something similar would need to happen? i.e. heterosexual gene got lost or vice versa

I am not debating you right now. I am trying to understand your position. I know you don't believe it is caused by one particular gene but for simplification, I am addressing it as being one.

Fine. Don't debate me. I just don't think you have any argument to begin with. You keep resorting to saying that sexuality is caused by one gene. That's just ridiculous.

I wish this thread would die, die, die!
http://www.sumbler.com/blog/archives/kniferack-thumb.png

This many pages and nobody's convinced anyone of jack shit.

http://www.psychdaily.com/article/734

Please read this one. It is the most vital to my argument.

I've heard of this or something similar several times. That they have found the gay gene or genes. That article seems to only address men though, so what about lesbians? Or bisexual people? Would that mean they just have similar or what?

I've heard of this or something similar several times. That they have found the gay gene or genes. That article seems to only address men though, so what about lesbians? Or bisexual people? Would that mean they just have similar or what?

Looks like you didn't bother reading the source. They didn't find a gene. They found several chromosomes that influences sexuality. These may be expressed differently in women and bisexual people (different then gay men and male heterosexuals).

Looks like you didn't bother reading the source. They didn't find a gene. They found several chromosomes that influences sexuality. These may be expressed differently in women and bisexual people (different then gay men and male heterosexuals).

I read the source. I just said it wrong. Sorry.

Anyway, I can accept your belief as a possibility but I also still feel that mine is a possibility.

Anyway, I can accept your belief as a possibility but I also still feel that mine is a possibility.

Fine. But i'm not convinced by you.

Fine. But i'm not convinced by you.

I don't expect you to be. You seem to be rather stubborn on this topic. I recognize that this isn't something I know a ton about and my opinions are still very much being formed, hence my trying to comprehend exactly what you are saying your belief is. My opinion is based solely on the arguments that have made the most sense to me. I haven't researched the topic all that much yet.

Don't assume you are an expert on the topic either though.

I don't expect you to be. You seem to be rather stubborn on this topic. I recognize that this isn't something I know a ton about and my opinions are still very much being formed, hence my trying to comprehend exactly what you are saying your belief is. My opinion is based solely on the arguments that have made the most sense to me. I haven't researched the topic all that much yet.

Don't assume you are an expert on the topic either though.

I don't like using the word stubborn. I just have convictions. I don't know how a gay or bi person can believe that sexual orientation is not influenced heavily by genetics.

I'm no expert. I have no degree in science... and won't ever. Except political science that is. But that's unrelated. However, I do use sources done by people who do.

I don't like using the word stubborn. I just have convictions. I don't know how a gay or bi person can believe that sexual orientation is not influenced heavily by genetics.

I'm no expert. I have no degree in science... and won't ever. Except political science that is. But that's unrelated. However, I do use sources done by people who do.

I don't believe is it influenced heavily by genetics because I was shown an alternative that, to me, seems more probable. I still believe there is nothing anyone can do about it, or should. Only I don't know that I believe evolution would allow homosexuallity to continue if it were genetic. But since it has been around for at least as long as written history, evolution hasn't stopped it. That makes me believe it is something else. Perhaps it serves as a form of population control, but I have trouble believing that is why it exists due to the fact that when a population gets way too big, the rate of people being homosexual doesn't seem to be affected.

Just because I am bisexual doesn't mean I have to follow blindly what the homosexual/bisexual community believes to be the answer. I like to think for myself. And just so there isn't any fight from this comment, I am not saying you do not think for yourself or that you are following blindly.

I don't believe is it influenced heavily by genetics because I was shown an alternative that, to me, seems more probable. I still believe there is nothing anyone can do about it, or should. Only I don't know that I believe evolution would allow homosexuallity to continue if it were genetic. But since it has been around for at least as long as written history, evolution hasn't stopped it. That makes me believe it is something else. Perhaps it serves as a form of population control, but I have trouble believing that is why it exists due to the fact that when a population gets way too big, the rate of people being homosexual doesn't seem to be affected.

I'm not buying into your argument. I believe you have insufficently presented your argument, and not enough of evidence. I believe homosexuality is mainly influenced by genetics and the chromosomes have been found. Your statements completely ignore the various studies i have posted. I feel you have issues with accepting the fact that the genetic argument is more probable and more substantiated.

Just because I am bisexual doesn't mean I have to follow blindly what the homosexual/bisexual community believes to be the answer. I like to think for myself. And just so there isn't any fight from this comment, I am not saying you do not think for yourself or that you are following blindly.

Good. Because I felt I have met my ends of the argument and have provided enough sources.

I'm not buying into your argument. I believe you have insufficently presented your argument, and not enough of evidence. I believe homosexuality is mainly influenced by genetics and the chromosomes have been found. Your statements completely ignore the various studies i have posted. I feel you have issues with accepting the fact that the genetic argument is more probable and more substantiated.



Good. Because I felt I have met my ends of the argument and have provided enough sources.

I haven't provided much evidence, I realize that. I have not really researched this topic yet and therefore don't really have any. My opinion is based on what makes sense in my head. You have influenced it a lot so far. Going into this debate I believed it to be entirely impossible for it to be genetic, now I consider it just as possible as the alternative I accept. After research I may revert back to the genetic stance.

I don't ignore your studies, I am not debating them because I don't feel I can. I recognize it as a possibility. It may be more substantiated but that doesn't necessarily make it right though. I would be willing to bet a lot more research has taken place in regards to homosexuality and genetics than some of the alternatives.

In any case, I realize that I have much thinking to do about the topic.

I wish this thread would die, die, die!
http://www.sumbler.com/blog/archives/kniferack-thumb.png

This many pages and nobody's convinced anyone of jack shit.
Not to mention my original post was a joke

I have not really researched this topic yet and therefore don't really have any. My opinion is based on what makes sense in my head. You have influenced it a lot so far. Going into this debate I believed it to be entirely impossible for it to be genetic, now I consider it just as possible as the alternative I accept. After research I may revert back to the genetic stance.

I lashed out a bit.

I'm sorry. I'm just really frustrated. Look at this thread.. 1,200+ posts...

Meta-evolution. Stop thinking in terms of individuals evolving, look at a bigger picture. Homosexuality has an undeniable and traditional role in society, and of course a society is a component of meta-humanity. Just as useful, individual human characterisitics may develop and evolve over time, so can the useful collective characteristics of larger populations develop and evolve. Not everyone is meant to be a breeder. There are other purposes in life. The advent of homosexuality in society is a benchmark in meta-evolution.

I lashed out a bit.

I'm sorry. I'm just really frustrated. Look at this thread.. 1,200+ posts...

It is fine. I understand entirely. When I debate topics I am sure of I get very very frustrated. Specially when it is verbal. I forget to breathe.....

Think it will make 1300 or has it pretty well died? I think it depends on if Neo Rogolia comes back....

It is fine. I understand entirely. When I debate topics I am sure of I get very very frustrated. Specially when it is verbal. I forget to breathe.....

Think it will make 1300 or has it pretty well died? I think it depends on if Neo Rogolia comes back....

Well this thread completely went out of control... i don't know what to say anymore if neo comes back.. she'll continue saying that homosexuality is a sin and wrong...

We both agree that homosexuality is not a choice.. nor is it wrong.

Well this thread completely went out of control... i don't know what to say anymore if neo comes back.. she'll continue saying that homosexuality is a sin and wrong...

We both agree that homosexuality is not a choice.. nor is it wrong.

I know a few people decide to become homosexual. They aren't trully homosexual and are just doing it to make a point or to get attention. But other then them, who in their right mind would want to deal with the hostility that homosexuals put up with?

Not to mention my original post was a joke
I still gave it a 5 star rating, on the grounds that somehow your joke mutated toward prophecy. ;)

I know a few people decide to become homosexual. They aren't trully homosexual and are just doing it to make a point or to get attention. But other then them, who in their right mind would want to deal with the hostility that homosexuals put up with?

I don't think they are being honest to themselves... or they were bisexual. Just look at the treatment we get from neo.. who would want that?

I don't think they are being honest to themselves... or they were bisexual. Just look at the treatment we get from neo.. who would want that?

You should post a picture of you and your boyfriend on the user pics thread. I know I personally would like to see. I don't know what he looks like but I imagine it would be quite cute.

You should post a picture of you and your boyfriend on the user pics thread. I know I personally would like to see. I don't know what he looks like but I imagine it would be quite cute.
Ditto. I'd like to view the pic, preferrably in a cudlly situation, for, ummmmmmmm...

For personal research. Yep.

You should post a picture of you and your boyfriend on the user pics thread. I know I personally would like to see. I don't know what he looks like but I imagine it would be quite cute.

Done. :) And if you have myspace.. i have more on there.

Done. :) And if you have myspace.. i have more on there.

I have one. What is your display name?

I have one. What is your display name?

www.myspace.com/giancarlo1985

I went to dunamai.com to see what the site was about and this is what I got: "World-wide Publishers of the Gospel of jesus christ".

You need to get better sources then that.

Counter sources:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html


From your sites:
"This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations."
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html

“Who are The Danaans?
The Danaans are people who have discovered a new expression of the original faith of the human species. We are they who worship the Goddess.
We cherish Her form as Mother Earth, as the Spirit of Universal Life and Love.
We call Her Athena, and treasure specifically the wisdom She bestows.
We cast off the yoke of theological childishness for maturity: we are not the 'children of God', but the Adults of the Goddess.”
http://www.danaanpress.com/dp_danns.htm


“Below you’ll find links to papers produced by students in Jen Shelton’s English 201H (Honors Composition) class at Marshall University in Huntington, West Virginia. Each essay has a link so you can email the writer with your comments. On December 11, reviews of these essays will be available online.”
http://webpages.marshall.edu/~woods18/homosexuality.htm

"The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation."
http://www.psychdaily.com/article/734
This one actually helps your proposition a little, however from the actual study and not just from the pro gay rights website summary of it that you linked to (with the links to GLBT support groups etc.,), and … it says: The study did not find genes that directly organize the brain to respond sexually to those of the same sex.. It did not specify what genes may actually be involved in sexual orientation. • It did not provide any specificity in how the DNA locations identified could impact people to develop sexual attractions of any kind."


I think your suppositions are not better than anyone else’s, and you genetic proof claims debunk themselves as they are written but students in English classes (not even science or biology classes mind you), I see no point in speculating that the eventual answer to this question is going to be a genetic gene cause. Choice matters.

I think you suppositions are not better than anyone else’s, you genetic proof claims debunk themselves as they are written but students in English classes (no even science or biology classes mind you), I see no point in speculating that the eventual answer to this question is going to be genetic gene design. Choice matters.

No. It is not a choice. That simple. Nice one rejecting the facts.

No. It is not a choice. That simple. Nice one rejecting the facts.

All your facts are debunked by themselves....

All your facts are debunked by themselves....

No they aren't. In fact the student written one has citations to it. Additionally, the source provided identifying chromosomes was very well substantiated. They don't debunk themselves. You debunk yourself by failing to provide any counter evidence. Also the one identifying the genes, was identifying several chromosomes that were specified. Looks like you aren't reading the source. Sexuality is not a choice. Arrogance is. :mad:

No they aren't. In fact the student written one has citations to it. Additionally, the source provided identifying chromosomes was very well substantiated. They don't debunk themselves. You debunk yourself by failing to provide any counter evidence. Also the one identifying the genes, was identifying several chromosomes that were specified. Looks like you aren't reading the source. Sexuality is not a choice. Arrogance is. :mad:


I don't need counter proof to editorials and english papers. What you provided is called commentary and opinion, not scientific data. You've linke to other people that agree with your theory and speculation, no proof whatsoever.

I don't need counter proof to editorials and english papers. What you provided is called commentary and opinion, not scientific data. You've linke to other people that agree with your theory and speculation, no proof whatsoever.

I provided several studies in a different post. And a study on the chromosomes with scientific data. I provided plenty of proof. And you are arrogant because you provide nothing and you have nothing to support your weak argument.

Balderdash. Just because you've mentioned the word 'genetics' several times doesn't actually produce the studies and the reports that substantiate your 'belief' now does it? In fact, the genetic reports says that they can’t find any indication of a genetic gene even existing. We have no scientific way of predicting this hypothetical ‘gay’ gene of yours. Unlike other genes and alleles in action, you cannot even guess at which children of which adults will develop or have any higher a chance of developing your hypothesized genetic gay-gene.

As to a slippery slope, what slippery slope? I've mentioned no slippery slope.

Problem: The fact they haven't found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There are many examples such as in the wild that suggests it does.

Genome is hardly understood.

I've been looking too, and I've got to say that I can't find anything saying that it's genetic either. I actually keep finding studies that show that it isn't.

Why don't you post them so I can have a looksy?

Mesatecala there is no point in wasting time waging an internet war on homophobia. These people's minds are unchangeable. They're against equality before the law, plain and simple. They're not going to favour it. Just take comfort in the fact that twenty years from now, they'll all be silently angry about legal gay marriage, or just pretending that they agreed with us all along.

And to Greenlander, why can't you just be more like Neo Rogolia? At least she can admit that she opposes gay marriage because she thinks it's just immoral.

Mesatecala there is no point in wasting time waging an internet war on homophobia. These people's minds are unchangeable. They're against equality before the law, plain and simple. They're not going to favour it. Just take comfort in the fact that twenty years from now, they'll all be silently angry about legal gay marriage, or just pretending that they agreed with us all along.

Well I realized this about 600 posts ago... I can't change peoples minds on here. I can only present my case.

Also does this mean you will stop criticizing me about political parties/

Well I realized this about 600 posts ago... I can't change peoples minds on here. I can only present my case.

Also does this mean you will stop criticizing me about political parties/
no ;) well maybe... if you're lucky.

just don't burn yourself out. like that South Korean man.

no ;) well maybe... if you're lucky.

just don't burn yourself out. like that South Korean man.

Uh well, I'm not on here all the time. I go out with friends often.. just these past few days they are all out of town.

I provided several studies in a different post. And a study on the chromosomes with scientific data. I provided plenty of proof. And you are arrogant because you provide nothing and you have nothing to support your weak argument.


I did read your links, that's why I linked to them again when I quoted from them to show that they essentially are just student papers (English class papers mind you), gay advocacy groups and speculation and commentary writings. There was no real 'data' there, they debunk themselves.

Real study’s that are impartial can be found... It's a big field, but we know that we 'don’t’ know the answers you pretend are self evident, and you can't prove even with all the insistence you can muster, that genetics is just a theory at this point and you trying to act like is already proven is fundamentally over-stated poppycock.


Choice. You have choice. You CAN choose how you will behave.

^_^ Yeah. We posted at the same time. Lemme go find my sources...

http://dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm

This one goes way back to the Twins debate I saw earlier. I'm not sure if this link was brought up then...

I'm trying to find more sources now..

Oh lordy. The fact that one guy is involved with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality; kind of suggests there is a rather slanted view of the so called "research"

Also, most scientists usually don't label themselves as a "trained scientist"

I took the sites poll for fun. ;)

I didn't plan on bringing this back up but since it kind of already was, I stand by my position that it cannot be entirely genetic due to the indentical twin situation. It was said that identical twins can still have different traits because while in utero, the genes can "hide". This is true but not when both fetuses are in the same environment. Perhaps they can receive different hormones, which furthers my argument that it is hormonal, but otherwise, all conditions are the same and their prenatal development will be the same. I do not believe it to be something that is altered after birth like environment or the way they are raised.

EDIT: I am not saying a genetic predisposition is not possible.

Problem: twins are not exact duplicates

I did read your links, that's why I linked to them again when I quoted from them to show that they essentially are just student papers (English class papers mind you), gay advocacy groups and speculation and commentary writings. There was no real 'data' there, they debunk themselves.

There was data and in fact facts. They don't debunk themselves. You debunk yourself because you cannout accept the reality. And there was one student writing (which also included citations). The study determining chromosomes was a valid one.

Homophobes... :rolleyes: Deny, deny, deny and deny. But never bother presenting your own argument.

Gay advocacy groups have real credibility behind them, and they are fighting for the rights of gay people throughout the war. It is people like you who don't have credibility.

Real study’s that are impartial can be found... It's a big field, but we know that we 'don’t’ know the answers you pretend are self evident, and you can't prove even with all the insistence you can muster, that genetics is just a theory at this point and you trying to act like is already proven is fundamentally over-stated poppycock.

You mean studies funded by religious organizations so it can suit your own views? I don't think so. I provided evidence including, the chromosomes study and the scent study that are very credible. Backed by pro-gay rights groups or not, these studies carry substantial weight. I think we do know the answers because we are stepping into genetics as a field. Genetics is not a theory. That's false. It is proven fact.

Choice. You have choice. You CAN choose how you will behave.

It is not a choice.

So no, you will get another "slap-down" with the facts if you continue to post this. I cannot choose to be gay. So please cut the crap.

Uh well, I'm not on here all the time. I go out with friends often.. just these past few days they are all out of town.
That's good to hear. You just seemed to be making a worrying amount of posts in rapid succession.

That's good to hear. You just seemed to be making a worrying amount of posts in rapid succession.

A worrying amount of posts? Well not really. This is just a heated debate. I mean I can't do anything right now because most of my friends are out of the city (and have been for several weeks) and a few of my friends who are still here are very busy.

There was data and in fact facts. They don't debunk themselves. You debunk yourself because you cannout accept the reality. And there was one student writing (which also included citations). The study determining chromosomes was a valid one.

Homophobes... :rolleyes: Deny, deny, deny and deny. But never bother presenting your own argument.

Gay advocacy groups have real credibility behind them, and they are fighting for the rights of gay people throughout the war. It is people like you who don't have credibility.



You mean studies funded by religious organizations so it can suit your own views? I don't think so. I provided evidence including, the chromosomes study and the scent study that are very credible. Backed by pro-gay rights groups or not, these studies carry substantial weight. I think we do know the answers because we are stepping into genetics as a field. Genetics is not a theory. That's false. It is proven fact.



It is not a choice.

So no, you will get another "slap-down" with the facts if you continue to post this. I cannot choose to be gay. So please cut the crap.

Hogwash, you lie to yourself. You can choose who you want to be. You're not a robot programed from birth with no control of your own life.

Not to mention my original post was a joke

Isn't that how World War I started? ;)

Hogwash, you lie to yourself. You can choose who you want to be. You're not a robot programed from birth with no control of your own life.

You are acting like the one lying to yourself. I mean you back yourself up!

BACK YOURSELF UP FOR ONCE, HOMOPHOBE

I dare you.

Some things are determined. I cannot choose my sexual orientation. I am gay and that is the way I was born.

For one thing, DNA is not a theory. It is actually observed. So please, stop lying to me, stop lying to yourself, and stop saying hogwash. All that comes out of your mouth is hogwash to me.

Hogwash, you lie to yourself. You can choose who you want to be. You're not a robot programed from birth with no control of your own life.

You can choose to behave like you're not homosexual, but that changes nothing about your sexuality. You can't one day just decide to be sexually atracted to people of the same sex.

Somethings we do not have controll over, like heartbeats, hunger, and sexuality.

You are just being ignorant.

A worrying amount of posts? Well not really. This is just a heated debate. I mean I can't do anything right now because most of my friends are out of the city (and have been for several weeks) and a few of my friends who are still here are very busy.

Neo and Greenlander will never ever change their viewpoints. Both have a habit of spewing something. Debate happens, they are shown to be wrong and a week or two later they will repeat the exact same thing.

Neo and Greenlander will never ever change their viewpoints. Both have a habit of spewing something. Debate happens, they are shown to be wrong and a week or two later they will repeat the exact same thing.

I know they won't ever change their viewpoints. Greenlander is just plain ignorant.... I can't believe the person claims DNA is a theory.. it is a proven fact.

Hogwash, you lie to yourself. You can choose who you want to be. You're not a robot programed from birth with no control of your own life.

Prove it.

I know they won't ever change their viewpoints. Greenlander is just plain ignorant.... I can't believe the person claims DNA is a theory.. it is a proven fact.

For God's sake, you can see DNA with a microscope!

For God's sake, you can see DNA with a microscope!

Switching to Greenlander logic: But the microscope must be lying because microscopes are lying.

:headbang:

Mesatecala there is no point in wasting time waging an internet war on homophobia. These people's minds are unchangeable. They're against equality before the law, plain and simple. They're not going to favour it. Just take comfort in the fact that twenty years from now, they'll all be silently angry about legal gay marriage, or just pretending that they agreed with us all along.

And to Greenlander, why can't you just be more like Neo Rogolia? At least she can admit that she opposes gay marriage because she thinks it's just immoral.

Since when is this a debate about gay marriage? To my knowledge this is a thread about whether or not homosexuality is an inherited trait, and not an "internet war on homophobia" as you so respectfully called it. The studies that Mesa posted don't truly prove anything about homosexuality being a genetic trait, they merely linked locations on some chromosomes with the possibility of influencing homosexuality in men. The chromosomes in question could also refer to other things which may or may not indirectly influence someone's sexuality, which trigger homosexual tendencies later on in life. I'll post some links when I come back later, but I've other things to do and can't compile them in an orderly fashion at the moment.

Switching to Greenlander logic: But the microscope must be lying because microscopes are lying.

:headbang:

Uh oh, I'm going to throw a curve: if you've got enough of it, you can see it with the naked eye!

Secondly, this raises a question: If homosexuality isn't genetic, does that mean heterosexuality is also not genetic? Because, if homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality also has to be a choice; they would both hinge on parenting to determine the child's sexuality.

This conflicts with the fact that sexuality is an inherited genetic trait, and seems to be a logical contradiction within the "choice" argument.

The studies that Mesa posted don't truly prove anything about homosexuality being a genetic trait, they merely linked locations on some chromosomes with the possibility of influencing homosexuality in men.

I never claimd homosexuality was a genetic trait. My beliefs are that sexuality is determined mainly by genetics. You don't misinterpret the facts or my views. This is a war against homophobia, that i'm scaling down because I realize there is no point.. to convince people as yourself. Religion gets in the way of reason.

I'll post some links when I come back later, but I've other things to do and can't compile them in an orderly fashion at the moment.

From what? Religious sites? I saw you debate religion earlier in this thread.. not really credible are you? So convenient you can't present the sources because you don't have time. It shows you don't have an argument.

{snip}
It is my personal theory.
{snip}


That's called a hypothesis.

You know what this thread needs? Some commentary and/or guidence from some real molecular biologists.
Anyone out there? :confused:

You know what this thread needs? Some commentary and/or guidence from some real molecular biologists.
Anyone out there? :confused:

Actually this thread needs more people like me who speak common sense and posts evidence from scientists.

Gay people are here on this planet; deal with it. You can't change that fact, even Hitler couldn't. In fact, it would be more logical to force homosexuality on the majority of the population as a form of population control than to let people go rampant with rising birth rates and greater division of the food supply.

Thing is though, how can homosexuality be passed down if it is genetic? Maybe it's just a common defect, and probably is. Nature meant for a viable representative of the species that would seek out a mate of the opposite sex to breed with. Not for a homosexual. Not saying homosexuality is wrong. It's just simply not something nature intended. But honestly, why get your panties in a wad about it? So what if guys stick their cocks in each other's asses, why does that matter to you people? Why do you have to fixate on thinking about what gay people do in their spare time? It makes you people look like a bunch of closet-case faggots.

I never claimd homosexuality was a genetic trait. My beliefs are that sexuality is determined mainly by genetics. You don't misinterpret the facts or my views. This is a war against homophobia, that i'm scaling down because I realize there is no point.. to convince people as yourself. Religion gets in the way of reason.



From what? Religious sites? I saw you debate religion earlier in this thread.. not really credible are you? So convenient you can't present the sources because you don't have time. It shows you don't have an argument.

I'm sorry that you don't believe I have no time, I had been living with my Aunt and Uncle for a couple of weeks, and I had to pack up and leave, I actually didn't have the time to post sources about the religious goings on earlier in the thread, and I'm not a homophobic, I simply do not believe that it's a trait determined by genetics, and I don't believe that a person is born gay. I have no agenda to eliminate homosexuality from the planet, nor do I want to make anyone straight. As far as my religion is concerned, I do think that it's an immoral act and a sin, but we're all sinners, and no sin is worse than any other. I can accept a homosexual person as a sinner just like I am, and as everyone else on the planet is. I bear no ill will towards you, or anyone else for that matter, because of homosexual tendencies. Perhaps you should ask before jumping to the conclusion that I have some sort of a hatred towards you because of your sexuality. As for homosexual christians, I believe it's a sin that a christian must face and eventually repent of, but that's between them and God, and all I can do is encourage that person to do what they know is right. Anyway, as for the sources, some of them may be religious sites...but some of your sources were biased towards your point of view as well, and it's difficult to get an objective opinion on such a controversial subject. I'm going to do some research, as I haven't done any in a long time, on the subject, and post back here promptly with my findings. I'm open to change my mind on the subject if I find valid proof that homosexuality is heavily influenced by genetics, but it seems that the results I've found so far have had very little in the way of fact to them, and again...it's extremely difficult to find an objective, factual source on the matter. I know that you'll never change your opinion that I'm some sort of a religious nutball, who can't see reason because I'm too blinded by my own self-righteouss agenda to see what's in front of me, but that won't stop me from trying to find logically sound reasoning to debate this issue, and will not cause me to resort to petty insults to get my point across.

Also, animals can be homosexual, but animals aren't supposed to make choices, they're just wild beasts that act upon instinct without moral or compassion.

If being homosexual is a choice, then animals are sentient beings, and that would mess up christianity.

Neo and Greenlander will never ever change their viewpoints. Both have a habit of spewing something. Debate happens, they are shown to be wrong and a week or two later they will repeat the exact same thing.


Really? Was a single proof of genetic cause for homosexuality get shown anywhere in this thread? I think not. Denial of the fact that the supposed proof submitted were school papers and nonsensical religious documents about people who worship the ancient Greek goddesses (or some such a thing at the Danaan group link showed) and the scientist’s themselves from the one and only scientific study saying that their study did NOT in fact show a genetic proof for homosexuality in genes...

Shown to be wrong? :rolleyes: Pure and simple self-deception on your part as far as I can tell. Why do you even want to win this debate? Ho is it better to suggest that people are a bunch of robots, programmed from birth, beyond their own control, than to think that people are NOT limited by their circumstance. By you way of thinking, royalty lineage would have a legitimate rationale for existing. That people are born, destined to live and act in certain ways that are entirely out of their control

Rubbish. People do choose their own compulsions.

Also, animals can be homosexual, but animals aren't supposed to make choices, they're just wild beasts that act upon instinct without moral or compassion.

If being homosexual is a choice, then animals are sentient beings, and that would mess up christianity.

It's my understanding that animals exhibiting homosexual traits aren't engaging in such acts for pleasure or gratification as humans do. Thus they aren't 'attracted' to animals of the same sex, which differs greatly from human sexual orientation. I'm researching another topic at the moment, but if you could provide some sources that prove differently I would love to see them.

Debunking time.

I actually didn't have the time to post sources about the religious goings on earlier in the thread, and I'm not a homophobic, I simply do not believe that it's a trait determined by genetics, and I don't believe that a person is born gay.

I think you're wrong based on the facts i have presented. Furthermore, sexuality as a whole is tied to genetics. People are born gay, straight and bisexual.


As far as my religion is concerned, I do think that it's an immoral act and a sin, but we're all sinners, and no sin is worse than any other. I can accept a homosexual person as a sinner just like I am, and as everyone else on the planet is. I bear no ill will towards you, or anyone else for that matter, because of homosexual tendencies.

Homosexual tendencies I did not choose to have. It is the way I am. I have a right to love without being called wrong for it.

Perhaps you should ask before jumping to the conclusion that I have some sort of a hatred towards you because of your sexuality. As for homosexual christians, I believe it's a sin that a christian must face and eventually repent of, but that's between them and God, and all I can do is encourage that person to do what they know is right.

I don't have any hatred towards christianity. I don't really care what people practice. But once they start calling me wrong because of the way I was born, then I will take up issue. I'm not repenting for anything but that is because I'm atheist.

but some of your sources were biased towards your point of view as well, and it's difficult to get an objective opinion on such a controversial subject.

Controversial subject? Excuse me? It is controversial because the homophobes in this world cannot accept gay people as human beings.

First off, my sources were not biased, and in fact demonstrated scientific facts. The scientific facts are not something christians use all that often.

I'm open to change my mind on the subject if I find valid proof that homosexuality is heavily influenced by genetics, but it seems that the results I've found so far have had very little in the way of fact to them, and again...it's extremely difficult to find an objective, factual source on the matter. I know that you'll never change your opinion that I'm some sort of a religious nutball, who can't see reason because I'm too blinded by my own self-righteouss agenda to see what's in front of me, but that won't stop me from trying to find logically sound reasoning to debate this issue, and will not cause me to resort to petty insults to get my point across.

I demonstrated proof including two notable studies: One on chromosomes and the other on scent. This is a fact and I have shown this evidence. Objective and factual? Please. I'm the one who sides with scientists, and you side with religion. I am the one who is finding logically sound reasoning to debate this issue. You are the one who is not.

Face up to the facts: Science is on my side.

Really? Was a single proof of genetic cause for homosexuality get shown anywhere in this thread? I think not. Denial of the fact that the supposed proof submitted were school papers and nonsensical religious documents about people who worship the ancient Greek goddesses (or some such a thing at the Danaan group link showed) and the scientist’s themselves from the one and only scientific study saying that their study did NOT in fact show a genetic proof for homosexuality in genes...

i demonstrated two studies. You are the one denying the facts and you are the ignorant one harping on one source I provided. Go to the scent backed study and the chromosome backed study. I did in fact show the facts and you are going on your ignorant rantings. Well that's your own fault. Not mine.

Shown to be wrong? :rolleyes: Pure and simple self-deception on your part as far as I can tell. Why do you even want to win this debate? Ho is it better to suggest that people are a bunch of robots, programmed from birth, beyond their own control, than to think that people are NOT limited by their circumstance. By you way of thinking, royalty lineage would have a legitimate rationale for existing. That people are born, destined to live and act in certain ways that are entirely out of their control

You are just plain wrong. You have been shown to be wrong numerous times by myself and you ignore many of my sources. You can't win anything in here and you deceive yourself. You do not present anything besides your own ignorant rantings. Sexuality is not a choice, nor is it a decision anybody makes. So please stop lying to me, yourself and everyone else on here.

Rubbish. People do choose their own compulsions.

Nope.

Your argument is rubbish. Sexuality is not a choice.

DEBUNKED AGAIN!

I know they won't ever change their viewpoints. Greenlander is just plain ignorant.... I can't believe the person claims DNA is a theory.. it is a proven fact.


Hogwash, nice strawman though. I never said a word about DNA, what twaddle. I said there was no hard evidence of a genetic gene that causes homosexual orientation.

Hogwash, nice strawman though. I never said a word about DNA, what twaddle. I said there was no hard evidence of a genetic gene that causes homosexual orientation.

You are the one full of strawmans. You are wrong. And you don't know what you are saying.. you never back yourself up.. and your are the ultimate strawman in here. There is evidence. Accept it.

Hi Mesatecala.

For the benefit of the lazy latecomers to this thread could you repost the links to those studies?

Ty! :D

Hi Mesatecala.

For the benefit of the lazy latecomers to this thread could you repost the links to those studies?

Ty! :D

Look a few pages back. Not too difficult.

Hogwash, nice strawman though. I never said a word about DNA, what twaddle. I said there was no hard evidence of a genetic gene that causes homosexual orientation.

Can you point me to the hard evidence of a genetic gene that causes heterosexual or asexual orientation?

Yes, this is a serious request slathered in sarcasm.

Really? Was a single proof of genetic cause for homosexuality get shown anywhere in this thread? I think not. Denial of the fact that the supposed proof submitted were school papers and nonsensical religious documents about people who worship the ancient Greek goddesses (or some such a thing at the Danaan group link showed) and the scientist’s themselves from the one and only scientific study saying that their study did NOT in fact show a genetic proof for homosexuality in genes...

Shown to be wrong? :rolleyes: Pure and simple self-deception on your part as far as I can tell. Why do you even want to win this debate? Ho is it better to suggest that people are a bunch of robots, programmed from birth, beyond their own control, than to think that people are NOT limited by their circumstance. By you way of thinking, royalty lineage would have a legitimate rationale for existing. That people are born, destined to live and act in certain ways that are entirely out of their control

Rubbish. People do choose their own compulsions.

Ahh still to form. Change the subject. In previous debates you were shown wrong and yet you parrot the same wrong statements.

Do you really want an answer to your strawman argument? At most it's a philosophical argument.

The fact a gay gene has not been identified doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We are only now beginning to understand the genome.

Evidence suggests it exists more then choice.

Look a few pages back. Not too difficult.
I could just run a search on the thread ( DOH! :headbang: )

Checking ...

Ahh still to form. Change the subject. In previous debates you were shown wrong and yet you parrot the same wrong statements.


He's nothing more then a parrot that keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. I demonstrated facts and evidence, and he says they are wrong and provides nothing. I didn't know he was in other threads.. doesn't surprise me..

It's my understanding that animals exhibiting homosexual traits aren't engaging in such acts for pleasure or gratification as humans do. Thus they aren't 'attracted' to animals of the same sex, which differs greatly from human sexual orientation. I'm researching another topic at the moment, but if you could provide some sources that prove differently I would love to see them.

Actually there are examples of pleasure. The most common sited is the Bonobo. Look to Franz De Waal. Here is a review of one of his books and it mentions:

"Heterosexual sex, female homosexuality, male homosexuality, oral-genital sex, mutual masturbation, even deep-tongue kissing, they do it all - frequently. With enthusiasm. It's part of their social repertoire. Are things getting tense? Make love and relax. Even more disturbing for those who would ground "the way things are" in biological determinism, our kissing cousins (and kiss they do) have a female dominant social structure. Horrors and gee-willikers."

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/bonobo.html

Homosexuality is a personality? I'm sorry but no. It is a sexual orientation. Also you people throw around the word lifestyle like candy. Stop insulting homosexuality with your bible. Homosexuality is frowned upon in black and white? Really? My parents accept me for who I am. And to hell with your religion.. I'm not going to repent for something that is not wrong. Oh and guess what? I'm not going to stop being gay for the satisfaction of fascists!

Who says it's just fascists that hate gays? I myself am more moderate on these issues, and I don't mind the gays that aren't like... shoving all their crap down my throat. It's the ones that don't shut up about being gay that piss me off.

i demonstrated two studies. You are the one denying the facts and you are the ignorant one harping on one source I provided. Go to the scent backed study and the chromosome backed study. I did in fact show the facts and you are going on your ignorant rantings. Well that's your own fault. Not mine.

And I showed and posted and re-linked to your links, showing how your own scientists/researchers (from the one good study) said themselves that their study DID NOT prove a gay-gene nor a gene that causes homosexual orientation...

You are just plain wrong. You have been shown to be wrong numerous times by myself and you ignore many of my sources. I linked directly back to your sources and showed them for what they are... commentary and opinion and not even from experts, but from Eanglish course studies...

Nope.

Your argument is rubbish. Sexuality is not a choice.

DEBUNKED AGAIN!

Perhaps it is time you looked up the word debunked. Your argument has no course, no backing, and you’re shooting holes in your own ship and it’s sinking. You keep using the words 'studies show,' and ‘science in on my side,’ but this isn't made true simply by your saying it, in fact, genetic researchers KNOW that we haven’t found a sexual orientation gene... Look up genetic research and genetic defects and genetic mapping etc., there is NO genetic finding for homosexuality predictions. Why you think you want one is beyond me.

We CAN choose to become the people we want to become. People do it all the time...

We CAN choose to become the people we want to become. People do it all the time...

Tell me, how does one decide to be atracted to the same sex? explain to me in detail.

Actually there are examples of pleasure. The most common sited is the Bonobo. Look to Franz De Waal. *snip*
http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/bonobo.html

If there is pleasure (even in animals), then there are choices involved. Cats 'choose' to rub their backs against objects because they enjoy it...

BAM is at it again.

BAM = Bald Assertion Man

And I showed and posted and re-linked to your links, showing how your own scientists/researchers (from the one good study) said themselves that their study DID NOT prove a gay-gene nor a gene that causes homosexual orientation...

You didn't do anything. You are nothing more then full of it. I showed evidence clearly showing that genetics is tied to sexuality (I never said there was one gay gene).

I linked directly back to your sources and showed them for what they are... commentary and opinion and not even from experts, but from Eanglish course studies...

These weren't commentaries or opinion.. many were studies. You keep harping on that one source. You are just acting ridiculously. Like a parrot, even after I proved you wrong.

Perhaps it is time you looked up the word debunked. Your argument has no course, no backing, and you’re shooting holes in your own ship and it’s sinking. You keep using the words 'studies show,' and ‘science in on my side,’ but this isn't made true simply by your saying it, in fact, genetic researchers KNOW that we haven’t found a sexual orientation gene... Look up genetic research and genetic defects and genetic mapping etc., there is NO genetic finding for homosexuality predictions. Why you think you want one is beyond me.

Your argument is the one that has no backing. I mean come on. You are digging your own hole and you are sinking in a hole. These are actual studies and science is on my side because I demonstrated that by posting studies, and sources. You haven't done shit. On the other hand you continue to parrot on about the same thing. I have plenty of backing, and my argument has a lot of facts backing it. You are the one in the sinking ship. There is genetic findings including the scent based study (which you haven't even bothered looking at because it disproves you further), and the chromosome study. Please... stop trying to save yourself from failure and admit you are wrong. I did that on this forum a while back.

We CAN choose to become the people we want to become. People do it all the time...

No. We do not choose sexuality.

Debunking time.



I think you're wrong based on the facts i have presented. Furthermore, sexuality as a whole is tied to genetics. People are born gay, straight and bisexual.



Homosexual tendencies I did not choose to have. It is the way I am. I have a right to love without being called wrong for it.



I don't have any hatred towards christianity. I don't really care what people practice. But once they start calling me wrong because of the way I was born, then I will take up issue. I'm not repenting for anything but that is because I'm atheist.



Controversial subject? Excuse me? It is controversial because the homophobes in this world cannot accept gay people as human beings.

First off, my sources were not biased, and in fact demonstrated scientific facts. The scientific facts are not something christians use all that often.



I demonstrated proof including two notable studies: One on chromosomes and the other on scent. This is a fact and I have shown this evidence. Objective and factual? Please. I'm the one who sides with scientists, and you side with religion. I am the one who is finding logically sound reasoning to debate this issue. You are the one who is not.

Face up to the facts: Science is on my side.


In the article you posted regarding chromosomes, the scientists themselves were not offering proof of homosexuality as a genetic trait. They said that the next step would be to see if their findings held true with another sample. The study itself was fairly unbalanced, with 94.5% of the participants being White males, 87.4% being college educated, and of middle-upper socioeconomic status (Official test results, pdf found here (http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf))

Since they all came from fairly similar upbringings and environment, this study does nothing to disprove a persons environment as a leading factor in determining their sexuality. The 10% deviation from the expected 50% of shared genes in homosexuals could be accounted for by such things as twins in the study (who would obviously share more genes than two unrelated homosexual males) and the fact that many of the tested males were siblings, therefore also sharing more of the same genetic code. That deviation isn't enough to prove that the influence is predominantly genetic. I'm not going to claim to be a scientist, and I'm certainly no expert, but this isn't significant proof for me as of yet, perhaps when they finish testing these findings on their next sample I'll be more convinced by this, but until then a suggestion that maybe these chromosomes could possibly be related to homosexual tendency just isn't enough.

As far as your scent article goes, in a direct quote from a scientist working on the study causes it to refute itself as scientific proof

'Alternatively, Dr. Savic's finding could be just a consequence of straight and gay men's using their brain in different ways.

"We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect," Dr. Savic said. "The study does not give any answer to these crucial questions." '

(http://www.banderasnews.com/0505/hb-manscent.htm)

I think this is substantial for now, and for the record. I actually have no problem with homosexuals being given equal marriage rights, etc...as there's no sound legal reason to deny such rights to them. Religious conviction alone cannot form the basis for federal law, and as such homosexual americans should have the same rights as any heterosexual american. The only argument I have here is whether or not a person is born gay, to which there is no true "proof" as of yet.

If there is pleasure (even in animals), then there are choices involved. Cats 'choose' to rub their backs against objects because they enjoy it...

Prove it and stop lying.

Bald Assertion Man!

Refuting time again!

In the article you posted regarding chromosomes, the scientists themselves were not offering proof of homosexuality as a genetic trait. They said that the next step would be to see if their findings held true with another sample. The study itself was fairly unbalanced, with 94.5% of the participants being White males, 87.4% being college educated, and of middle-upper socioeconomic status (Official test results, pdf found here (http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf))

The study was not unbalanced, your arguments are unbalanced and bad. You have not provided evidence. I have provided evidence. You now qualify as another bald assertion man. You did not refute my arguments. And my evidence cannot be refuted until you provide adequate counter evidence. Your religion is getting in the way of reason.

I'm not going to claim to be a scientist, and I'm certainly no expert, but this isn't significant proof for me as of yet, perhaps when they finish testing these findings on their next sample I'll be more convinced by this, but until then a suggestion that maybe these chromosomes could possibly be related to homosexual tendency just isn't enough.

You aren't an expert and I have provided substantial support for my own argument. You have not. You did not. And you can't. The reason for my harshness in dealing with your argument, is because you fail to provide counter-evidence to suggest that sexuality is caused by the environment. You continue to harp on about the same old rhetoric and you provide nothing for it.


I think this is substantial for now, and for the record. I actually have no problem with homosexuals being given equal marriage rights, etc...as there's no sound legal reason to deny such rights to them. Religious conviction alone cannot form the basis for federal law, and as such homosexual americans should have the same rights as any heterosexual american. The only argument I have here is whether or not a person is born gay, to which there is no true "proof" as of yet.

There is plenty of real proof out there showing people are born gay. I did not choose to be gay, and it was not formed in my life. This is just the way I am. I'm getting very angry at some people around here who cannot substantiate their claims or their arguments. They harp on about the same old crap and they can never get around to providing evidence for their claims. In essence, your arguments do not stand.

Tell me, how does one decide to be atracted to the same sex? explain to me in detail.

I already wrote this, I'll just link it... ten pages ago, or so.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9420485&postcount=1159

Prove it and stop lying.

Bald Assertion Man!


Prove it? :rolleyes: LMAO... you're getting desperate...

I already wrote this, I'll just link it... ten pages ago, or so.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9420485&postcount=1159

You are committing a logical fallacy in your arguments: Bald Assertions

No evidence.

No studies.

Nothing.

Therefore please leave this thread because your argument is not worthy of debate as it is fallacious.

Prove it? :rolleyes: LMAO... you're getting desperate...

Prove anything you are saying, please. You are the one who should be getting desperate because I'm breaking your arguments apart and proving my own position.

Prove that homosexuality is not tied heavily to genetics.

Refuting time again!



The study was not unbalanced, your arguments are unbalanced and bad. You have not provided evidence. I have provided evidence. You now qualify as another bald assertion man. You did not refute my arguments. And my evidence cannot be refuted until you provide adequate counter evidence. Your religion is getting in the way of reason.



You aren't an expert and I have provided substantial support for my own argument. You have not. You did not. And you can't. The reason for my harshness in dealing with your argument, is because you fail to provide counter-evidence to suggest that sexuality is caused by the environment. You continue to harp on about the same old rhetoric and you provide nothing for it.



There is plenty of real proof out there showing people are born gay. I did not choose to be gay, and it was not formed in my life. This is just the way I am. I'm getting very angry at some people around here who cannot substantiate their claims or their arguments. They harp on about the same old crap and they can never get around to providing evidence for their claims. In essence, your arguments do not stand.


Provides Mescatela with a very large cookie, says "I baked it just for you! I hope you like chocolate chip!"

Refuting time again!



The study was not unbalanced, your arguments are unbalanced and bad. You have not provided evidence. I have provided evidence. You now qualify as another bald assertion man. You did not refute my arguments. And my evidence cannot be refuted until you provide adequate counter evidence. Your religion is getting in the way of reason.



You aren't an expert and I have provided substantial support for my own argument. You have not. You did not. And you can't. The reason for my harshness in dealing with your argument, is because you fail to provide counter-evidence to suggest that sexuality is caused by the environment. You continue to harp on about the same old rhetoric and you provide nothing for it.



There is plenty of real proof out there showing people are born gay. I did not choose to be gay, and it was not formed in my life. This is just the way I am. I'm getting very angry at some people around here who cannot substantiate their claims or their arguments. They harp on about the same old crap and they can never get around to providing evidence for their claims. In essence, your arguments do not stand.


*sigh* It's clear that you didn't read either of the sites I posted as references, which I suppose wouldn't be a problem if you didn't completely ignore my argument about your scent study. Why didn't you try to refute that? The scientists on the study itself can't use it as proof of genetics being a major or the main factor in deciding a person's sexuality, why should you? And as for harping on about the same old crap, I haven't reused an argument once yet, and I don't see where you are coming up with me not providing any evidence. I posted two links, both of which are from objective sources, and specific examples of where problems could have occured in the value of the study to prove what you claim it proves. I have to yet to see why these things shouldn't count as evidence, and should not be discounted just because you disagree with them. As for me, I need to leave for a couple of hours, but rest assured when I come back that you'll see more from me. Thanks for taking the time to read bits and pieces of my post.

Prove it? :rolleyes: LMAO... you're getting desperate...


You haven't used a single source since you started debating? You are obviously discrediting yourself! Find yourself an unbiased poll suggesting that homosexuality isn't genetic.

Provides Mescatela with a very large cookie, says "I baked it just for you! I hope you like chocolate chip!"

Please don't come in here and spam.

Please don't come in here and spam.


Hey man, I'm only agreeing with you, and you looked tired, so I gave you a cookie to get your bloodsugar up.

If there is pleasure (even in animals), then there are choices involved. Cats 'choose' to rub their backs against objects because they enjoy it...

:rolleyes:

Ahh the usual sidestep.

If it was only a simple matter of choice.

The tiger kills because it's in its nature. The butterfly can't kill because it's not in its nature. Or did they make those choices?

What is stimulation? What is attraction? What is stress?. More importantly what is involved with those reactions?

I am sure the rapist, the pedophilliac and the serial killer can simply choose not to do their thing.

Finally, the action of rubbing is usually more about marking then pleasure.

then why is it still around, because it is a genitic dead end

*sigh* It's clear that you didn't read either of the sites I posted as references, which I suppose wouldn't be a problem if you didn't completely ignore my argument about your scent study. Why didn't you try to refute that? The scientists on the study itself can't use it as proof of genetics being a major or the main factor in deciding a person's sexuality, why should you?

The scientists can use it as proof because it does prove several things including the fact that gay males do in fact smell differently. I don't know where you get off on saying that it isn't scientific. No, I didn't ignore your argument. I trashed it as false. You haven't bothered backing yourself up.. or providing any counter evidence.

I posted two links, both of which are from objective sources, and specific examples of where problems could have occured in the value of the study to prove what you claim it proves. I have to say that these things count as evidence, and should not be discounted just because you disagree with them. As for me, I need to leave for a couple of hours, but rest assured when I come back that you'll see more from me. Thanks for taking the time to read bits and pieces of my post.

You better start providing evidence to show that homosexuality is not genetic, and is in fact caused by the environment. If we go by your strawmans, is heterosexuality also a choice? I have presented more then enough evidence to support my opinions and you have not. You have not been a worth debate opponent. I'll see more from you, and trash it. Like I have always been doing towards illogical arguments. I've been reading all of your rantings, and they are without merit.

I already wrote this, I'll just link it... ten pages ago, or so.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9420485&postcount=1159


So, according to your explanation, there's no real such thing as talent, either. Talent is something that's learned, not honed. So, someone could teach me how to paint like Leonardo DaVinci, or sculpt like Michaelangelo, or sing like Marriah Carey?

Everything about who we are on the most base of levels is genetic. Our methods of reaction are what we learn.

Hey man, I'm only agreeing with you, and you looked tired, so I gave you a cookie to get your bloodsugar up.

I wish a moderator would just close this thread.. I don't think I really anything more to do with these few people who think it is a choice. They are really hopeless.

I have here is whether or not a person is born gay, to which there is no true "proof" as of yet.

Bingo!

A valid claim to which I would not deny. My only consideration is the evidence suggests it more then simple conscious thought or a choosing to "sin" as our bible thumping contingent argue.

You haven't used a single source since you started debating? You are obviously discrediting yourself! Find yourself an unbiased poll suggesting that homosexuality isn't genetic.

Don't hold your breath. It's far too easy to simple scream that is BS then defend it.

Mesatecala -

Actually; it looks like you reposted several links several times.

Pardon my request to re-re-re-re-( Aw ferget it! ) post them.

Citing only one:

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

Seems the molecular biologists do have quite a bit to say on this matter.

In the article you posted regarding chromosomes, the scientists themselves were not offering proof of homosexuality as a genetic trait. They said that the next step would be to see if their findings held true with another sample. The study itself was fairly unbalanced, with 94.5% of the participants being White males, 87.4% being college educated, and of middle-upper socioeconomic status (Official test results, pdf found here (http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf))

Since they all came from fairly similar upbringings and environment, this study does nothing to disprove a persons environment as a leading factor in determining their sexuality. The 10% deviation from the expected 50% of shared genes in homosexuals could be accounted for by such things as twins in the study (who would obviously share more genes than two unrelated homosexual males) and the fact that many of the tested males were siblings, therefore also sharing more of the same genetic code. That deviation isn't enough to prove that the influence is predominantly genetic. I'm not going to claim to be a scientist, and I'm certainly no expert, but this isn't significant proof for me as of yet, perhaps when they finish testing these findings on their next sample I'll be more convinced by this, but until then a suggestion that maybe these chromosomes could possibly be related to homosexual tendency just isn't enough.

As far as your scent article goes, in a direct quote from a scientist working on the study causes it to refute itself as scientific proof


(http://www.banderasnews.com/0505/hb-manscent.htm)

I think this is substantial for now, and for the record. I actually have no problem with homosexuals being given equal marriage rights, etc...as there's no sound legal reason to deny such rights to them. Religious conviction alone cannot form the basis for federal law, and as such homosexual americans should have the same rights as any heterosexual american. The only argument I have here is whether or not a person is born gay, to which there is no true "proof" as of yet.



They were testing in the most adequate manner possible. By testing brothers, they can fine-tune their genetic results. By testing white upper-middle class men, they find people who are more likely to have not suffered sexual trauma as a child, which would throw off the arguments. The fact that these scientists didn't make the claim that this "proves" that homosexuality is genetic, is to protect themselves and their study from being unbiased. Evidence points in that direction, but naturally, one study is not enough to claim something this revolutionary. They are only applying the scientific method effectively.

As for the study, it isn't filled with any forseeable holes. This is very good evidence that homosexuality may, in fact, be genetic.

I already wrote this, I'll just link it... ten pages ago, or so.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9420485&postcount=1159

I just saw this discussion, I haven't yet read 80 pages.

It IS a choice. With practice and via accustoming oneself to a particular lifestyle, you reinforce your likes and desires. If I choose to love a dark skinned person, I will learn to love and be attracted to and fantasize of the dark skinned person I love ~ even if I had no particular fantasy or inclination to be attracted to say, 'islander girls' before meeting them.

Bs, you don't choose it. If you see someone you are atracted to, you don't choose to love them. It's automatically/spontanious(sp?). You don't choose to love - unless you are after marriage to a rich person, ore are homosexual, and deny it. Face it - humans still act on instinct to a certaint degree.

Old people prove my statements to be right. You think some fifty year old lady was naturally attracted to old beer bellied balding men when she was young? But if she loves her husband, and they grew old together, she ‘learned’ to legitimately be attracted to and turned on by, and fantasize of… her husband.

My grandfather (about 80) met a woman at about the same age some time ago (less than two years), and they love each other. I think it is because the most natural thing (another instinct) is to be physically atracted to people at the same age range. Also, if you live with someone, you won't notice that they change, because it happens so gradually. Your 'image' of them changes in a small way over time, and you'll still love them just as much, because love isn't the same as physical atraction. You love someone for the person they are, not thebody they have.

Not everything is based on choices, we are not perfect sentient beings yet. Live with it.

then why is it still around, because it is a genitic dead end

So you are suggesting homosexuals can't produce children?

The scientists can use it as proof because it does prove several things including the fact that gay males do in fact smell differently. I don't know where you get off on saying that it isn't scientific. No, I didn't ignore your argument. I trashed it as false. You haven't bothered backing yourself up.. or providing any counter evidence.



You better start providing evidence to show that homosexuality is not genetic, and is in fact caused by the environment. If we go by your strawmans, is heterosexuality also a choice? I have presented more then enough evidence to support my opinions and you have not. You have not been a worth debate opponent. I'll see more from you, and trash it. Like I have always been doing towards illogical arguments. I've been reading all of your rantings, and they are without merit.

Actually, you should re-read the study. It proves that gay males react to smells differently, but the scientists in the study still are unable to determine whether the reaction is learned or genetic, which is what the quote I presented had stated. Also, I provided evidence within your own sources which discredits them as pure fact, because in reality they prove next to nothing. I'm sorry to see that you can't understand this, and it's a true shame. Maybe my rantings are without merit, but you should at least give me specific reasons why, rather than just saying that they are and brushing them off. The studies in themselves cannot give valid proof of homosexuality being a primarily genetic trait, and I hard press you to show me irrefutable proof that they say differently. Really, this whole argument is fallicious, because there isn't any true proof of either side as of yet, and all of these arguments are based upon certain assumptions. If there was valid proof in the studies you have referenced, then I wouldn't be arguing with you right now. I'm intelligent enough to know when I've been beaten, but there's simply no proof. Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that it isn't genetic until it's proven that it is, or perhaps you're wrong to assume that it isn't environmental until it's proven that it is....it's really just a matter of perspective at this point, and it would be silly to argue this point further without true evidence. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree for the moment, and when more evidence presents itself resurrect the issue again.

Mesatecala -

Actually; it looks like you reposted several links several times.

Pardon my request to re-re-re-re-( Aw ferget it! ) post them.

Citing only one:

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

Seems the molecular biologists do have quite a bit to say on this matter.

I never claimed there was a gay gene either.. or one gene that determines sexuality. I merely claimed that genetics is the largest factor in sexuality... a large number of DNA regions are found. Mustanski's findings match my opinion.

Don't hold your breath. It's far too easy to simple scream that is BS then defend it.


True enough, though the inconsistencies are showing in their argument. I personally, like to have my argument better than theirs, rather than trying to attack theirs for it's lack of merits, but I'm not feeling the love right now.

I had some great articles on sexuality, but they're at home right now. Basically, they suggest that people are born ambi-sexual and move to either side or the other. In less oppressed societies, most people only move a small amount towards heterosexuality, with major bi-sexual trends. I think it's safer to suggest that people are meant to be ambi-sexual than to suggest that people are likely all gay or all straight. But this study does seem to point in the direction that homosexuality is genetic, or at least the tendency towards it is.

I think being gay is fine genetics or not but stop trying too push your way of life on us , every turn i take someone trying to make me accept it I feel it is wrong am I allowed to have that opinion or does that make me a bad person.

Actually, you should re-read the study. It proves that gay males react to smells differently, but the scientists in the study still are unable to determine whether the reaction is learned or genetic, which is what the quote I presented had stated. Also, I provided evidence within your own sources which discredits them as pure fact, because in reality they prove next to nothing.

You need to understand these were in fact valid studies and they did show differences in how a gay male smells. And this infers different chemistry. They are still worthy studies.

I'm sorry to see that you can't understand this, and it's a true shame. Maybe my rantings are without merit, but you should at least give me specific reasons why, rather than just saying that they are and brushing them off.

I understand my own sources far better then you. And my own sources never disprove my argument because I look at them well enough. They are worthy studies. And you cannot compile an argument decent enough to prove they aren't.

The studies in themselves cannot give valid proof of homosexuality being a primarily genetic trait, and I hard press you to show me irrefutable proof that they say differently.

Wow. What a logical fallacy.

You need to prove it.

Really, this whole argument is fallicious, because there isn't any true proof of either side as of yet, and all of these arguments are based upon certain assumptions.

Nope. None of my arguments are fallacious. In fact I'll say this: You have not provided any counter evidence to disprove my sources or my own argument. You haven't even bothered. That's the problem with you people who think it is a choice or something influenced by parents...

I'm intelligent enough to know when I've been beaten, but there's simply no proof.

THERE IS PROOF!

You apparently are not realizing you have been beaten.

it's really just a matter of perspective at this point, and it would be silly to argue this point further without true evidence. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree for the moment, and when more evidence presents itself resurrect the issue again.

Perspective my rear end. You are talking about many decent people who happen to be gay. I don't think it is right that you tell them that they chose to be that way. There are two perspectives in this:

1) The ones that respect gay people for who they are

2) And the ones who don't. Like you, many christians and homophobes.

That's what I'm getting at.

No, I have the evidence on my side. You don't.

*snipped a bunch of angry stuff*

Your argument is the one that has no backing. I mean come on. You are digging your own hole and you are sinking in a hole. These are actual studies and science is on my side because I demonstrated that by posting studies, and sources. You haven't done shit. On the other hand you continue to parrot on about the same thing. I have plenty of backing, and my argument has a lot of facts backing it. You are the one in the sinking ship. There is genetic findings including the scent based study (which you haven't even bothered looking at because it disproves you further), and the chromosome study. Please... stop trying to save yourself from failure and admit you are wrong. I did that on this forum a while back.



Baloney.

Your researcher set out to find a ‘gay-gene’ your researcher found and said himself afterwards, "Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." You researchers critics say, “The authors describe in the article three non-X chromosomal "new regions of genetic interest” (7q36, 8p12, and 10q26). In the authors’ view, a noteworthy aspect of the study is as follows: "Our strongest finding was on 7q36 with a combined mlod score of 3.45 and equal distribution from maternal and paternal allele transmission. This score falls just short of Lander and Kruglyak's (1995) criteria for genomewide significance." They go on to say "two additional regions (8p12 and 10q26) approached the criteria for suggestive linkage"¯again pointing out that neither was statistically significant. Thus, even the author’s “strongest finding” was not statistically significant by widely accepted scientific criteria.


Now guess what? Peer review and substantiating of the finding of a report need to be done before results are accepted. Your report is not sailing well at this point, other researchers have not been able to duplicate the results nor substantiate the findings…

Thus, I do not have to make proof that there is no gene for homosexual orientation, I only need to set straight you erroneous assertion that one has supposedly been proven already. It has not.

I think being gay is fine genetics or not but stop trying too push your way of life on us , every turn i take someone trying to make me accept it I feel it is wrong am I allowed to have that opinion or does that make me a bad person.

Nope, sorry, you are not allowed to have a negative view of homosexuality. Just being ok with them doing as they please isnt enough. We must fully comply to their will and sing praises of how grand and "natural" it is.

And as for genetics. I caved in and admitted nature made a mistake and therefore we have homosexuals last night :) Either Mistake or choice doesnt matter though. I agree they need to quit pushing it on people. Just accept that for the most part people accept how ya are. That should be enough.

I think being gay is fine genetics or not but stop trying too push your way of life on us , every turn i take someone trying to make me accept it I feel it is wrong am I allowed to have that opinion or does that make me a bad person.

Since when am I pushing my way of life on you? And how do I do that? I don't know how. I live like any other college student.

I never claimed there was a gay gene either.. or one gene that determines sexuality. I merely claimed that genetics is the largest factor in sexuality... a large number of DNA regions are found. Mustanski's findings match my opinion.
Mostly I quoted it to show that I did in fact track down the links & study what was there. I understand you have made no such claim. They way I posted it could come across as an attempt to argue. Pardon me, it was not meant so.

Perhaps I haven't been explaining myself quite clearly enough on certain points. The 'proof' given to support genetics playing a large role in human sexuality, does not necessarily suggest what it might seem. Although the 60% occurence of that particular string of DNA in homosexual males seems very important to the case that genetics is a major part in a person being homosexual, there was expected to be a 50% occurence of that particular string by random chance. This leaves a mere 10% deviation. This string of DNA could very easily point not to homosexuality, but to some other trait that the people in the survey shared. Such things being temperment, or agression, which can lead to some difference between those people and the typical male child. If this is the case, then something in their environment or upbringing could constitute the change that could cause a person to be homosexual, even subconciously. Although I don't explain it very well, it is quite possible that it could be environmental in the end. Also, they don't tell you in the study the percentage that this string occurred in straight males. If this string also appears in straight males, then it's quite likely that an environmental factor is the eventual decider of whether a person is gay or straight.

FALSE AGAIN!


Your researcher set out to find a ‘gay-gene’ your researcher found and said himself afterwards, "Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation." You researchers critics say, “The authors describe in the article three non-X chromosomal "new regions of genetic interest” (7q36, 8p12, and 10q26). In the authors’ view, a noteworthy aspect of the study is as follows: "Our strongest finding was on 7q36 with a combined mlod score of 3.45 and equal distribution from maternal and paternal allele transmission. This score falls just short of Lander and Kruglyak's (1995) criteria for genomewide significance." They go on to say "two additional regions (8p12 and 10q26) approached the criteria for suggestive linkage"¯again pointing out that neither was statistically significant. Thus, even the author’s “strongest finding” was not statistically significant by widely accepted scientific criteria.

Again stop spewing the nonsense. Please read your own rantings. They don't make much sense. I never claimed there was one gene that cause sexuality, so stop being so ignorant. I claimed there were many parts of the gene code that do. You need to shut up and accept the facts for once in your life. There was plenty significant facts I posted. You again are resorting to strawmans and you cannot prove yourself because you are in a fundamentally weak position.


Now guess what? Peer review and substantiating of the finding of a report need to be done before results are accepted. Your report is not sailing well at this point, other researchers have not been able to duplicate the results nor substantiate the findings…

You need to find a fucking report and post it to prove your position. You are just plane wrong. The report is doing very well and it is a credible study. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true.

Thus, I do not have to make proof that there is no gene for homosexual orientation, I only need to set straight you erroneous assertion that one has supposedly been proven already. It has not.

You are the one making erroneous, bald assertions.

The 'proof' given to support genetics playing a large role in human sexuality, does not necessarily suggest what it might seem. Although the 60% occurence of that particular string of DNA in homosexual males seems very important to the case that genetics is a major part in a person being homosexual, there was expected to be a 50% occurence of that particular string by random chance.

Again you are skewing the facts. This small difference may very well change the reality. Remember, it only takes a small difference on the DNA strain to make a big difference. A small difference may multiply and be much more significant.

Such things being temperment, or agression, which can lead to some difference between those people and the typical male child. If this is the case, then something in their environment or upbringing could constitute the change that could cause a person to be homosexual, even subconciously. Although I don't explain it very well, it is quite possible that it could be environmental in the end. Also, they don't tell you in the study the percentage that this string occurred in straight males. If this string also appears in straight males, then it's quite likely that an environmental factor is the eventual decider of whether a person is gay or straight.

Apparently you have little understanding of the facts or genetics for that matter. I think you should re-examine what I have posted and rethink your own biased views. You didn't explain it very well because you don't have logic or evidence backing yourself. I'm getting very tired, and very annoyed at the fact that you and the other guy have consistently avoided evidence, have not posted evidence, and continue on the same old rantings like a parrot. The environmental factor is not substantiated. You simply say so, but you provide NO... I REPEAT... NO EVIDENCE.

In fact I think you can't because the environmental factor is made up by people as yourself, who think that homosexuals are wrong.

Thus, I do not have to make proof that there is no gene for homosexual orientation, I only need to set straight you erroneous assertion that one has supposedly been proven already. It has not.

Lordy.

Since I can not prove without a doubt that gravity exists; I guess it don't right?

Evidence exists that shows it exists. Just like evidence points to the genetic camp more then the simple choice camp.

Hmmm since you claim it is only a choice, then offer up some arguments and sites that back your arguement. I do love theologians talking about science ......

Damn. This is like arguing with two parrots, greenlander and Amaranthine... they keep ranting the same thing over and over again. I'm getting very tired of the great amount of illogic in this thread.

Nope, sorry, you are not allowed to have a negative view of homosexuality. Just being ok with them doing as they please isnt enough. We must fully comply to their will and sing praises of how grand and "natural" it is.

And as for genetics. I caved in and admitted nature made a mistake and therefore we have homosexuals last night :) Either Mistake or choice doesnt matter though. I agree they need to quit pushing it on people. Just accept that for the most part people accept how ya are. That should be enough.

Well there can be a trade off.

If the gays stop being flagerant about it then the Christians can stop trying to push their morals and or religion on everybody.

Hmmm at the thought of that prospect; whos head would expload first?

I am sure the rapist, the pedophilliac and the serial killer can simply choose not to do their thing.


Wow, I'm stunned that you even use that as an example. What? They are genetically destined to be criminals? And Homosexuals are similarly genetically programmed right along with them? I find it odd that you would link criminal behavior with homosexual orientation and defective genetics.

Damn. This is like arguing with two parrots, greenlander and Amaranthine... they keep ranting the same thing over and over again. I'm getting very tired of the great amount of illogic in this thread.

And you're doing a good job of it. Keepon ... ah ... keeping on.
:)

Wow, I'm stunned that you even use that as an example. What? They are genetically destined to be criminals? And Homosexuals are similarly genetically programmed right along with them? I find it odd that you would link criminal behavior with homosexual orientation and defective genetics.

You didn't answer any questions yet.

And by the way where is your proof?

Well there can be a trade off.

If the gays stop being flagerant about it then the Christians can stop trying to push their morals and or religion on everybody.

Hmmm at the thought of that prospect; whos head would expload first?

I'm tired of people saying we push it on others. What a load of crap. I want to be able to kiss my partner in public, like a heterosexual couple. I want gay couples who want to get married to be allowed to. I want christians to stop pushing their morality on us.

WYN: I think I should just get some crackers for them.

"I'm getting very tired, and very annoyed at the fact that you and the other guy have consistently avoided evidence, have not posted evidence"

With science if you want to find a result and spend enough time, and waste enough money that could be used for something worthwhile, you will find it. Whether it is true or not. Sorry I do not worship scientists anymore then I do head shrinkers and the BS they come up with to protect human preditors.

Want evidence as to how things were intended. Watch a sex ed film. Yeah they are not the highest budget film but they explain fairly well how reproduction works. And a species being able to reproduce and therefore continue itself is how nature works.

Again, not saying homosexuality is the ultimate evil and all should be staked to an ant hill. But insisting that those of us who choose to follow the normal path totally accept it, is not gonna fly.

Even in California the notion of freedom is still known no ? You have the freedom to be gay. I have the freedom to say, fine by me. Even if I dont understand or even if I was quite sickened by the idea of your lifestyle. But cant make me or anyone have to love it and totally accept it as natural.

I'm tired of people saying we push it on others. What a load of crap. I want to be able to kiss my partner in public, like a heterosexual couple. I want gay couples who want to get married to be allowed to. I want christians to stop pushing their morality on us.

WYN: I think I should just get some crackers for them.

Oh come on now. You know very well there are some that pull very flagerant attempts to shock people. There is a difference between a simple kiss and full on tongue swapping saliva baths.

Some of my friends do it all the time. :)

Well there can be a trade off.

If the gays stop being flagerant about it then the Christians can stop trying to push their morals and or religion on everybody.

Hmmm at the thought of that prospect; whos head would expload first?

I'm not trying to push my morals or religion on anyone, I simply disagree that homosexuality is a genetically inherited trait...I truly don't see where this becomes a horrible thing.

One last time I'll try to explain myself. The previously cited study which showed that a certain pattern of DNA occurred in 60% of gay men should not be cited as definite proof of homosexuality being inherent. These gene sequences are not yet proven to be truly related to homosexuality, and it could just as easily refer to some other trait. You can see this clearly based on the results of the study itself, it never states that the pattern it found was a definite contributor to homosexuality. Only after this study has been researched further, and the actual nature of the cromosomes in question has been discovered can we cite this as true proof of anything. In my last post I simply spoke of a possible alternative as to what those genes could be, and how the study results could potentially support environmental factors over a definite homosexual gene. I would also like to see the percentage of occurence of that particular string in straight males, as I think that a number in that category is important to understanding as well. If the occurence of that sequence in straight males is almost the same as in gay males, then it could reasonably stated that genetics is not the main cause of a person's sexuality. Perhaps I don't have hard research to back these claims up, but only because countless studies are not being created to substantiate the claims of people like me, who believe that it's not genetic. I'm curious to see the end results of this study, and if it holds true in other samples of homosexual men. Once true and valid proof has been presented, I will glady join the ranks of those of you who believed that it was genetic all along.

With science if you want to find a result and spend enough time, and waste enough money that could be used for something worthwhile, you will find it. Whether it is true or not. Sorry I do not worship scientists anymore then I do head shrinkers and the BS they come up with to protect human preditors.

I have presented plenty of pretty solid studies, and I do worship science as it has brought along a lot of great advancements in society. From the transistor.. to medical advancement... scientists involved in medical technology are the ones who made dangerous operations twenty years ago safe. I trust science. Not religion.

Want evidence as to how things were intended. Watch a sex ed film. Yeah they are not the highest budget film but they explain fairly well how reproduction works. And a species being able to reproduce and therefore continue itself is how nature works.

As to how things were intended? You really need to get over yourself. I'm serious.

Your "poping out babies" theory is false, and can actually kill a species because of overpopulation. Preventing too much population growth is a good thing for the species.

But insisting that those of us who choose to follow the normal path totally accept it, is not gonna fly.

Fine. Then you can be ignorant all you want. That's fine by me. For some ignorant is bliss.

Even in California the notion of freedom is still known no ? You have the freedom to be gay. I have the freedom to say, fine by me. Even if I dont understand or even if I was quite sickened by the idea of your lifestyle. But cant make me or anyone have to love it and totally accept it as natural.

I have the freedom to be gay and to hold my boyfriend's hand in public without being beaten up or verbally assaulted (in most areas.. some areas are not good). What lifestyle? I'm tired of people throwing that word around. I think you should accept me for who I am. You aren't changing me.

Oh come on now. You know very well there are some that pull very flagerant attempts to shock people. There is a difference between a simple kiss and full on tongue swapping saliva baths.

Some of my friends do it all the time. :)

Look... I'm not going to be all over my boyfriend in public.. with my hands down his pants.. like one of my friend's (and his bf).. I'm not that type of person. I do trade brief kisses with my bf and I hold his hand in public.

"I'm getting very tired, and very annoyed at the fact that you and the other guy have consistently avoided evidence, have not posted evidence"

With science if you want to find a result and spend enough time, and waste enough money that could be used for something worthwhile, you will find it. Whether it is true or not. Sorry I do not worship scientists anymore then I do head shrinkers and the BS they come up with to protect human preditors.

Want evidence as to how things were intended. Watch a sex ed film. Yeah they are not the highest budget film but they explain fairly well how reproduction works. And a species being able to reproduce and therefore continue itself is how nature works.

Again, not saying homosexuality is the ultimate evil and all should be staked to an ant hill. But insisting that those of us who choose to follow the normal path totally accept it, is not gonna fly.

Even in California the notion of freedom is still known no ? You have the freedom to be gay. I have the freedom to say, fine by me. Even if I dont understand or even if I was quite sickened by the idea of your lifestyle. But cant make me or anyone have to love it and totally accept it as natural.

You know you could have saved typing time by simply stating

"Gays are icky, I don't like them and you can't change my opinion."

Consider this: If people weren't so nasty to them and tried to keep them in the closet then said waste of money would not have been spent.

There is a great deal of work to be done on Genome and if some want to "waste" money looking for a sequence that causes homosexual behavior, then so be it. That's one less question mark in the search for why we have human preditors.

In my last post I simply spoke of a possible alternative as to what those genes could be, and how the study results could potentially support environmental factors over a definite homosexual gene.

I dont' know why you are so blind.... but you aren't reading my posts properly. I never said there is a homosexual gene. I said sexuality is influenced by genes (heterosexuality and homosexuality alike).

You just don't have the evidence while I do. There aren't any studies because people know your claims are bogus.

Look... I'm not going to be all over my boyfriend in public.. with my hands down his pants.. like one of my friend's (and his bf).. I'm not that type of person. I do trade brief kisses with my bf and I hold his hand in public.

Hey no need to explain. As I said I have friends who are gay. Some like to shock and some get annoyed by the fact they try to shock.

I am secure in my sexuality to not be horrified by two men kissing or holding hands.

Heck in India you see men holding hands all the time.

Hey no need to explain. As I said I have friends who are gay. Some like to shock and some get annoyed by the fact they try to shock.

I am secure in my sexuality to not be horrified by two men kissing or holding hands.

Heck in India you see men holding hands all the time.

Ok I admit it... I did something more then just hold hands with him two days ago.. like heavy making out.

I dont' know why you are so blind.... but you aren't reading my posts properly. I never said there is a homosexual gene. I said sexuality is influenced by genes (heterosexuality and homosexuality alike).

You just don't have the evidence while I do. There aren't any studies because people know your claims are bogus.

That's just it, the "evidence" you have presented is not 'proof' by any means. Look at the study, it makes no definite claim to sexuality being influenced heavily by genes. There are some parts of the study which may seem to suggest it, but could just as easily suggest something else entirely different. I really don't think that my claims are bogus, and I see no reason why you should regard them as such.

p.s. Thanks for the telegram, It's good to know that you hate me that much. I've not acted the least bit hostile towards you, and I've already stated that I support gays being given equal rights. To ask everyone on the planet to disregard their religious beliefs completely and accept homosexual behavior is ridiculous, however. I absolutely respect gay people, and regard them as human beings just like myself. I treat their sin the same way I treat the sin of lying, or any other thing condemned in the Bible. A gay person is still a person, and I have no issue with them. I simply do not believe that it is a genetic trait, and without significant proof that it is, I won't accept that as true.

That's just it, the "evidence" you have presented is not 'proof' by any means. Look at the study, it makes no definite claim to sexuality being influenced heavily by genes. There are some parts of the study which may seem to suggest it, but could just as easily suggest something else entirely different. I really don't think that my claims are bogus, and I see no reason why you should regard them as such.

Actually it is very much credible proof. You have not provided anything, in fact I don't think you will because you don't have a valid argument. I think you should just leave this thread because you have not contributed anything of merit. Your claims are in fact bogus.

I absolutely respect gay people, and regard them as human beings just like myself. I treat their sin the same way I treat the sin of lying, or any other thing condemned in the Bible. A gay person is still a person, and I have no issue with them. I simply do not believe that it is a genetic trait, and without significant proof that it is, I won't accept that as true.

Sin this, sin that.. I don't care. My sexuality is not the same as lying. It is ridiculous for you to treat it as such. But that is your belief (however illogical it is). I believe it is a genetic trait and I have prooviding significant proof to back up my position.

Yea!

The thread owner asked for a lock!

Let this beast die! :D

Let this beast die! :D

* stabs thread with a fork *

Actually it is very much credible proof. You have not provided anything, in fact I don't think you will because you don't have a valid argument. I think you should just leave this thread because you have not contributed anything of merit. Your claims are in fact bogus.


I hope you are a better undergraduate than you have shown your abilities here. Your utter lack of step-by-step deductive reasoning with this matter is dumbfounding. You keep saying that you have proof that science is on your side, but what you have is theory that is at this time unsupported by findings. Then you cry and complain and do nothing but lay out the insults for those that try to explain to you how scientific method really works because you’ve forgotten to bring it to this thread and you keep making the same non-proofs as substantiation of your position.

I hope you are a better undergraduate than you have shown your abilities here. Your utter lack of step-by-step deductive reasoning with this matter is dumbfounding. You keep saying that you have proof that science is on your side, but what you have is theory that is at this time unsupported by findings. Then you cry and complain and do nothing but lay out the insults for those that try to explain to you how scientific method really works because you’ve forgotten to bring it to this thread and you keep making the same non-proofs as substantiation of your position.

Nice ad hominem attacks. I have a lot more intelligence and evidence backing my claims on this one. So nice try realy. I have more then a theory. I have a facts. But hey this is from the person who said DNA was a theory. How ridiculous.. you are the one who cries and complains when you get proven wrong. You are nothing more then a parrot who harps on the same old rhetoric without evidence. Nice try really.. you don't know what you're talking about.

A few people (at least on the first page, since I didn't read the 90 or so pages in between) had these economic left/right and libertarian/authoritarian numbers in their sigs. How and where do you find those out?

Nice ad hominem attacks. I have a lot more intelligence and evidence backing my claims on this one. So nice try realy. I have more then a theory. I have a facts. But hey this is from the person who said DNA was a theory. How ridiculous.. you are the one who cries and complains when you get proven wrong. You are nothing more then a parrot who harps on the same old rhetoric without evidence. Nice try really.. you don't know what you're talking about.


Hogwash again. Show me a single post where I said DNA was a theory :rolleyes: . Feel free to keep up the bigoted name calling and the strawman arguments though, I'm sure it helps to at least give your post a topic anyway, since your scientific evidence is sorely lacking...

I hope you are a better undergraduate than you have shown your abilities here. Your utter lack of step-by-step deductive reasoning with this matter is dumbfounding. You keep saying that you have proof that science is on your side, but what you have is theory that is at this time unsupported by findings. Then you cry and complain and do nothing but lay out the insults for those that try to explain to you how scientific method really works because you’ve forgotten to bring it to this thread and you keep making the same non-proofs as substantiation of your position.

Ahh Greenlander, are you looking into a mirror?

Hogwash again. Show me a single post where I said DNA was a theory :rolleyes: . Feel free to keep up the bigoted name calling and the strawman arguments though, I'm sure it helps, of give you your post a topic at least because your scientific evidence is sorely lacking...

Oh please.. every post that you post is hogwash. You are the one who is resorting to bigoted name calling, strawman arguments, and slippery slopes. you have no evidence. You have nothing. Your argument doesn't exist because I destroyed it. I have a ton of scientific evidence, and you have none. You haven't posted a link since you started posting in this thread.

A few people (at least on the first page, since I didn't read the 90 or so pages in between) had these economic left/right and libertarian/authoritarian numbers in their sigs. How and where do you find those out?
I can handle this question. Hold on ...

A few people (at least on the first page, since I didn't read the 90 or so pages in between) had these economic left/right and libertarian/authoritarian numbers in their sigs. How and where do you find those out?


www.politicalcompass.org

Ahh Greenlander, are you looking into a mirror?


You're full of innuendo name-calling too, but I haven't seen you producing any proofs of genetics being the cause of sexual orientation either.

People choose how they behave, you do too. We are more than robots and machinery, we have choice and freewill, whether you want to admit it or not.

You're full of innuendo name-calling too, but I haven't seen you producing any proofs of genetics being the cause of sexual orientation either.

People choose how they behave, you do too. We are more than robots and machinery, we have choice and freewill, whether you want to admit it or not.

I provided links. You are being very immature. And you do not understand that sexulaity is not a choice. And it isn't freewill.. it isn't something you can change... it isn't a lightwswithc. And no we don't have to admit anything to the satisfaction to your hideous rantings.

You don't behave gay or straight. You are confusing anger, stupidity, and other behaviors with sexual orientation.

You're full of innuendo name-calling too, but I haven't seen you producing any proofs of genetics being the cause of sexual orientation either.

People choose how they behave, you do too. We are more than robots and machinery, we have choice and freewill, whether you want to admit it or not.

You still haven't answered the question or given your proof.....

I have always stated there is evidence that suggests it exists. I have offered arguments by the fact it exists in nature.

However, you have yet to back your claims.

I can handle this question. Hold on ...
I *think* this is it:

http://politicalcompass.org/

( It's been a while )

www.politicalcompass.org

Beat me to it, BAH!

Ah, thank you very much for the site. I will post my result shortly.

You have nothing. Your argument doesn't exist because I destroyed it. I have a ton of scientific evidence, and you have none. You haven't posted a link since you started posting in this thread.

You have zero scientific reports that support your claim that genetics have been proven to be the root cause of sexual orientation. You have shown one report of people 'looking' for that anticipated find, that gene splice to end the debate, but you have ZERO results that are peer reviewed or substantiated because they do not exist.

Go to the genome mapping websites and look at the accepted results. Here’s what we know, the stuff you claim we know isn’t there.

http://www.doegenomes.org/

You have zero scientific reports that support your claim that genetics have been proven to be the root cause of sexual orientation. You have shown one report of people 'looking' for that anticipated find, that gene splice to end the debate, but you have ZERO results that are peer reviewed or substantiated because they do not exist.

You are the one with zero scientific reports and you are theo ne who has zero evidence for your side. You have what I call a nonsense argument. It doesn't add up and is false. You keep ranting on, harping on the same claims without backing yourself up. In the end, you lose the debate.

Hmm...I took the test: Economic Left/Right: 1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.03. Seems I'm kindof in the middle. Ok I'll let you two argue about who's info is rubbish and who's calling who names.

You are the one with zero scientific reports and you are theo ne who has zero evidence for your side. You have what I call a nonsense argument. It doesn't add up and is false. You keep ranting on, harping on the same claims without backing yourself up. In the end, you lose the debate.


There was no debate. You made (and continue to make) a claim that is false, there is nothing to debate.

Genetics might cause a pre-disposition to addiction and various susceptibilities to diseases or genetic defects, but we have found nothing in the human genetics that forces anyone’s sexual orientation to go one way or the other.

You 'choose' to do it, you want to do it, you like doing it and you will continue to do it. Your genes did not take your ability to rationally choose to be obsessed or addicted or attracted to whatever you choose to familiarize yourself to via your chosen lifestyle and surroundings.

Sexual addiction, sexual orientation, sexual criminal behavior, none of these things are beyond our control. We cannot use genetics as an excuse of our chosen behaviors.

That was originally believed to work. Therapists would have their homosexual patients attempt to be straight through all forms of methods. Sometimes the patient would believe it had worked. It never actually did however, in less the patient was never actually gay to begin with (there are people who believe themselves to be gay and find out they are straight later).

In recent years they have realized that just because you pretend to be straight doesn't mean you are. That is how we have 50 year old businessmen with a wife and three kids living in suburban America coming out of the closet and leaving their families behind.
I could be wrong, but I actually think the "masturbation therapy" that Cow Empires was talking about is used by some psychiatrists to help in the treatment of paedophiles, rather than homosexuals. Some believe that this helps diminish the urges towards children that paedophiles feel.

There was no debate. You made (and continue to make) a claim that is false, there is nothing to debate.

Attention: You are the one who made a false claim. And you have been refuted solidly by my sources.

Genetics might cause a pre-disposition to addiction and various susceptibilities to diseases or genetic defects, but we have found nothing in the human genetics that forces anyone’s sexual orientation to go one way or the other.

Sexual orientation is defined by genetic causes. That's the way it is. You don't want to accept it? Fine. You can continue living your lies... you have been cornered by many people on this forum before.. for your misrepresentations of the facts.

You 'choose' to do it, you want to do it, you like doing it and you will continue to do it. Your genes did not take your ability to rationally choose to be obsessed or addicted or attracted to whatever you choose to familiarize yourself to via your chosen lifestyle and surroundings.

Incorrect. I did not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex. This is genetically defined, not done by choice. You are a very twisted individual who equates sexual orientation with criminal behavior. Shame on you.

And not only that, you know next to nothing about genetics.

Sexual addiction, sexual orientation, sexual criminal behavior, none of these things are beyond our control. We cannot use genetics as an excuse of our chosen behaviors.

Sexual orientation is not something you can change. Sexual orientation is defined by genetic causes. This isn't a behavior.

I don't think so. I posted an actual study that shows which chromosomes influence sexual orientation. This is very conclusive evidence and doesn't distort results.

I'll repost the link for you:

http://www.psychdaily.com/article/734

The evidence is just on the side that homosexuality is mainly influenced by genetics.
Well, that article itself descibes the study as a "best guess" and also that "these finding need to be confirmed". My stance is that science is not yet at the point where it can show us incontreveratble evidence that sexual orientation is solely genetic in nature...

Well, that article itself descibes the study as a "best guess" and also that "these finding need to be confirmed". My stance is that science is not yet at the point where it can show us incontreveratble evidence that sexual orientation is solely genetic in nature...

I never said it was solely genetic. I said it was mainly genetic. :headbang:

I never said it was solely genetic. I said it was mainly genetic. :headbang:

However that article itself can't prove either. Just let it go, or find new evidence.

However that article itself can't prove either. Just let it go, or find new evidence.

I won't let it go. It proves my argument. You need to let it go and admit you lost big time.

By testing white upper-middle class men, they find people who are more likely to have not suffered sexual trauma as a child, which would throw off the arguments.
Excuse me, since when are white middle class families less likely to suffer child abuse? Child abuse is neither a racial nor socio-economic phenomena. :mad:

Excuse me, since when are white middle class families less likely to suffer child abuse? Child abuse is neither a racial nor socio-economic phenomena. :mad:

I wondered the same thing, but I sorta dropped it then, since nobody was actually listening to a thing I said anyway. Also, half of the families that they used were included in a previous study, so that could certainly mess things up in some way I'm sure....ah well, maybe i'm just being ridiculous.

I wondered the same thing, but I sorta dropped it then, since nobody was actually listening to a thing I said anyway. Also, half of the families that they used were included in a previous study, so that could certainly mess things up in some way I'm sure....ah well, maybe i'm just being ridiculous.

Maybe you should withdraw from this thread before you make more errors?

Maybe you should withdraw from this thread before you make more errors?

And what, dare I ask, was the error in that statement?

And what, dare I ask, was the error in that statement?

In other statements you have made regarding my sources. I'm serious. You should consider withdrawing immediately.

I never said it was solely genetic. I said it was mainly genetic. :headbang:
OK then, I ammend my statement :D

My stance is that science is not yet at the point where it can show us incontreveratble evidence that sexual orientation is mainly genetic in nature...

In other statements you have made regarding my sources. I'm serious. You should consider withdrawing immediately.

I've not made any errors in statements regarding the validity of your sources, the two that you've relied most heavily on are not scientific fact, and have not been proven to be fact as of yet. Both of them have referred to themselves as "best guesses" and shouldn't be cited as if they are facts. Your point is not proven through these studies, and they both also have the ability to suggest the exact opposite upon further testing. I won't be withdrawing from the thread, so you can put that thought out of your head right now. I'm not going away, and you'll simply have to deal with me, or ignore me.

I've not made any errors in statements regarding the validity of your sources, the two that you've relied most heavily on are not scientific fact, and have not been proven to be fact as of yet. Both of them have referred to themselves as "best guesses" and shouldn't be cited as if they are facts. Your point is not proven through these studies, and they both also have the ability to suggest the exact opposite upon further testing. I won't be withdrawing from the thread, so you can put that thought out of your head right now. I'm not going away, and you'll simply have to deal with me, or ignore me.

you again are acting falsely. These sources I have provided are in fact scientific fact and are in fact proven. Just because you say so, doesn't make it the truth. I have provided the sources, and you have yet to refute them. In fact your responses are weak at best. In fact I'll say this: Your argument has collapsed. My point is proven through those studies.. and I have done everything necessary to defend the credibility of those studies against naysayers as yourself. I will deal with people who misinterpret and lie about the facts at every length possible. Those studies are facts.

You cannot use those studies for your own twisted views. They are not suggesting the exact opposite (again I suspect your religion is getting in the way of facts and reason).

I would still like to see an answer to the hypothetical question I asked yesterday:

Assuming that homoseuxality is genetic in nature, and the the genes/chromosomes that influence it are passed on by one or both parents, if you had a mother and father, neither of whom carried the relevant genes/chromosomes, would there be a 0% chance that their child could be homosexual?

...and before anyone gets hot under the collar, please, it is merely a hypothetical question, not an assertion or assumption ;)

In other statements you have made regarding my sources. I'm serious. You should consider withdrawing immediately.

You know, you never EXPLAINED why they were wrong about your arguments. You just said that they were, and nothing else.

And I withdraw my apology, boyo. You ain't learned anything. >.>

You know, you never EXPLAINED why they were wrong about your arguments. You just said that they were, and nothing else.

And I withdraw my apology, boyo. You ain't learned anything. >.>

I refuted them one by one and explained why the studies were in fact true.

You ain't? Since when was "ain't" a word? Yes withdraw your apology. And stop using feeble minded attacks (boyo).

You are the one who did not learn anything. At least I did not try to say that sexuality was a fetish. :rolleyes:

I would still like to see an answer to the hypothetical question I asked yesterday:

Assuming that homoseuxality is genetic in nature, and the the genes/chromosomes that influence it are passed on by one or both parents, if you had a mother and father, neither of whom carried the relevant genes/chromosomes, would there be a 0% chance that their child could be homosexual?

...and before anyone gets hot under the collar, please, it is merely a hypothetical question, not an assertion or assumption ;)

Apparently you don't know what recessive traits are.

I refuted them one by one and explained why they are true.

You ain't? Since when was "ain't" a word? Yes withdraw your apology. And stop using feeble minded attacks (boyo).

Since when does my dialect have anything to do with homosexuality and/or genetics?

you again are acting falsely. These sources I have provided are in fact scientific fact and are in fact proven. Just because you say so, doesn't make it the truth. I have provided the sources, and you have yet to refute them. In fact your responses are weak at best. In fact I'll say this: Your argument has collapsed. My point is proven through those studies.. and I have done everything necessary to defend the credibility of those studies against naysayers as yourself. I will deal with people who misinterpret and lie about the facts at every length possible. Those studies are facts.

You cannot use those studies for your own twisted views. They are not suggesting the exact opposite (again I suspect your religion is getting in the way of facts and reason).

Firstly, a study in itself does not constitute scientific fact...also, the study does not make the assertions that you claim it makes. I never said that they studies ARE suggesting the opposite of what you believe, but they're still open enough that upon further investigation COULD. I am not misinterpreting the results of either study, and the scientists who performed them asserted themselves that they were only guesses at present, and still needed to be proven. I do not see how you still can assert that these prove anything that you are saying.

Since when does my dialect have anything to do with homosexuality and/or genetics?

Where are you from? The midwest?

:rolleyes:

Apparently you don't know what recessive traits are.
Apparently you don't know what a question is :rolleyes: please try answering instead of assuming...

In my understanding, even recessive traits need to be present in the parents genetic makeup, at least as a potential. My question is what if neither parent carries the trait, in recessive form or otherwise? Or does every human on earth carry the potential for every recessive genetic trait?

Apparently you don't know what recessive traits are.

He is talking about if the parents don't cary any recessive genes for homosexuality either. If their DNA were purely Heterosexual.

I won't let it go. It proves my argument. You need to let it go and admit you lost big time.

It doesn't 'prove' anything. It suggests that there might be a reason for another study (if anything at all, which is yet to be seen).

But really, this seems to be you holy grail, your rock of redemption, perhaps I'll leave you with it... Perhaps you need it?

You seem entirely oblivious to the possibility that it is altogether possible, as a culture, to move towards a conception of sexuality in which the gender/sex of the object of desire is not an issue at all (a suggestion that follows the now traditional line of thinking around the ancient Greek 'sexuality,' for example but not endorsement). And because of the lack of consideration for this possibility on your part, you assume, and want, to believe that there will be some magic gene (s) found that will influence sexual orientation enough so that you are never required to make justification for your choices (perhaps even to yourself) but can point at them as the justification beyond your control.

But still, the possibility that people can be sexually attracted to individual (s) outside of a question of gender and independent of their culture (or, more broadly, their environment) or even their genetic disposition for that matter (as you would have us believe without question), seems entirely to elude you.


The truth is though, we, as humans, make choices. We can and do choose.

You choose to stick your head in the sand and pretend that you have no control over your own decisions, obsessions and attractions, but even that is a choice.

First of all there is serious doubt that personalities and lifestyles are genetic, mainly they are developed by people's surroundings and what they have to deal with that shapes them. Next of all: STOP INSULTING CHRISTIANITY! If you had actually read the bible then you would realize that Jesus died to save sinners, We do have to worry about sinning and we do have to repent, if you even so much as think you are christian then maybe you need to find a church without a parker bros. endorsed priest or reverand. Homosexuality in any shape or form is frowned upon in black and white, maybe if you repent for a long ass time and stop being gay then maybe, just maybe you might still have a chance to get into heaven. Thank You.

Homosexuality has been proven to be passed on genetically. The debate lies in people who are genetically asexual - whether or not they will have a drive toward homosexuality simply because they lack the opposing drive.

As such, I would like to point this it: a homosexual person cannot simply "stop being gay" without changing their anatomy at the DNA level - it could, in theory, be altered with genetic engineering but most people who believe homosexuality is wrong also believe genetic engineering is wrong.

It's a bit like a catch-22, except in reverse. Instead of having to do something before you can do it, you have to not do something in order not to do it. =)

~ Jon

Firstly, a study in itself does not constitute scientific fact...also, the study does not make the assertions that you claim it makes. I never said that they studies ARE suggesting the opposite of what you believe, but they're still open enough that upon further investigation COULD. I am not misinterpreting the results of either study, and the scientists who performed them asserted themselves that they were only guesses at present, and still needed to be proven. I do not see how you still can assert that these prove anything that you are saying.

I'll say you do not understand what the studies were about. These were in fact based on scientific findings. secondly, you are failing to recognize the facts in this thread. furthermore, I think your biases and your religion is getting in the way of distinguishing the facts and reality. I have provided bacing for my argument. You have not. It is that simple. I will assert that these back up my position, because you haven't disproved anything. You can't. Your religion and your biases prevent you in doing so.

Where are you from? The midwest?

:rolleyes:

Ad hominem, boyo.

You ain't proved nothin'. All the scent test proved was that gay men react differently to scents than heterosexual men, and that's just telling us that homosexuals' and heterosexuals' brains fuction differently, with nothin' tellin' ya why exactly that is.

It doesn't 'prove' anything. It suggests that there might be a reason for another study (if anything at all, which is yet to be seen).

You sound like a broken record.. it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove anything.

Me: want to provide links?

You: It doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't prove anything.

You sound like you are a parrot for those in this country who think sexuality can change.


You seem entirely oblivious to the possibility that it is altogether possible, as a culture, to move towards a conception of sexuality in which the gender/sex of the object of desire is not an issue at all (a suggestion that follows the now traditional line of thinking around the ancient Greek 'sexuality,' for example but not endorsement). And because of the lack of consideration for this possibility on your part, you assume, and want, to believe that there will be some magic gene (s) found that will influence sexual orientation enough so that you are never required to make justification for your choices (perhaps even to yourself) but can point at them as the justification beyond your control.

You are the one oblivious to scientific facts that you are full of crap. Why? Because you do not recognize the facts I have posted. The notion of Greek sexuality is not a valid example as it was typically one sided (like rape in jail). You lack of the consideration of the facts that homosexuality is tied to genetics and you harp on the BS that sexuality is a choice. I never said there was a magical gene. I said there were many elements in the genetic structure. Something you can't grasp. Choices.. no.. sexual orientation aren't choices. And don't you ever try to speak for me. Tell me did religion this severely ruin your thought process?

But still, the possibility that people can be sexually attracted to individual (s) outside of a question of gender and independent of their culture (or, more broadly, their environment) or even their genetic disposition for that matter (as you would have us believe without question), seems entirely to elude you.

The facts entirely elude you and you continue harping on the same old crap without evidence. No evidence. No argument. Therefore you are not speaking.

The truth is though, we, as humans, make choices. We can and do choose.

The truth is sexuality is not a choice, and you continue to scream that it is, but it isn't. We can and do choose?

PROVE IT!

You choose to stick your head in the sand and pretend that you have no control over your own decisions, obsessions and attractions, but even that is a choice.

Prove it damn it and stop saying this nonsense. You are the one with your head in the sand. You can't even have a grasp on the facts. It isn't a choice.

PROVE IT!

I'll say you do not understand what the studies were about. These were in fact based on scientific findings. secondly, you are failing to recognize the facts in this thread. furthermore, I think your biases and your religion is getting in the way of distinguishing the facts and reality. I have provided bacing for my argument. You have not. It is that simple. I will assert that these back up my position, because you haven't disproved anything. You can't. Your religion and your biases prevent you in doing so.

I'm seriously getting tired of you attacking me because of my religion. Has it seriously gotten to the point where only atheist opinion matters in the realm of science, because any christian with a head on his shoulders is just some kind of a freak without a clue? You're passing a lot of judgments on me, and for no good reason, and personally I'm tired of it. Just stop attacking my religious beliefs, as they have nothing to do with the arguments that I make.

Ad hominem, boyo.

You ain't proved nothin'. All the scent test proved was that gay men react differently to scents than heterosexual men, and that's just telling us that homosexuals' and heterosexuals' brains fuction differently, with nothin' tellin' ya why exactly that is.

Tell me does your religion prevent you from reading a study properly? The scent study proved the facts, and you are just parroting the other two parrots in here. Want a cracker? *shoves a cracker in your mouth*

Tell me does your religion prevent you from reading a study properly? The scent study proved the facts, and you are just parroting the other two parrots in here. Want a cracker? *shoves a cracker in your mouth*

Futurehead's an atheist, just like you. He's just got two eyes and some reading comprehension skills.

I'm seriously getting tired of you attacking me because of my religion. Has it seriously gotten to the point where only atheist opinion matters in the realm of science, because any christian with a head on his shoulders is just some kind of a freak without a clue? You're passing a lot of judgments on me, and for no good reason, and personally I'm tired of it. Just stop attacking my religious beliefs, as they have nothing to do with the arguments that I make.

I do not feel that many fundamentalist christians (baptists,etc) these days are capable of scientific reason. I came to those conclusion after seeing many of you harping on about sins without understanding your own bible. Your religion can most certainly influence your arguments.

I'll say you do not understand what the studies were about. These were in fact based on scientific findings. secondly, you are failing to recognize the facts in this thread. furthermore, I think your biases and your religion is getting in the way of distinguishing the facts and reality. I have provided bacing for my argument. You have not. It is that simple. I will assert that these back up my position, because you haven't disproved anything. You can't. Your religion and your biases prevent you in doing so.

What does his religion have to do with this? Amaranthine Nights is all about gay rights and everything. Sure, he believes it's wrong, but he also believes that his religion shouldn't influence EVERYONE.

Sorry for speakin' for ya, Mikey-boy.

I'm agnostic, by the way..

Futurehead's an atheist, just like you. He's just got two eyes and some reading comprehension skills.

No, he's a parrot who repeats what he heard from you and the other guy. Reading comprehension skills? No.. not at all.. I got the reading comprehension skills around here, because I unlike you, can read facts when I see them.

I do not feel that many fundamentalist christians (baptists,etc) these days are capable of scientific reason. I came to those conclusion after seeing many of you harping on about sins without understanding your own bible. Your religion can most certainly influence your arguments.

Please, explain to me where I misunderstood my own bible. I'm really curious to know.

What does his religion have to do with this? Amaranthine Nights is all about gay rights and everything. Sure, he believes it's wrong, but he also believes that his religion shouldn't influence EVERYONE.

Sorry for speakin' for ya, Mikey-boy.

I'm agnostic, by the way..

He is all about gay rights? How can he if he believes homosexuality is wrong?

*shoves another cracker in your mouth*

Mesatecala, can I ask you an honest question? This is really just a question, and please try not to take offence...

Do you think that homosexuality is somehow more "valid" as an orientation if it is genetic, rather than if it were primarily environmental in nature? I'm not suggesting that it would be any more a "choice" if it were environmental rather than genetic, but do you personally beleieve that it being genetic somehow makes it more acceptable or valid than if it were environmental? The reason I ask is that you seem to take the suggestion that it could be environmental as a personal affront...

He is all about gay rights? How can he if he believes homosexuality is wrong?

*shoves another cracker in your mouth*

You can disagree with something and still have a brain in your head. There's no legal reason why gay people can't have the same rights, only spiritual reasons, there's a point where you put personal beliefs aside, and as far as the law goes..it's illegal to deny you those rights. Besides, you're a man..and all men are created equal....on another note....I know you don't believe this, but a sin is a sin, as I've said before....I wouldn't deny somebody who lies on occasion their civil liberties, so why should I deny a homosexual theirs?

Do you think that homosexuality is somehow more "valid" as an orientation if it is genetic, rather than if it were primarily environmental in nature? I'm not suggesting that it would be any more a "choice" if it were environmental rather than genetic, but do you personally beleieve that it being genetic somehow makes it more acceptable or valid than if it were environmental? The reason I ask is that you seem to take the suggestion that it could be environmental as a personal affront...

Valid? I feel that if the genetics case (which exists strongly) is strengthened then gay rights will be strengthened. I feel the primarily environmental argument is false, weak and misfounded. The genetic argument is stronger, and more valid. The environmental justifications are not a primary factor.

If there is pleasure (even in animals), then there are choices involved. Cats 'choose' to rub their backs against objects because they enjoy it...

Animals choose to participate in homosexual acts. They do not choose to be homosexual.

Humans choose to participate in homosexual acts. They do not choose to be homosexual.

You can disagree with something and still have a brain in your head. There's no legal reason why gay people can't have the same rights, only spiritual reasons, there's a point where you put personal beliefs aside, and as far as the law goes..it's illegal to deny you those rights. Besides, you're a man..and all men are created equal....on another note....I know you don't believe this, but a sin is a sin, as I've said before....I wouldn't deny somebody who lies on occasion their civil liberties, so why should I deny a homosexual theirs?

Um, I don't believe in sins like christians. (I know the difference between right and wrong, but that's not based on christianity). I just don't understand how someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, can be fine with gay people. Being gay is a big part of who I am.

He is all about gay rights? How can he if he believes homosexuality is wrong?

*shoves another cracker in your mouth*

They mean that he supports gay rights because he doesn't feel it is his place to take away someone's rights. He does however believe that your homosexuality will be brought up on Judgement day.

These people are always going to exist as far as I can tell but they aren't bad people to have on your side. They *are* supporting you.

Um, I don't believe in sins like christians. (I know the difference between right and wrong, but that's not based on christianity). I just don't understand how someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong, can be fine with gay people. Being gay is a big part of who I am.

Then you don't understand a lot about christianity. A christian loves everybody, no matter what sinful acts they may commit. I can think that the act of practicing homosexuality is wrong, but still be capable of love (a friendly, welcoming kind of love, not romantic) towards a gay person. What it all boils down to is loving one another, no matter what they've done.

They mean that he supports gay rights because he doesn't feel it is his place to take away someone's rights. He does however believe that your homosexuality will be brought up on Judgement day.

These people are always going to exist as far as I can tell but they aren't bad people to have on your side. They *are* supporting you.

I don't feel they are supporting me. Judgement day.. how I despise religion and its human made falsehoods. They are bad people. I don't want them. How can they be supporting me.. if.. they think i'll rot in hell?

They mean that he supports gay rights because he doesn't feel it is his place to take away someone's rights. He does however believe that your homosexuality will be brought up on Judgement day.

These people are always going to exist as far as I can tell but they aren't bad people to have on your side. They *are* supporting you.

Thank you! ^_^;; Somebody gets it. lol.

Then you don't understand a lot about christianity. A christian loves everybody, no matter what sinful acts they may commit. I can think that the act of practicing homosexuality is wrong, but still be capable of love (a friendly, welcoming kind of love, not romantic) towards a gay person. What it all boils down to is loving one another, no matter what they've done.

I don't think so. i think I understand christianity very much.. yes a christian loves everybody including the homosexual.. who the christian thinks will rot in hell. That's very loving.

I love another guy (my boyfriend), and that is not wrong.

Valid? I feel that if the genetics case (which exists strongly) is strengthened then gay rights will be strengthened. I feel the primarily environmental argument is false, weak and misfounded. The genetic argument is stronger, and more valid. The environmental justifications are not a primary factor.
OK, not exactly what I ask, but basically you are saying that if homosexuality is proved to be genetic more than environmental, it will make it appear more natural, acceptable or right?

Please, I understand that you personally do not believe it is environmental, but I ask - how would it being environmental makes it less natural, acceptable or "right" that it being genetic?

I should point out that I mean by early experinces, rolemodels, famliy upbringing and values and such. And NOT implying that negative exprience = homosexuality, just experience in general. And also that enironmental does NOT mean choice.

I would still like to see an answer to the hypothetical question I asked yesterday:

Assuming that homoseuxality is genetic in nature, and the the genes/chromosomes that influence it are passed on by one or both parents, if you had a mother and father, neither of whom carried the relevant genes/chromosomes, would there be a 0% chance that their child could be homosexual?

...and before anyone gets hot under the collar, please, it is merely a hypothetical question, not an assertion or assumption ;)

If there was NO recessive gene(s) in either of the parents, then there would be 0% of outcome assuming that homosexuality is 100% genetic. I believe it is rare for the recessive traits not to be there though. But I could be wrong.

OK, not exactly what I ask, but basically you are saying that if homosexuality is proved to be genetic more than environmental, it will make it appear more natural, acceptable or right?

Please, I understand that you personally do not believe it is environmental, but I ask - how would it being environmental makes it less natural, acceptable or "right" that it being genetic?

I should point out that I mean by early experinces, rolemodels, famliy upbringing and values and such. And NOT implying that negative exprience = homosexuality, just experience in general. And also that enironmental does NOT mean choice.

I'm not answering the question because I don't feel it is valid. So no, I won't answer it. The upbringing and values argument is the biggest lie I have ever heard as of late.

I could be wrong, but I actually think the "masturbation therapy" that Cow Empires was talking about is used by some psychiatrists to help in the treatment of paedophiles, rather than homosexuals. Some believe that this helps diminish the urges towards children that paedophiles feel.

I think it is as well but I don't know much about it. I do know a lot of people who had to talk to therapists during their teenage years about their being homosexual (parents orders) and the therapist often will tell them to "try being straight".

I don't feel they are supporting me. Judgement day.. how I despise religion and its human made falsehoods. They are bad people. I don't want them. How can they be supporting me.. if.. they think i'll rot in hell?

I guess it's a weird thing for somebody to understand. It's not my place to take a way your rights just because I don't agree with the way you live your life. Also, you'll only rot in hell so long as you continue to reject the gospel...you can't be inhuman to somebody just because they're a sinner, that's all any of us are, the only difference is that I'm covered by the redeeming blood of christ, but I digress. I'm not one of those people who believes that my religious beliefs should be carried into law and politics, so I support gay people getting their rights. Maybe you won't get it, or maybe I'm just wierd...but that's the way it's going down at the moment.

I don't feel they are supporting me. Judgement day.. how I despise religion and its human made falsehoods. They are bad people. I don't want them. How can they be supporting me.. if.. they think i'll rot in hell?


Putting all your faith in science is just as bad as any religion. Just some insight for ya, boyo.

I'm not answering the question because I don't feel it is valid. So no, I won't answer it. The upbringing and values argument is the biggest lie I have ever heard as of late.

http://allpsych.com/journal/counselinggay.html

I don't feel they are supporting me. Judgement day.. how I despise religion and its human made falsehoods. They are bad people. I don't want them. How can they be supporting me.. if.. they think i'll rot in hell?

I despise religion too. And I do believe those who subscribe to a religion to be ignorant and weak-minded. Doesn't mean you can eradicate them.

They are supporting you in the same way you can support a friend who is making a decision you disagree with but don't feel it is your place to hold it against them.

I guess it's a weird thing for somebody to understand. It's not my place to take a way your rights just because I don't agree with the way you live your life. Also, you'll only rot in hell so long as you continue to reject the gospel...you can't be inhuman to somebody just because they're a sinner, that's all any of us are, the only difference is that I'm covered by the redeeming blood of christ, but I digress. I'm not one of those people who believes that my religious beliefs should be carried into law and politics, so I support gay people getting their rights. Maybe you won't get it, or maybe I'm just wierd...but that's the way it's going down at the moment.

i'm not going to become a christian. I'm atheist. And I strongly believe that. I don't feel you are truly honest because you don't agree with the way I am (i didn't choose to be this way). Thank goodness, I'm not christian.. so I don't have to hear this non-stop from the bible.

OK, not exactly what I ask, but basically you are saying that if homosexuality is proved to be genetic more than environmental, it will make it appear more natural, acceptable or right?

Please, I understand that you personally do not believe it is environmental, but I ask - how would it being environmental makes it less natural, acceptable or "right" that it being genetic?

I should point out that I mean by early experinces, rolemodels, famliy upbringing and values and such. And NOT implying that negative exprience = homosexuality, just experience in general. And also that enironmental does NOT mean choice.
Because in the end if homosexuality is proven envyromental the next words out of some if not a lot of the religous right will be condemning our friends and family for contributing to the imorality

It will also give them an excuse to try and force religous parenting standards so that this can be avoided (they are more squeemish over playing with genetics)

In the end we relize they will start atacking our lifestyles and our whole past

Though they can do that with me :) it will only lead back to their priests in my case lol (at least for my sexual "enthusiasm") :)

http://allpsych.com/journal/counselinggay.html

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N17/John_.17l.html

http://www.pflagcolumbiasc.org/psychology.php#2

"The world's largest organization of psychologists this month strengthened its position that homosexuality is not an illness and does not require treatment. In an Aug. 14 vote, a majority of governing members within the American Psychological Association
approved a resolution that criticizes attempts by some therapists to "cure" homosexuality.

The resolution states the organization's belief that reparative therapy is designed more to treat "societal ignorance and prejudice" than any systematically diagnosed illness."

They are supporting you in the same way you can support a friend who is making a decision you disagree with but don't feel it is your place to hold it against them.

i don't feel it is valid support. In fact I don't accept such "support" (backstabbing).

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N17/John_.17l.html

http://www.pflagcolumbiasc.org/psychology.php#2

"The world's largest organization of psychologists this month strengthened its position that homosexuality is not an illness and does not require treatment. In an Aug. 14 vote, a majority of governing members within the American Psychological Association
approved a resolution that criticizes attempts by some therapists to "cure" homosexuality.

The resolution states the organization's belief that reparative therapy is designed more to treat "societal ignorance and prejudice" than any systematically diagnosed illness."

Accept that people come to them and ask for help.

Accept that people come to them and ask for help.

Out of societal pressure and people as yourself.. they don't need help because it isn't a mental illness. This isn't the 1950s. You need to get with the times.

In fact there are no reported cases of success for the ex-gay ministries, and therapists who claim they can cure it.

I'm not answering the question because I don't feel it is valid. So no, I won't answer it. The upbringing and values argument is the biggest lie I have ever heard as of late.
The inablity to adress a point simply because you don't agree with it's validity weakens your stance, in my opinion. But of course, I can't make you reply if you don't wish to.

It's just that I think you may have fixated on the genetic side of things because it is what you want to believe. You probably don't see it at all that way, but it is how you may be "coming off" to some in this thread.

You have argued the genetics case adequately, but if I recall correctly, haven't really given a fair argument of why environmental factors being a cause is such a lie. Again, in my own opinion, the two theories are not mutually exclusive; nor is the theory of environmental causes a "homophobic" or negative theory...

http://allpsych.com/journal/counselinggay.html

I read that. It doesn't prove anything you have been saying. It says repeatedly that you cannot change who someone is. That those who claim to have converted to being straight were likely not gay to begin with.

What was that supposed to prove?

i don't feel it is valid support. In fact I don't accept such "support" (backstabbing).

So I'm a backstabber for supporting your right to live your life? Man, I guess in the future I should just join the crowd and scream "faggot" at the top of my lungs and condemn you, that would make me a good friend. Right...I totally understand that. *rolls eyes*

You have zero scientific reports that support your claim that genetics have been proven to be the root cause of sexual orientation. You have shown one report of people 'looking' for that anticipated find, that gene splice to end the debate, but you have ZERO results that are peer reviewed or substantiated because they do not exist.

Go to the genome mapping websites and look at the accepted results. Here’s what we know, the stuff you claim we know isn’t there.

http://www.doegenomes.org/

If you are going to use something at least read it.

"Though the HGP is finished, analyses of the data will continue for many years."

It's not over and the gay genetic link possibily remains.

Melonius: He didn't read his own source.

The inablity to adress a point simply because you don't agree with it's validity weakens your stance, in my opinion. But of course, I can't make you reply if you don't wish to.

Ok. You want an answer. I think the primarily environmental argument weakens gay rights and gives the ex-gay ministries an excuse to go after gay people with more vigor.

If you are going to use something at least read it.

"Though the HGP is finished, analyses of the data will continue for many years."

It's not over and the gay genetic link possibily remains.

But this shows that the analysis of the gay genetic link has not yet been proven true, which is the entire point. Mesa keeps citing the link as absolute fact, yet it has yet to be proven. That is the issue.

So I'm a backstabber for supporting your right to live your life? Man, I guess in the future I should just join the crowd and scream "faggot" at the top of my lungs and condemn you, that would make me a good friend. Right...I totally understand that. *rolls eyes*

I'm entitled to my rights, according to you, but i'm still going to hell. :rolleyes:

I don't think you are someone i would want to be a friend with.

Excuse me, since when are white middle class families less likely to suffer child abuse? Child abuse is neither a racial nor socio-economic phenomena. :mad:


Exactly. As mentioned a Christian minister used to be the living crap out of his adopted son because he announced he was gay.

http://allpsych.com/journal/counselinggay.html
I think your undermining my case there. I don't believe envionmental causes to sexuality are something that can or should be treated, or reversed, particularly in regard to homosexuality. Most attempts to reverse someone's sexual orientation merely lead to confusion and depression. IMHO, homosexuality is not wrong, so therefore does not need to be treated or reversed...

Because in the end if homosexuality is proven envyromental the next words out of some if not a lot of the religous right will be condemning our friends and family for contributing to the imorality

It will also give them an excuse to try and force religous parenting standards so that this can be avoided (they are more squeemish over playing with genetics)

In the end we relize they will start atacking our lifestyles and our whole past

Though they can do that with me :) it will only lead back to their priests in my case lol (at least for my sexual "enthusiasm") :)
OK, that's more the answer I was seeking, thanks. ;)

I'm entitled to my rights, according to you, but i'm still going to hell. :rolleyes:

I don't think you are someone i would want to be a friend with.

Simply because of their religion?

That's a ridiculous as someone not wanting to be a friend with you because you're gay.

It's your personality that gets'em. ;D

Ok. You want an answer. I think the primarily environmental argument weakens gay rights and gives the ex-gay ministries an excuse to go after gay people with more vigor.
Thank you. :)

Simply because of their religion?

That's a ridiculous as someone not wanting to be a friend with you because you're gay.

It's your personality that gets'em. ;D

I don't feel that someone who feels i'm living wrong is someone I can hang out with.

I'm seriously getting tired of you attacking me because of my religion. Has it seriously gotten to the point where only atheist opinion matters in the realm of science, because any christian with a head on his shoulders is just some kind of a freak without a clue? You're passing a lot of judgments on me, and for no good reason, and personally I'm tired of it. Just stop attacking my religious beliefs, as they have nothing to do with the arguments that I make.

Well you can blame your fellow christians for that.

In my discussions/debates over evolution and homosexuality, I have noticed a trend.

Many christians that make a point to tell you they are a trained scientist tend to give an answer and look for proof.

You are supposed to ask a question.

To say all Christians are this way is wrong. Anybody knows that. There are many good scientists that happen to be christian. Darwin for example. ;)

If you get hit with it simple discuss the science. Once people see you actually know something they usually change their tone.

I don't feel that someone who feels i'm living wrong is someone I can hang out with.

I wasn't referring to that comment with the intention of us being best friends, I simply think it's ridiculous not to accept support from me and people like me because of my religion, it's absolutely ridiculous.

Well after reading all 97 pages *sarcasm*, i have this to say:

fundamentalist christians have been screwed since the age of enlightenment. We'd still be living in the dark ages it weren't for people of science who found a way to break away from the barriers of religious foolishness.

Homosexuality is indeed genetic not only on an increasing basis of scietific evidence, but also in the logical sense. One does not choose to be heterosexual, right? so why would anyone assume that people can choose to be something that is restricting, looked down on, etc.? Gays come from all walks of life--Even in the most christian families. This certainly refutes the claim that homosexuality is environmental.

~~mike

I think your undermining my case there. I don't believe envionmental causes to sexuality are something that can or should be treated, or reversed, particularly in regard to homosexuality. Most attempts to reverse someone's sexual orientation merely lead to confusion and depression. IMHO, homosexuality is not wrong, so therefore does not need to be treated or reversed...

http://www.pfox.org/

Here's some food for thought:

Not all homophobes are relgious, and not all religious people are homophobic. There are plenty of secular hatemongers in this world, and plenty of open-minded and accepting people with religious beliefs...

I don't feel that someone who feels i'm living wrong is someone I can hang out with.

What? That's silly. If they disliked you solely for your lifestyle, or tried to convert you incessently (spelled that wrong...), that's different. But someone who's willing to accept you for who you are, despite the fact that they might disagree with you on somethings is most definitely an eligible friend.

I think you're just prejudiced against people o' faith.

=D See? Hollywood liberalism.

http://www.pfox.org/

That site is BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ex-gay

"Perhaps as a result of the defections, the strategy of Exodus and other groups appears to have changed dramatically. Rather than emphasize heterosexuality as a goal, most ex-gay ministries now simply push a cessation of homosexual activity and, where possible, desire."

The ex-gay movement has collapsed.

Out of societal pressure and people as yourself.. they don't need help because it isn't a mental illness. This isn't the 1950s. You need to get with the times.

In fact there are no reported cases of success for the ex-gay ministries, and therapists who claim they can cure it.


I didn't say anything about needing help, I said they ask for help.


They made a choice. And there seems to be a few self proclaimed cases that disagree with your assesment.

What? That's silly. If they disliked you solely for your lifestyle, or tried to convert you incessently (spelled that wrong...), that's different. But someone who's willing to accept you for who you are, despite the fact that they might disagree with you on somethings is most definitely an eligible friend.

I think you're just prejudiced against people o' faith.

=D See? Hollywood liberalism.

Stop speaking for me, please.

I'm atheist. I don't want to be around people who speak about jesus and god all the time. Furthermore, hollywood liberalism? I'm libertarian. Right wing economically, center-left socially...

Animals choose to participate in homosexual acts. They do not choose to be homosexual.


How do you prove that? Can you talk to them Dr. Dolittle? ;)


Humans choose to participate in homosexual acts. They do not choose to be homosexual.

How do you prove that? Do you a snapshot of the brain at that moment? Can you see if there is a chemical responce, etc?

OK, that's more the answer I was seeking, thanks. ;)
I know I want the truth whatever it is but one way makes our lifes a whole lot harder and opens our familys up to not only judgement from the outside but from themselfs

My parents would kill me then themselfs if they knew honestly

I didn't say anything about needing help, I said they ask for help.


They made a choice. And there seems to be a few self proclaimed cases that disagree with your assesment.

They don't need help because there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

I provide plenty of facts against the ex-gay movement...

http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/learn/scandals.html

I can't believe this got to 100 pages so fast...

Well after reading all 97 pages *sarcasm*, i have this to say:

fundamentalist christians have been screwed since the age of enlightenment. We'd still be living in the dark ages it weren't for people of science who found a way to break away from the barriers of religious foolishness.

Homosexuality is indeed genetic not only on an increasing basis of scietific evidence, but also in the logical sense. One does not choose to be heterosexual, right? so why would anyone assume that people can choose to be something that is restricting, looked down on, etc.? Gays come from all walks of life--Even in the most christian families. This certainly refutes the claim that homosexuality is environmental.

~~mike

Actually that statement doesn't refute that claim at all. A kid growing up in a christian family isn't necessarily the perfect child because of it. The parents may hold him or her to too high of a standard, or perhaps he or she feels estranged by the religion he or she is supposed to be a part of. certainly in this environment "christian" beliefs wouldn't seem important to the child at all, and they could easily be influenced to become homosexual.....of course this is hypothetical, and incomplete, but I think you get my point. Not every kid that grows up in a christian home is a christian kid....keep that in mind.

Stop speaking for me, please.

I'm atheist. I don't want to be around people who speak about jesus and god all the time. Furthermore, hollywood liberalism? I'm libertarian. Right wing economically, center-left socially...

Who says all religious guys talk about god and jesus all the time? You're thinking of fundamentalists, and making the mistake that all religious people in this discussion are fundamentalists, because you keep bringing it up and they keep defending it.