Homosexuality

[Christian]

I know this is sensitive topic, but I have some questions about the subject. This is the first.

What is the body of scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic?


I have heard that most evidence is anecdotal. Is this correct?


If in fact, there is a body of scientific evidence, then I need to look at it before continuing with the discussion I want to have.

[swstephe]

There are a lot of links out there. I found this one: http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html to have a lot of information. Apparently a booklet from P-FLAG, (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)

"To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."

[QuarkChild]

One possible way of determining whether homosexuality is genetic (and to what extent) is the use of identical twin studies.

In a study of 110 homosexual men who had twins:

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

This is from http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

I recommend reading the original link because it explains the implications and also points out some of the shortfalls of the methodology.

Anyway, it is my understanding that typically, twin studies suggest a fairly significant genetic contribution to homosexuality.

[justsaygnosis]

According to woo-woo theosophy homosexuality occurs when a 'male' entity inhabits a female body or vice versa and they end up seeking their compliment at a psychic core level rather than a biological one.
The jury of empirical science is still in deliberation on this one as to its' EXACT cause.
Given the body of investigation that's been done, if they can't come to a definite conclusion I'm clueless too.
There are no gays in my nuclear family however I have gay first cousins on both my maternal side and paternal side. It's not what everyone wanted but life has it's own designs.

[The Mad Linguist]

In addition to what QuarkChild said:

Has anyone ever looked at the uncle-nephew / aunt-niece relationship? If homosexuality were to be inherited across generations, this is how one might expect it to show up (e.g. if a gay man/woman has a greater chance of having a gay nephew/niece than a straight man/woman).

I've never heard of any studies being done on this, but it would be an obvious place to start.

[Q-Source]

I might be biased regarding this issue but:

1. why a high percentage of abused males by males -during their childhood- end up as homosexuals?

2. why homosexuals have a preference to work in certain activities and develope certain skills more than others?

I think homosexuality is mainly linked to genetic origins but there are also a sociocultural elements that influence its "development". This means that we could make two groups of people, in one side, those who are genetically determined to be homosexuals and in the other side, those who choose homosexuality as a sexual preference or are conditioned by society to become one.

Of course, this is highly speculative and has no scientific grounds, just my opinion.

Q-S

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Christian
IWhat is the body of scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic?
If you are asking, have we found the gene that makes you gay, the answer is no. The human genome is not mapped to that precision yet.

On the other hand, we haven't found the gene that makes you left-handed, and yet no-one doubts for a second that being left-handed is genetic. If what you are looking for is the kind of evidence that convinced people that that left-handeness is genetic, well, we've got that by the ton.

First and foremost is that people who are left-handed (or homosexual) report expierences that show that they were left-handed (or homosexual) long before they were capable of any kind of choice. Like age 4.

Second, there is a huge social pressure on people to not be left-handed (well, there was: people of my generation were still occasionally beaten in school for using their left hands). Yet people continued to exhibit left-handeness despite all cultural conditioning. The same is true of homosexuality. If homosexuality were a cultural choice, then you wouldn't expect it to be expressed in every single culture the earth has ever seen. This universal expression, despite almost universal condemnation, indicates that there is something universal about homosexuality. Just like left-handedness.

The evidence we have for the genetic basis of homosexuality is just as strong as the evidence we have for the genetic basis of left-handedness. One has to ask why one of those propositions is accepted without hesitation and the other one is violently resisted. One suspects that the reason for that difference has nothing to do with the evidence, and everything to do with political and cultural issues.

Also, as Q-Source said, it is almost certainly the case that some lucky percentage of humanity is bisexual. For them, sexual attraction comes without gender restraints, and so, for those few, it really is a choice, just like dating red-heads or blondes is a choice for the rest of us. But this has no more relevance to the argument than the fact that some people are ambidextrous has to the argument about left-handedness.

[swstephe]

Left-handedness and homosexuality is very different. One is a physical attribute that one can not choose not to act upon. The other is more of a mental preference which one can choose not to act upon, (there was a lot about pedophilia and castration -- maybe I'll get into that later).

I had two very close friends in high school. They were faternal twins. One was a lesbian the other was not. One was left handed, the other right handed. One had blue eyes, the other brown. For some reason, people would treat them as individuals until they learned they were twins, then they would actually convince themselves they looked identical, (which they definitely did not). The lesbian twin became a bible-thumping evangelical christian, and eventually married a minister. Anyway, I found that even though her preferences didn't leave room for the opposite sex, it was definitely expressed as a set of attributes, not toward the opposite sex, (or even sex), specifically.

I think there is a lot of confusion being generated over the "missing link" between homosexuality and genetics. What is the evolutionary advantage of being homosexual? Is "homosexuality" a discrete atomic attribute, or are there a lot of different competing attributes whose sum ads up to what we call homosexuality. In many cultures and over the course of history, same-sex contact and affections operate by different rules. Westerners get caught by surprise in many Asian cultures to see two men or women holding hands or with their arms around each other. Perhaps it is a repressive culture that hilights otherwise healthy heterosexual behavior? Perhaps it is due to opposition to the gender-biased roles that a culture places on its members?

But on the other hand, why is it important to place emphasis on a genetic factor rather than a simple choice? If, tomorrow, they could locate the gene and tell if someone is homosexual or not by comparing the correct allele, does that mean that everyone has to start acting according to what gene we have? What if Falwell tested positive? Don't we still have the right to make rational decisions and invoke cultural and social pressures? If we don't then what if someone who was living a gay lifestyle was told they didn't carry the gene, so they have to stop doing it?

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by swstephe
Left-handedness and homosexuality is very different. One is a physical attribute that one can not choose not to act upon. The other is more of a mental preference which one can choose not to act upon, (there was a lot about pedophilia and castration -- maybe I'll get into that later).

Wooooow, slow down there kiddo... There isn't much difference since both actions can not be chosen by the person, rather are set in place. In fact, homosexuality is not mental, it is physical. Homosexuals aren't "mentally" attracted to same sex, they're physically attracted.


I had two very close friends in high school. They were faternal twins. One was a lesbian the other was not. One was left handed, the other right handed. One had blue eyes, the other brown. For some reason, people would treat them as individuals until they learned they were twins, then they would actually convince themselves they looked identical, (which they definitely did not). The lesbian twin became a bible-thumping evangelical christian, and eventually married a minister. Anyway, I found that even though her preferences didn't leave room for the opposite sex, it was definitely expressed as a set of attributes, not toward the opposite sex, (or even sex), specifically.

Are you sure she was a lesbian? You're presenting one case of your observation as evidence. That's pointless. I know a few gay people who wanted to be straight because of social pressure but simply could not be! So much for choices.

I'm left handed by the way - not by choice but because that's the way I am.


I think there is a lot of confusion being generated over the "missing link" between homosexuality and genetics. What is the evolutionary advantage of being homosexual? Is "homosexuality" a discrete atomic attribute, or are there a lot of different competing attributes whose sum ads up to what we call homosexuality. In many cultures and over the course of history, same-sex contact and affections operate by different rules. Westerners get caught by surprise in many Asian cultures to see two men or women holding hands or with their arms around each other. Perhaps it is a repressive culture that hilights otherwise healthy heterosexual behavior? Perhaps it is due to opposition to the gender-biased roles that a culture places on its members?

Uhh what? Are you trying to say homosexuality is a by-product of repressive society or gender-biased roles or something? Or the opposite?


But on the other hand, why is it important to place emphasis on a genetic factor rather than a simple choice? If, tomorrow, they could locate the gene and tell if someone is homosexual or not by comparing the correct allele, does that mean that everyone has to start acting according to what gene we have? What if Falwell tested positive? Don't we still have the right to make rational decisions and invoke cultural and social pressures? If we don't then what if someone who was living a gay lifestyle was told they didn't carry the gene, so they have to stop doing it?
I don't understand what you're saying here? Are you trying to tell me that you could openly choose to find say a member of the same sex attractive sexually if you're straight? I know I can't. Same for homosexuals - it's not a choice - they can't control who they find sexually appealing. That's what people who promote "it's a choice" argument don't understand - it's not a choice anymore then being left or right handed.

[swstephe]

I'm saying that homosexuality is not a single defineable characteristic. You can't physically test someone for homosexuality. If I show you a picture of a woman's breast and you find it attractive, is that a physical process? What if the breast was actually of a man who had gender re-assignment surgery? Was gender involved? You must have hundreds of such signals ... thighs, faces, eyes, lips, hips, beards, muscles ... those are signals that you are genetically determined to respond to with excitement, even if I'm fooling you with a painting.

However, these signals are inputs to our mental processor. We combine it with experience and culture to generate a desire in our minds. So, I'm saying the processes are genetic, but the ultimate decision is mental.

Yes, my friend was definitely a lesbian. I had met her lovers, with whom she was sexually active, and we often discussed what aspects we were attracted to and what traits were objectional.

There is nothing physically preventing someone from engaging in sexual acts with another person. I knew some young men who sold themselves for money, but were in no way attracted to their clients, nor considered themselves homosexual. It was simply a sign of a sad culture. They were, over time, and due to some overbearing desires, able to adjust what they were willing to do.

Besides, by saying that there is no choice involved at all, then you could argue that a man who has an affair with another woman had no choice because they were genetically determined to be attracted to young women and werent' attracted to their wives anymore. It could be just as difficult for a man to stay in a committed relationship as it is for someone to choose which gender to prefer. In fact it may be harder to remain attracted to exactly one individual who keeps changing appearance as they age.

I'm not one of those "it's a choice" people who use that to say it is immoral, (I asked in another thread if a hermophrodite could ever find love if it were), just that you can't say that it is one attribute which we have no control over.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by swstephe
I'm saying that homosexuality is not a single defineable characteristic. You can't physically test someone for homosexuality. If I show you a picture of a woman's breast and you find it attractive, is that a physical process? What if the breast was actually of a man who had gender re-assignment surgery? Was gender involved? You must have hundreds of such signals ... thighs, faces, eyes, lips, hips, beards, muscles ... those are signals that you are genetically determined to respond to with excitement, even if I'm fooling you with a painting.

Yes, the sexual response can be measured. It doesn't matter whether the breast is a part of painting or not. A straight male will respond to the picture of a breast positively while a gay man will not. There was a study on that done a while back with results discussed here. Anyone know the thread for it?


However, these signals are inputs to our mental processor. We combine it with experience and culture to generate a desire in our minds. So, I'm saying the processes are genetic, but the ultimate decision is mental.

Woow, circulum in demonstrandum. "It's mental because it's mental". The ultimate decision is not mental. A straight male can not control his "arousal" if faced with a gorgeous woman. A gay male can not control his "arousal" if faced with a gorgeous man. Nothing to do with mental decisions. Just the way you're made.


Yes, my friend was definitely a lesbian. I had met her lovers, with whom she was sexually active, and we often discussed what aspects we were attracted to and what traits were objectional.

You don't know that unless you can read minds.


There is nothing physically preventing someone from engaging in sexual acts with another person. I knew some young men who sold themselves for money, but were in no way attracted to their clients, nor considered themselves homosexual. It was simply a sign of a sad culture. They were, over time, and due to some overbearing desires, able to adjust what they were willing to do.

This has no bearing on whether being gay is a choice or not. If a straight man decides to have sex with other males, there is nothing stopping him. The only thing is he won't enjoy it. If a gay male decides to have sex with women, he won't enjoy it. He can do it but he'll never be happy, just like a straight man.


Besides, by saying that there is no choice involved at all, then you could argue that a man who has an affair with another woman had no choice because they were genetically determined to be attracted to young women and werent' attracted to their wives anymore. It could be just as difficult for a man to stay in a committed relationship as it is for someone to choose which gender to prefer. In fact it may be harder to remain attracted to exactly one individual who keeps changing appearance as they age.

Woow, don't leap so far here. First of all, you're talking about choice to act upon the attraction. In that way, you're creating a subtle red herring. We're discussing whether or not a person has a choice in the attraction itself, not whether they choose to act upon it.


I'm not one of those "it's a choice" people who use that to say it is immoral, (I asked in another thread if a hermophrodite could ever find love if it were), just that you can't say that it is one attribute which we have no control over.
Then I ask again, if you're straight, can you choose to find same sex attractive? You can't. That's all there is to it.

[Q-Source]

Excellent post Yahzi, your analogies are always very accurate.

[Upchurch]

I'm with Yahzi and Impy on this one, but I wanted to address this issue.Originally posted by swstephe
Left-handedness and homosexuality is very different. One is a physical attribute that one can not choose not to act upon. The other is more of a mental preference which one can choose not to act upon, (there was a lot about pedophilia and castration -- maybe I'll get into that later). I'm left handed and so was my paternal grandfather. When my grandfather grew up, he was forced to do most things right handed (except for sports, which he did left handed and excelled at). I, on the other hand, was allowed to learn to do things left handed.

swstephe's statement above makes it sound like I cannot choose to do things right handed, which my grandfather did (through social pressure) and I can do, if I so choose. Granted, my right handed handwriting sucks and I'm not comfortable doing it, but I can choose to act as if I'm right handed.

So, too, can a gay man act as if he is straight, but, I'm told, he feels the same feeling of not being comfortable about it. Although I'm sure it is to a much higher degree than I feel when I'm using the wrong (that is, right) hand.

Is there a genetic component to being left handed? Obviously there was in my case through my grandfather. Is there a environmental component to being left handed? Obviously there was based on the differences in my grandfather's and my experiences.

There is every indication that this is the case with homosexuality. I think the statistics are hampered by the fact that the subject of homosexuality was, and still somewhat is, taboo and so there may not be a good history of accurate reports. As our society becomes more open to the possibility of homosexuality, I would venture to guess that we will see similar gentic/social mechanisms involved in both left handedness and homosexuality.

[swstephe]

I thought this article is interesting, (hasn't been published in Psychological Science yet, as far as I can tell, so I don't have the entire results): http://www.canpress.ca/english/online/full/HealthSynd/030619/6061908AU.html

Bailey researched men and women of different gender preferences to determine sexual arousal. What they found is that women tended to be capable of arousal by either gender or sexual orientation situation, while men were not. The immediate assumption is, "were the women all bisexual?" ... but they concluded that it is a more complicated phenomenon than on the surface.

As I've been saying, I think it is the "signals" that are important at the genetic level. I think this study makes sense, if true, that gender bias is primarily determined by gender of the individual. The signals that exhibit gender bias would lie on the 23rd chromosome, (X/Y). That women can exhibit a response to both signals is one of the possible arrangements.

[swstephe]

A lot of this gets into free will vs. determinism again. But there is a problem in arguing about that because there are two definitions of "free will", one is "incompatibilism", (that free will /choice/ and determinism /genetics are incompatible and mutually exclusive), and "compatibilism", (that free will and determinism are compatible but merely indicate that a choice is free as long as the action is arrived at using reason and that there is a potential to chose otherwise -- Hobbes and Humes).

Saying homosexuality is purely genetic, with no choice, is to imply determinism and incompatibilism. I find that difficult to show in any other aspect of a human's life. I am never compelled to do anything for which I have options. I can always override natural desires, even if I don't like it, (like fasting or celibacy), for some higher purpose, through reason. Doing things aren't considered unnatural.

I am saying that homosexuality has a strong genetic factor, but it is a very complicated one, and not the ultimate deciding factor. If it was, then a heterosexual man could be perfectly happy in a sexual relationship with another man as long as he looked convincingly like a female in every way, (the crying game?). In fact, a heterosexual man would have no choice but be attracted to a convincing transsexual, would he. The fact that he is feels repelled at the mere knowledge that the transsexual is actual a man pretending to be a woman is mostly a mental process.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by swstephe
I am saying that homosexuality has a strong genetic factor, but it is a very complicated one, and not the ultimate deciding factor. Ultimately, I think this is what everyone who claims that homosexuality is genetic is saying. It may not be the ultimate deciding factor but neither is the social/enviromental factor. I believe it is those two factors together that makes the ultimate deciding factor, analogously to being left handed. And like being left handed, one factor may play more of a part than the other on an individual basis.

[Dancing David]

Wow, a generaly intelligent discussion to think about.

Here is some more, the genetics thing is much more complex than you could think, there are different ways that biology could effect imprinting or chemical attraction.

Say that there is this phase in our life where we imprint on the gender that we will be most attracted to as adults, lets say it occurs three days and three months and three hours after we are born. Whoever you imprint on in that hou is the one you will want as a mate. Pretyy random which sex it could be, nut there could be other predispositions as well. There is some evidence that our immune systems may be involved in our selection of mates, so say I am attracted to girls but my brother is attracted to men, because of an immune system thing.

Then there is the possibility of the emotional sfaety thing, say my younger brother forund me to be the nurturing individual in his life and so he now seeks out men.

[Upchurch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that those who question the genetic origins of homosexuality are really searching to answer the question "Is homosexuality natural?"

That's a tough question, but ultimately, does it matter? So little of our modern world could be considered "natural" in the first place. Driving around in cars isn't natural. Living in skyscrapers isn't natural. Reading books isn't natural. Surfing the web isn't natural. However, all of us have done at least one of these things and most of us do many of them on a regular basis.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a natural, if somewhat inexplicable, part of life for some people. Or maybe for all of us, I don't know. Regardless, natural or not, it does exist, it doesn't hurt anyone, and I don't really see how it hurts society, frankly.

So, ultimately, what does it matter if it's genetic or their own personal choice? Homosexuals are what they are or what they've decided to be. Who are any of us to tell them it's wrong or unnatural?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by swstephe
Saying homosexuality is purely genetic, with no choice, is to imply determinism and incompatibilism.
Saying that being born blind is purely genetic, with no choice, is to imply determinism. If the person would only choose to see

Some things are determined. Sorry, dude, but that's the way it is.

Nobody has ever thought you could choose what you were sexually attracted to. Nobody has ever suggested that men should reset their preferences so that they find fat women wildly attractive. If we could control our sexual preferences, then why do we all lust after supermodels, instead of redirecting our preferences to other types that are not as competitively pursued?

The only time anybody ever suggests that sexual attraction is psychological is when they are talking about homosexuals. The rest of the time, it is taken for granted as one of those things you can't really do anything about.

I agree quite strongly with Impy: when you say being gay is a choice, you're making a statement about yourself. "Cause it sure as heck ain't a choice for me. Ask yourself: would you rather sleep with Janet Reno or Johnny Depp? Viola: proof that sexual attraction is neither chosen nor rational.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, ultimately, what does it matter if it's genetic or their own personal choice?
Because, if it is genetic, we have a club to beat the Fundies with.

See, the fundies already slipped up: they decided to stop drowning babies that were born with some kind of deformity. Once they did this, they tacitly acknowledged that people (and God) cannot be held responsible for genetic defects. It's quite rare these days to find a fundy who still sticks to the "deformities are god's way of punishing a sinner!"

So if we can show that homosexuality is genetic, it takes the wind right out of the fundie's sails.

Why aren't we arguing for people's right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? Because we already lost that argument: we've given up on human rights and liberty, and this point were just arguing for recognition of reality. If they were gonna be convinced by the "get government out of our bedrooms" argument, the gay issue would have been resolved 20 years ago. But fascism is not so easily swayed.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Because, if it is genetic, we have a club to beat the Fundies with.To be honest, I don't really care about beating the Fundies (as fun as that might sound). What I really care about is that the Fundies stop beating up on those who they disagree with.
Why aren't we arguing for people's right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? Because we already lost that argument: we've given up on human rights and liberty, and this point were just arguing for recognition of reality. You lost me on this one. What do you mean?

[Pahansiri]

For me it is so sad to see so many posts/threads at so many sites concerning who another being may love or sleep with.

At sites like Rapture Ready you find almost endless post concerning this. Their belief is because it is a “sin” they may beat it to death.

Yet other “sins” are left undressed, why these other “sins” are ones done by them, divorce infidelity, lies, stealing for example.

We cheer at “cool’ battle footage and a “smart” bomb that just hit the target and forget about the children and innocent people who suffer and die. So much for thou shall not kill.


We cheer at when just at the “end’ of this last ‘war” when the US bombed the hell out of a building/ restaurant because Saddam and the boys “may have been there” they were not but other people were, families and people who lived near the now huge crater. So much for thou shall not kill.

They say these people are “causalities of war” if they are US people that are a tragedy if not a US person “causalities of war”.

Yet post after post, thread after thread about whom someone loves or may sleep with.

Homosexuality by many is seen as sex, heterosexuality seen as love?


I am sure if many who care so much for who another loves was attacked for who they loved it would be seen as hate but attack a gay etc and it is an act of “love”?

Many Christian friend will say often “ well the Bible clearly says hate the sin love the sinner” when asked for that passage expect al long silence.

This is not to attack Christians or anyone for if it was I would be doing what I see as wrong.

Give to others the same respect you seek. Seems simple.

Just what I believe.


:)

[Loki]

*** Anecdote Warning ***

I've got two (female) cousins who are gay (same family). They insist that they had "no choice" - hetro simply didn't work for them.

[swstephe]

I'm trying to figure out the responses. There seems to be some people that think that as soon as someone claims there was one iota of choice involved, that I'm implying responsibility and morality too. I don't judge people on their choices, so it doesn't make sense to me. I'm actually just saying that saying homosexuality is 100% genetic is an oversimplification, that there is some amount of reason and experience involved, which means that someone still has the potential to choose which way to act. But choice doesn't pass morality on anyone. I may choose not to eat today, even though my genetic preference for eating can be much stronger than my gender preference. There is no morality involved in that choice. Someone else has to apply morality to it, and I'm not implying anyone, (religion, society). In fact, I look at the headlines about gay marriage and think, "why is the government even involved in making such laws? they ought to throw out every law concerning marriage and just worry about child/spousal abandonment/abuse instead?". People should be allowed to choose anyone they want as long as both people are mature enough and rational enough to know what they are doing and not hurting anyone?

Isn't it ironic that Christians take certain words and make them hot-buttons, in different contexts? "Choice" is Christian when talking about homosexuals, but anti-Christian when talking about abortion. Maybe not ironic, it might be intentional, it prohibits people from rationalizing it. I didn't even realize that "choice" was such a hot-button word around skeptics.

Here is something to think about. It may be inconceivable for an 18 year-old man to be sexually attracted to an 81-year old woman, but what about her 81-year old husband. Isn't it possible that he may find her attractive for reasons which have developed over the years? Did something change, or were the genetics hard-wired?

I personally don't find supermodels as attractive as other women. My rational mind, combined with life experiences and general assumptions have combined, over time, to give them a less favorable reaction. I guess it depends on what you can conceive you can gain with interaction with the person. I suppose there must be some attraction signals there somewhere, but I have just supressed them so I can spend my time on more productive persuits.

Just because something is inconceivable, doesn't mean there is no choice. There are always potential choices which are so negative that a rational mind will supress their genetically-derived impulses. Are you going to tell someone who has a genuinely unacceptable sexual impulse, (such as attraction toward children), that they are geneticly programmed that way, are incapable of supressing their genetic desires because it would be uncomfortable, but since acting on those impulses is unacceptable, they must be surgically or chemically altered? Do you really want to give Christians that ammo???

I didn't get the reference to Janet Reno or Johnny Depp. Were you saying that you would rather sleep with Janet because she is a woman, or Johhny because he is more sexually attractive, (and effeminate)??

Consider a situation where all women in the world were unavailable to you, for the rest of your life. Life-imprisonment, with no chance of parole. It is either same-sex or nothing. Your genetics are saying, "must have sex", your testosterone is raging. You definitely would say "never", right??? ... But you said people didn't have a choice, if you don't have a choice, you have to say "yes". Your options are more limited, the most sexually attractive human that you will ever see for the rest of your life is a guy. Hmmm ... okay, you can follow your genetic programming, I'm going to stick with my ability to choose my actions despite my genetic programming everytime.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by swstephe
I'm trying to figure out the responses. There seems to be some people that think that as soon as someone claims there was one iota of choice involved, that I'm implying responsibility and morality too. I don't judge people on their choices, so it doesn't make sense to me. I'm actually just saying that saying homosexuality is 100% genetic is an oversimplification, that there is some amount of reason and experience involved, which means that someone still has the potential to choose which way to act.

Stop right there. It's already being addressed. You're still going on about "acting on impulses" while people pointed out we're not discussing choice to act on things here. Sure, a gay man can choose to act straight, but it will be the same as a straight man acting gay. Neither will be very comfortable in the role.


But choice doesn't pass morality on anyone. I may choose not to eat today, even though my genetic preference for eating can be much stronger than my gender preference. There is no morality involved in that choice. Someone else has to apply morality to it, and I'm not implying anyone, (religion, society). In fact, I look at the headlines about gay marriage and think, "why is the government even involved in making such laws? they ought to throw out every law concerning marriage and just worry about child/spousal abandonment/abuse instead?". People should be allowed to choose anyone they want as long as both people are mature enough and rational enough to know what they are doing and not hurting anyone?

That's a nice way of looking at it but this has no bearing on the argument at hand as I just mentioned.


Isn't it ironic that Christians take certain words and make them hot-buttons, in different contexts? "Choice" is Christian when talking about homosexuals, but anti-Christian when talking about abortion. Maybe not ironic, it might be intentional, it prohibits people from rationalizing it. I didn't even realize that "choice" was such a hot-button word around skeptics.

I think you're confused a little bit. The discussion was about whether a homosexual can choose to be a homosexual, not whether a homosexual can choose to act on their desires (two different things). You're talking about choosing to act upon desires which has been addressed already.


Here is something to think about. It may be inconceivable for an 18 year-old man to be sexually attracted to an 81-year old woman, but what about her 81-year old husband. Isn't it possible that he may find her attractive for reasons which have developed over the years? Did something change, or were the genetics hard-wired?

This is becoming a red herring actually...

Still, I think the physical attraction will have diminished to be replaced by a mental attraction. I'm sure the 81 year old would find a 21 year old woman more physically appealing.


I personally don't find supermodels as attractive as other women. My rational mind, combined with life experiences and general assumptions have combined, over time, to give them a less favorable reaction. I guess it depends on what you can conceive you can gain with interaction with the person. I suppose there must be some attraction signals there somewhere, but I have just supressed them so I can spend my time on more productive persuits.

You're creating a red herring by missing the point.

You find women attractive. I ask whether you could find males sexually attractive?


Just because something is inconceivable, doesn't mean there is no choice. There are always potential choices which are so negative that a rational mind will supress their genetically-derived impulses. Are you going to tell someone who has a genuinely unacceptable sexual impulse, (such as attraction toward children), that they are geneticly programmed that way, are incapable of supressing their genetic desires because it would be uncomfortable, but since acting on those impulses is unacceptable, they must be surgically or chemically altered? Do you really want to give Christians that ammo???

More red herrings.

We're not discussing paedophiles or sexual deviants. I would say their attractions may have mental basis mixed with physical basis.

Once again, could you find a male sexually attractive? I know I couldn't no matter how hard I would choose to.


I didn't get the reference to Janet Reno or Johnny Depp. Were you saying that you would rather sleep with Janet because she is a woman, or Johhny because he is more sexually attractive, (and effeminate)??

Consider a situation where all women in the world were unavailable to you, for the rest of your life. Life-imprisonment, with no chance of parole. It is either same-sex or nothing. Your genetics are saying, "must have sex", your testosterone is raging. You definitely would say "never", right??? ... But you said people didn't have a choice, if you don't have a choice, you have to say "yes". Your options are more limited, the most sexually attractive human that you will ever see for the rest of your life is a guy. Hmmm ... okay, you can follow your genetic programming, I'm going to stick with my ability to choose my actions despite my genetic programming everytime.
You seem to either be bisexual (and this is not a personal attack) or very confused.

The point was very simple. You can't just choose to be attracted to men when you're only attracted to women (unless you're bisexual). If you're bisexual I can see why you don't understand the analogy - you find both sexes equally appealing therefore selection becomes a choice.

A gay person can no more choose to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex then a straight person to the same sex. It's the same as a left handed person trying to be right handed (they can do it but they'll never truly be right handed). Yes, you can choose to act different but you can't become different.

Whether they choose to act upon their attraction is an entirely different matter.

[Loki]

swstephe,

I'm actually just saying that saying homosexuality is 100% genetic is an oversimplification, that there is some amount of reason and experience involved, which means that someone still has the potential to choose which way to act.
Perhaps you needed to say this, perhaps not - it seems a "given" to me. To use Yahzi's "left-handed" analogy, the genetics gives a "predisposition" - you can still exercise a choice to write right handed. I don't think anyone who argues "genetic-based" is arguing "must live life as a homosexual/hetrosexual". The discussion would be "are you fighting or following your genetic predisposition". Or perhaps I'm also misunderstanding the strength of the "pro-genetics" argument?

[ImpyTimpy]

** Another anecdote warning **

I know a man who was brought up in a family of 3 other brothers. His brothers are all straight but he's gay. When he was younger he pretended to be straight and even got into a long term relationship with a woman - basically kept trying to tell himself he's not gay. He simply couldn't keep it up anymore and finally him and the woman split up. Since then he came out of the closet and admitted that since he was little he always knew he was somehow different but didn't realise he was gay until later into his teenage years. He's had a hard life and from my chats with him he wishes he was straight.

From that alone I can see homosexuality does not appear to be a choice.

[Supercharts]

Human sexuality is very interesting…

We all have our own opinion on what is a sexual fulfillment.
Like moths around a flame we flit in and about about what is “normal” and what is “not”.

We all think about sex as what we believe it to be. We are our own censors.

Accepting the idea [not a fact but an opinion] about sex sets us apart from many others. [Like Cats and Weasels…sorry].

So – what is sex?
What’s in the majority?
Why do we care about the majority opinion?

It’s really the result of a bunch of hormones coursing through our bodies over which we have no control.

My only opinion [from a male point of view] is that putting your penis into a vagina is much better than ramming it up some guys a**hole. Others disagree. To those who disagree you might consider trying it. [Basically it smells a lot better].
Butt I could be wrong.

[Ladewig]

Am I the only one who is curious as to what Christian's original questions are? Christian, will you post again in this thread?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Am I the only one who is curious as to what Christian's original questions are? Christian, will you post again in this thread?

I was wondering the same. Come back Christian!! I'm one of your biggest peeps!!! (and why did you ever split with Edge?)

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by swstephe
I'm actually just saying that saying homosexuality is 100% genetic is an oversimplification, that there is some amount of reason and experience involved, which means that someone still has the potential to choose which way to act.
Maybe you do. Maybe you can convince yourself that sleeping with Tom Cruise is more fun than sleeping with Nichole Kidman. Hey, more power to ya, I envy you! But I can't.

As has been pointed out by several people, we are not discussing how you act, we are discussing how you feel.

[slimshady2357]

Where is Diamond/Titanpoint?

He's been saying for months now that he has compelling evidence for the biological (but specifically NOT genetic) origin of homosexuality.

Of course he's also been saying he'll present it any day now for just as long :rolleyes:

Adam

[Christian]

Ladewig wrote:
Am I the only one who is curious as to what Christian's original questions are? Christian, will you post again in this thread?

Yes, sorry.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
I was wondering the same. Come back Christian!! I'm one of your biggest peeps!!! (and why did you ever split with Edge?)

Thanks (I think) What is "split with Edge"?

Ok, this is the thing. I want to use the skeptic's approach, scientific, if you will.

I see two positions here. Either homosexuality has a genetic component or it does not.

If it does, we can't say it is a matter of simple lifestyle choice.


Ok, how do we approach this objectively. I have confirmed that the bulk of the evidence is anecdotal. Is that enough for a skeptic to take the default position that there is a genetic component. Shouldn't there be more, if not, why not?

I see the parallel attempt with left-handedness. My objection, is that clearly, in that case, there are scientific outside methods to confirm a genetic component.

I can device tests that can conclusively prove that there must be such a genetic component for left handedness.

Can someone forward a similar assertion on tests that could conclusively confirm the genetic component in homosexuality?

[Yahzi]

Christian
Ok, how do we approach this objectively. I have confirmed that the bulk of the evidence is anecdotal. Is that enough for a skeptic to take the default position that there is a genetic component. Shouldn't there be more, if not, why not
In the absence of any contrary evidence, the skeptic takes homosexuals at their word. Many homosexuals report homosexual feelings at ages that they cannot possibly be responsible for, like 4. Given the complete lack of evidence against this, why wouldn't we just believe them? Being a skeptic does not mean assuming everyone who holds a position you don't like is lying.

In every other emotional area, personal testimony is considered acceptable. Homosexuality is the only area in which you are required to ignore the testimony of homosexuals about what homosexuality feels like.

We are approaching this objectively. You just don't like the answer.

I see the parallel attempt with left-handedness. My objection, is that clearly, in that case, there are scientific outside methods to confirm a genetic component.
How so clearly? Can you name a single test, study, or expierement that convinced you? Seriously, how can you be so certain that left-handess is genetic - in the absence of any scientific reference on your part - and yet be so certain that homosexuality isn't? Doesn't this reflect a prejudice on your part?

I can device tests that can conclusively prove that there must be such a genetic component for left handedness.
Really? And how would you do this? By interviewing people and asking them which hand they prefered using? Or perhaps you would test them - perhaps you would assign them unusual tasks and see which hand they performed better with. But again that would be trusting them not to fake their own response.

Yet if we offer you exactly the same evidence for homosexuality, you call it ancedotal. Do you see how it is impossible to prove that homosexuality is as genetic as left-handedness once you decide that the amount of proof required is different?

FYI, people have done studies that show that homosexuals experience the same kind of arousal when shown pictures of the same sex that heterosexuals experience when shown pictures of the opposite sex.

If it does, we can't say it is a matter of simple lifestyle choice.
Why does it matter? Even if it were purely a matter of choice (which it is not, at least for most people), why would it matter?

Leviticus condems adultery just as harshly as it condemns homosexuality. The Bible clearly defines re-marriage while your first wife is still alive as adultery. Choosing to get divorced and remarried is clearly a life-style choice. Yet no one is suggesting that re-marriage is unnatural or evil.

Clearly the objection to homosexuality is not religious (since if it were, people would object to remarriage just as much), but rather a case of fascism. People don't object to homosexuality on religious grounds, but rather on the grounds of "but I don't do it." They accept remarriage, though, because that is something they do.

One has to ask why the Vatican is not campaigning against remarriage with the same fervor that it is against homosexual marriage. One can only assume it is a political decision, a recognition that they can't win on the divorce issue, but they can still beat up the gays.

Why do we have to prove a genetic component before we are allowed to be free to make our own choices? Why do I have to behave just like you in cases that don't concern you? Why are we expected to allow people to pick and choose the parts of Leviticus they want to enforce (without at least identifying that they are merely making arbitrary choices)?

[Dancing David]

In short no, there wouldn't be an ethical way to devise a test.

Assuming thier is a genetic factor in homosexuality is not as simple as saying 'thier is a gene which causes people to be attracted to the same sex.'

If you consider things like imprinting, chemical attraction and socialized attraction they could all have genetic components that are hard wired into out biology.

To devise a test would mean unethical cruelness.

Take fifty children
Raise half of them in isolation and expose them to only opposite sex couples.
Raise half the children in isolation and expose them to only same sex couples.

Then ask how many feel that they just don't fir in after puberty and matuartion?

Raise half exposed to only same sex peers and adults.
Raise half exposed to only opposite sex peers and adults.

Raise half exposed to same sex adults and opposite peers.
Raise half exposed to opposite sex adults and same sex peers.

This is just a small sample of the kind of unethical experimentation that would have to be conducted to find out what biological basis there may be for homosexuality.
This would not even touch on things like the age of the mother, in uetero factors or enviromental factors that could none the less have a biological component.

[Christian]

Yahzi:

It is hard to debate with you because you erect so many distracting strawmen. I really don't want to spend my time striking them down.

But I will try to respond to your post, so others can see what's going on.

Yahzi wrote:
In the absence of any contrary evidence, the skeptic takes homosexuals at their word.

There is contrary evidence and it is anecdotal as well. There are many ex-homosexuals who say it was a lifestyle. Why not take them at their word too?

Many homosexuals report homosexual feelings at ages that they cannot possibly be responsible for, like 4.

Do they report this at 4? Link please.

Given the complete lack of evidence against this, why wouldn't we just believe them?

You are wrong, anecdotal evidence goes both ways. That is the problems. Maybe, you need to here, the other side too. Wouldn't that be fair?

Being a skeptic does not mean assuming everyone who holds a position you don't like is lying.

Aside from the huge strawman. This is a false dichotomy. I certain most are convinced that there is a genetic component. That does not mean there is.

In every other emotional area, personal testimony is considered acceptable.

Yes, of course but never conclusive or sufficient to take a scientific position. Or are we allowed double standards?

Homosexuality is the only area in which you are required to ignore the testimony of homosexuals about what homosexuality feels like.

Another strawman here. No, not ignore, just not sufficient to come to a default position.

We are approaching this objectively. You just don't like the answer.

Assuming things??? Strawman??? No, I don't think you are being objective.

How so clearly? Can you name a single test, study, or expierement that convinced you? Seriously, how can you be so certain that left-handess is genetic - in the absence of any scientific reference on your part - and yet be so certain that homosexuality isn't? Doesn't this reflect a prejudice on your part?

No it does not. Yes, I can be quite certain left-handess is genetic? 100%. Please, this should be obvious to you. If I were to choose randomly 100 6 yr olds. I could, with dexterity tests predict with 100% accuracy who is right or left-handed.

I have three daughters. My twins are 10 months old. I know, from simple observation that they are both right-handed. My oldest daughter is too and, by age 1, I knew she was.

Do you have any idea how obvious this trait is?

In Latin American countries, soccer is the preffered sport (I understand it is also the most popular among kids in the US). Just watch any toddle kick a ball. After any number of kicks, you will know if he/she is left-handed.

Really? And how would you do this? By interviewing people and asking them which hand they prefered using? Or perhaps you would test them - perhaps you would assign them unusual tasks and see which hand they performed better with. But again that would be trusting them not to fake their own response.

It is very easy to test for the trait, specially and conclusively among toddlers. They can't fake left-handess.

No, unusual tasks necessary either.

Yet if we offer you exactly the same evidence for homosexuality, you call it ancedotal.

No, that is it point. I'm not aware of such tests for homosexuality. The test I'm talking about cease to be anecdotal.

Do you see how it is impossible to prove that homosexuality is as genetic as left-handedness once you decide that the amount of proof required is different?

You are wrong, left-handedness can be tested without anecdotal evidence.

FYI, people have done studies that show that homosexuals experience the same kind of arousal when shown pictures of the same sex that heterosexuals experience when shown pictures of the opposite sex.

Yes, but this test does not show there is a genetic component. Actually, it could show that males are suceptible to this type of conditioning.

Why does it matter? Even if it were purely a matter of choice (which it is not, at least for most people), why would it matter?

Why do topics like this matter? Something calle the truth, maybe. :confused:

I wont comment on the rest of your post...


Dancing David wrote:
In short no, there wouldn't be an ethical way to devise a test.


You got a point there. Totally different from testing for left-handness

Ok, so if we are stuck with anecdotal evidence and they go both ways. Why would the default position be that there is a genetic component? Why not the opposite?

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Christian

Ok, so if we are stuck with anecdotal evidence and they go both ways. Why would the default position be that there is a genetic component? Why not the opposite?

The default position is not that sexuality is genetic. The default position is that it is innate to a person. Being innate does not necessarily mean genetic. It could easily be caused by factors in the developmental environment of the foetus, for instance.

Why do we assume sexuality to be innate rather than a matter subject to personal choice? Because the vast majority of persons report that it is so. This is a matter of near-universal human experience. Heterosexuals do not choose to be attracted to the opposite sex, they JUST ARE. The same applies to homosexuals, but with the same sex.

The anecdotes you have referred to from "ex-homosexuals" are untrustworthy. I have never heard anyone claim to be an "ex-homosexual" who was not an adherent of a brand of Christianity that considers homosexuality a sin. Clearly, such testimony is not unbiased.

[Fade]

There is contrary evidence and it is anecdotal as well. There are many ex-homosexuals who say it was a lifestyle. Why not take them at their word too?

Quality and Quantity. Name me an ex-homosexual group that isn't full of fundamental christians. It's easy to fake being heterosexual. Find a woman, marry her, go through the motions, get accepted by society. Easy. I tried to do this, and failed. I can feel sexual attraction for women, but there is nothing emotional there. I don't thirst for their companionship the way I do for a mans. My mother tells me that she knew I was gay when I was around 10 years old.

Imagine that. The same time my (specifically, my own, some people become 'sexual' earlier and some later) sexuality began to appear, I started noticing the other boys. Imagine that.

You are wrong, anecdotal evidence goes both ways. That is the problems. Maybe, you need to here, the other side too. Wouldn't that be fair?


I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that sexuality, for some people, is a switch they can change in themselves, if they tell me this is so. I haven't yet found a person that claims this that doesn't also happen to be supporting an agenda, but to point this out would not be fair.

Aside from the huge strawman. This is a false dichotomy. I certain most are convinced that there is a genetic component. That does not mean there is.

I am going to take a huge shot in the dark here and assume that you simply haven't bothered to read up on the evidence itself. Sure, there is a lot of anecdote flying around on both sides, but there is an irrefutable link between homosexuality and genetics. Evidence was cited earlier in this thread. You choose to ignore it.

Another strawman here. No, not ignore, just not sufficient to come to a default position.

Nobody is asking you to "come to a default" position based upon testimony alone. The testimony is merely a part of it. The human sciences have already concluded that there are gentic factors, add onto this the nearly endless stream of personal testimony, and how can you think to disagree with it? There is quite possibly something in there that is wrong. Percentages might be off, exact factors perhaps not wholly known, but science is pointing it's great big flashing arrow at the truth, and we simply need to keep following it until we have all the evidence we need. That evidence will probably change the direction of our path a little, but it's doubtul that we will reverse.

Assuming things??? Strawman??? No, I don't think you are being objective.

Because we all know Yahzi is a huge homo and is working with some sort of agenda, right? What possible PERSONAL REASON could he have to make him be looking at this in a subjective light? You could accuse somebody like ME of being a little biased, but what could a heterosexual possibly gain from this line of reasoning? Nothing!

No it does not. Yes, I can be quite certain left-handess is genetic? 100%. Please, this should be obvious to you. If I were to choose randomly 100 6 yr olds. I could, with dexterity tests predict with 100% accuracy who is right or left-handed.

Wrong. I am ambidextrous, but I favoured my right hand because everyone else used theirs. When I was 9 I started writing with my left hand (as well as my right) because my right hand was getting sore. My teacher, at the time, asked me how long I could do this.. I told her as long as I could write.

If you want to raise your infant in a sterile white room with cameras on the wall, sure, you may be able to observe these things and be a little more certain, but you can not deny the effects of environment (on handedness or homosexuality), because these things do factor in.

[pgwenthold]

My take on this? I think there are plenty examples of both cases, where homosexuality is completely innate and where it is a choice (but it depends on how you define choice).

A good example I can relate was a pair of sisters that I saw on one of the talkshows. One was a raging lesbian, one of those "I have known all my life" types. Her sister was hetero- for most of her life. However, she had a lots of relationship problems, so her sister says, why not try it with a woman? Her words were basically, "I tried it, and found I liked it, and haven't gone back to men since."

Now, you could say that at some level, she made a choice to be lesbian. She didn't have to be, but she chose that direction. On the other hand, you could also say her problem may have been that she was denying her homosexuality, but who knows. "I tried it, and liked it..." sounds very much like someone who made a concious choice to be gay. On the other hand, what we can say is that she was _capable_ of liking it, which is not something that is chosen.

A good comparison is your taste in food. Is your taste in food a choice? Or something innate? Consider something you try for the first time. Whether you like it or not does not is not something you chose, it is something you discover about yourself. Now, in the end you can claim that you chose to give it a try, and found that you liked it. But does that mean that you chose to like it? Not at all.

I think there are plenty of examples of folks who would admit that they have not felt themselves homosexual their whole lives, but discovered it as the result of their choice to try it. However, that doesn't mean that they chose to like folks of the same sex.

PS The situation with the sisters that I described above is very similar to that of a couple that we knew in college

[Christian]

The default position is not that sexuality is genetic. The default position is that it is innate to a person. Being innate does not necessarily mean genetic. It could easily be caused by factors in the developmental environment of the foetus, for instance.

I don't understand this. Is this distinction valid? If innate does not mean a physcal trait, then are you talking about a metaphysical trait. If the environment is the cause, then it can't be innate, right?

Why do we assume sexuality to be innate rather than a matter subject to personal choice? Because the vast majority of persons report that it is so. This is a matter of near-universal human experience.

The vast mayority of people report miracles (supernatural events)in their lives...Appeal to the masses???

The anecdotes you have referred to from "ex-homosexuals" are untrustworthy. I have never heard anyone claim to be an "ex-homosexual" who was not an adherent of a brand of Christianity that considers homosexuality a sin. Clearly, such testimony is not unbiased.

By the same token, the testimony of homosexuals is not unbiased, right?

Does being a Christian render the testimony untrustworthy? Why? Bias again? How about a Muslim?

Fade wrote:
Quality and Quantity. Name me an ex-homosexual group that isn't full of fundamental christians.

Who rates this? You must agree with me that any qualitatively rating is subjective and biased on both camps.

I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that sexuality, for some people, is a switch they can change in themselves, if they tell me this is so. I haven't yet found a person that claims this that doesn't also happen to be supporting an agenda, but to point this out would not be fair.

But this implies you don't have an agenda, and you do. I, for one, assume it is a legitimate one and that you are 100% honest in what you believe. But you still have one, even if it is only to say that homosexuality has a genetic component.

I am going to take a huge shot in the dark here and assume that you simply haven't bothered to read up on the evidence itself.

Don't assume this. I have read about it. No one here contests the fact that most evidence is anecdotal and all presented in the post have been anecdotal, right? Am I missing a link presented that I did not read? I don't think so.

but there is an irrefutable link between homosexuality and genetics.

I'm sorry, I have missed this information, can you please show me where? If I have missed it, I' apologize. I started the thread with the intention of being as informed as possible and no one presented this irrefutable link.

Evidence was cited earlier in this thread. You choose to ignore it.

If I did, it was not intentional. I still don't see it.

Nobody is asking you to "come to a default" position based upon testimony alone. The testimony is merely a part of it.

Ok, I agree.

The human sciences have already concluded that there are gentic factors, add onto this the nearly endless stream of personal testimony, and how can you think to disagree with it?

I have asked for this information and I find no such conclusions.

Because we all know Yahzi is a huge homo and is working with some sort of agenda, right? What possible PERSONAL REASON could he have to make him be looking at this in a subjective light?

No, his agenda is different let me show you. From this thread:


Posted by Upchurch
So, ultimately, what does it matter if it's genetic or their own personal choice?
Posted by Yahzi
Because, if it is genetic, we have a club to beat the Fundies with.

See, the fundies already slipped up: they decided to stop drowning babies that were born with some kind of deformity. Once they did this, they tacitly acknowledged that people (and God) cannot be held responsible for genetic defects. It's quite rare these days to find a fundy who still sticks to the "deformities are god's way of punishing a sinner!"

So if we can show that homosexuality is genetic, it takes the wind right out of the fundie's sails.

Why aren't we arguing for people's right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? Because we already lost that argument: we've given up on human rights and liberty, and this point were just arguing for recognition of reality. If they were gonna be convinced by the "get government out of our bedrooms" argument, the gay issue would have been resolved 20 years ago. But fascism is not so easily swayed.

Yazhi equate Christians to fascists and anything that can hurt Christians is good material to use.

You could accuse somebody like ME of being a little biased, but what could a heterosexual possibly gain from this line of reasoning? Nothing!

Actually, you are using the biased card to discredit Christian testimony. I can't judge that at all. What I can say is that, according to scientists (as I've heard so many times here) testimonial evidence is unreliable.

Wrong. I am ambidextrous, but I favoured my right hand because everyone else used theirs. When I was 9 I started writing with my left hand (as well as my right) because my right hand was getting sore. My teacher, at the time, asked me how long I could do this.. I told her as long as I could write.

You are supporting my point. All I have is that instead of two clasifications there are three. And with scientific tests, we can, with 100% accuracy determine who is what.

[The Mad Linguist]

ME: Being innate does not necessarily mean genetic. It could easily be caused by factors in the developmental environment of the foetus, for instance.

Christian: I don't understand this. Is this distinction valid? If innate does not mean a physcal trait, then are you talking about a metaphysical trait. If the environment is the cause, then it can't be innate, right?

By "innate" I mean "a feature of a person that is built into them and over which they can exercise no choice". I was simply pointing out that an innate feature need not be genetic. If it's caused by the environment before you were born, then it clearly is not a matter of choice.

Me: Why do we assume sexuality to be innate rather than a matter subject to personal choice? Because the vast majority of persons report that it is so.

Christian: The vast mayority of people report miracles (supernatural events)in their lives...Appeal to the masses???

Miracles are events which are in theory open to being viewed by anyone. A feeling of an attraction is internal to the human being and can most easily be accessed by asking someone about it (although that's not the only way, as others have pointed out, experimentation is possible). Therefore, the two are not comparable.

And I seriously doubt that as many people can report experiencing a miracle as can report experiencing sexual attraction to another human being.

Me: I have never heard anyone claim to be an "ex-homosexual" who was not an adherent of a brand of Christianity that considers homosexuality a sin. Clearly, such testimony is not unbiased.

Christian: By the same token, the testimony of homosexuals is not unbiased, right? Does being a Christian render the testimony untrustworthy? Why? Bias again? How about a Muslim?

I didn't say "being a Christian". I said "an adherent of a brand of Christianity that considers homosexuality a sin". If someone has a vested interest in considering homosexuality a sin, clearly they have an interest in claiming that homosexuality is a matter of choice. And the fact that such people are the ONLY people who claim that homosexuality is a matter of choice is very, very suspicious.

No one's testimony is completely unbiased. But in the case of anti-gay fundamentalists, there is a great, obvious, easily explicable, enormous bias.

[Loki]

Christian,

A very (very) minor point ...
Just watch any toddle kick a ball. After any number of kicks, you will know if he/she is left-handed.
No, I think this is wrong!!!!! My son, from the ages of 1 and a half to 3 always kicked with his left foot. I though this meant he would turn out to be left-handed (well, left-footed - you know what I mean!). Then, at 3, he started kicking with his right foot. Then I realised what had happened. In his younger days, we generally stood opposite each and kicked the balls to each other. I kick with my right foot, and he was simply mimicing me - the reverse image meant that he kicked left. I've since tested this with a few other young children, and it certainly seems to hold. if I repeatedly kick with my right, they respond by kicking with their left. If I kick with my left, they start kicking with their right. Obviously, at some stage around 3, the "mimicing" stops and their "natural" tendencies take over.

Anyway, really has nothing to do with your argument at all, but just wanted to point out that I've experienced the opposite of your 'toddlers kicking" analogy. Purely anecdotal, of course....

[Fade]

Who rates this? You must agree with me that any qualitatively rating is subjective and biased on both camps.

No, I don't, in fact.
But this implies you don't have an agenda, and you do. I, for one, assume it is a legitimate one and that you are 100% honest in what you believe. But you still have one, even if it is only to say that homosexuality has a genetic component.

My agenda is the truth of the matter. If it were to come out tomorrow that homosexuality is a learned behaviour, and that were well supported, that is the position I would take. Right now, I have no control over what my body tells me I am attracted too.

I wrote a post a few weeks ago, and I think I should repeat the gist of it here:

I was born gay. I had no control over it. In fact, until the age of 14 or so I didn't even know there WAS a word for it. I pointed out to my mother one day that I thought a man was cute. Later, she sat me down and asked me some questions, and explained to me the differences between same gender love, and opposite gender love. She told me that neither was right, and neither was wrong. Both just were, and that I shouldn't feel pressured to change what I was.

Looking back with the eyes of adulthood, I can find not a single reference to homosexuality anywhere in my childhood. I played with the boys, I was shy around the girls. I was just like every other little boy. I was shown more images of male-female sexual interactions than I can think of. We used to tell dirty jokes to one another, and use words like "pussy" and "boobies" because we thought they were dirty and fun to use. I was raised to love women, not men. Yet, here I am.

Where did my homosexuality come from? Where did I learn it? I definitely wasn't raised facing any sort of homosexual stereotype, I wasn't raised to be effeminate. I didn't really cook, or clean, or sew. I got dirty, I tumbled, I pulled girls hair.

But, one day, I decided that men were really cute. That day, the whole world opened up. Before that, I didn't understand what I was feeling. It was as if somebody were telling jokes, and I was the only person in the room not laughing. I didn't understand why we were supposed to fall in love with and marry girls, because it never felt right. The storybook weddings just never felt right.

These feelings absolutely defy my environment, as there was no mention of these feelings even existing anywhere in my upbringing. I grew up sterile of homosexuality, and I am a homosexual. It's my tiny little cross to bear, and one that nature must given me. There is no other explanation.

[Yahzi]

Loki
Obviously, at some stage around 3, the "mimicing" stops and their "natural" tendencies take over.
An alternative explanation might be that around 3, they realize what mirror image means, and start actually mimicking you more faithfully. I think 3 is around the age they figure out mirrors.

Still, it's a cool experiement. :)


The Mad Linguist
Your patience amazes me. I would have lost it over trying explain that things can be innate without being genetic. I salute you.


Fade
Because we all know Yahzi is a huge homo and is working with some sort of agenda, right?
In yer dreams, buddy! :D

P.S. Thanks for the personal story. I think your mom deserves a salute, too.


Christian
Where to begin? The Mad Linguist answered most of your objections, probably more clearly than I could have. In case it wasn't obvious, I agree completely with everything he said.

Yazhi equate Christians to fascists and anything that can hurt Christians is good material to use.
This is unfair. I was explaining the political context of this discussion, which is entirely separate from its rational content. Don't commit ad hominen and reject my arguments just because you don't like the purpose I will put the conclusion to. That doesn't invalidate them.

Note: When Fade discredits the ex-gay movement by pointing out that they have an agenda, he is not committing ad hominen. He is excluding evidence as untrustworthy, which is an entirely different issue. I hope you see that.

I really don't know how to put it any plainer to you. You assume that being left-handed is genetic, and you are so certain that somebody showed this scientifically that you are completely unware of what evidence, studies, or procedures were used. Yet when we tell you that exactly the same evidence and procedures were used to determine that homosexuality is genetic, you balk.

To be precise, we don't know that left-handedness is genetic. We know that it is innate, which is not quite the same thing, although very close (as The Mad Linguist explained). Nobody has isolated the gene for left-handedness. However, we do know that Spinal Bifida is genetic: we have identified the gene, and we can test you for it and tell you whether or not you have a chance of having a child with that condition. My point is that left-handedness is not as well proved as you think, and yet at no point are you willing to back down on its obvious innate nature. I'm not saying you should: I think the case is proved to scientific standards: I'm just pointing out that you can't bitch about the method used to show that homosexuality is innate unless you are willing to backtrack on left-handedness.

And with scientific tests, we can, with 100% accuracy determine who is what.
We can, with similar accuracy (I assure you it's not 100% for either case) determine homosexuality. You can measure the erotic response without asking people how they feel. You put a little meter on their wiener and show them pictures. This has been done, and people like Fade react to pictures of Tom Cruise the same way people like me react to pictures of Nichole Kidman.

What part of this don't you get?

BTW, when investigating things like how people feel, their personal testimony is valid scientific evidence. You overcome the possibilty that they are lying through a variety of ways, such as making it anoynmous (so they don't have a reason to lie) and taking lots of samples (so you aren't depending on one person's version). If you don't understand how your testimony about how you feel is different than your testimony about what you saw, I can't explain it.

Finally, as the Mad Linguist points out: our best evidence that sexuality is innate is our own internal selves/ It is absolutely not a choice for me: it never was, even though I had the option presented to me at various times. Times when I couldn't land a girl. Desperate times, like high school. And yet even though I was friends with gays who would have had sex with me, I never considered it, no matter how desperate I got.

Does this not reflect your expierence? Are you one of those lucky few who can choose, or have you just never been exposed? I suggest you go to a gay bar, pick out a pretty boy, and share a few drinks. Then look inside yourself and ask: could I choose this, even if I wanted to?

If you can't choose it: if, like me, you can barely even imagine choosing it in some alternate dimension: then what on earth makes you think it's a choice for them?

Yes, but this test does not show there is a genetic component. Actually, it could show that males are suceptible to this type of conditioning.
Then why wouldn't handedness tests merely show that people were susceptible to conditioning? Because they are done on toddlers? But sexual attraction hardly exists at that stage, so how could you reasonably test for it in toddlers?

Furthermore, isn't (as Fade related) all of the conditioning in our society against homosexuality? Where in the heck would this conditioning for it come from?

This clearly shows that you have a double standard. The test you accept for left-handedness (non-verbal response to a stimulus) you simply refuse to accept for homosexuality.

I'm afraid all of the facts in the world cannot defeat prejudice.

[Dancing David]

Posted by Christian

Ok, so if we are stuck with anecdotal evidence and they go both ways. Why would the default position be that there is a genetic component? Why not the opposite?

Two statement and a number of ansewrs.

Where do you get the anecdotal information that homosexuality is a lifestyle? I am friend with members of my local gay community (funny thing, while hetero almost all my friends are gay). And while I haven't done a survey I do know that there are many (95%) who struggled with being gay and dening it during thier youth. I think that maybe having a survey would be good , but the problem is that you aren't going to get honest answers from 'straight' men who are actual gay or bisexual, so it would end up being just a survey of gay men. My belief is that there will be a very high percentage of men who say that the were born gay and very few who say it is a lifestyle.

On the life style thing my best freind from high school made this great statement, that he was gay but not a homosexual. Of course he also wanted a career in politic , so he knew he had to be 'straight'.


I never said that the default position was that there was a genetic basis, from my experience, talking to gay men, and observation , I just happen to believe that there is a very strong biological component to sexual attraction.

Counter arguement: On the whole lifestyle thing, I have known many abusers and addicts and alocoholics in my day. Would you say that that is a lifestyle or do you believe that tere may be a genetic predisposition to substance dependance?

[Yahzi]

From : http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=8&id=3806

To quote John Boswell (the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale University):

"Romans 1:26-27 reads, 'For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.'

The 'nature' in this passage is the Greek word 'phusis' which means personal nature or disposition. It's the same Greek word that occurs, for example, in I Corinthians 11:14, 'Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?', where Paul is probably using 'phusis' to mean custom or tradition.

There's a lot of debate about just what 'phusis' connoted at that time; but the one thing that's clear is that Paul isn't talking about 'natural law' here. (The concept of a 'natural law,' one that was sinful to violate even for those ignorant of divine law, probably never even occurred to Paul, and certainly didn't occur to any of the many early Christian theologists who commented on this passage; the idea didn't show up in theology for another thousand years. Also, we know from other sources that homosexuality was generally regarded at the time as a natural physical trait; if Paul disagreed with the prevailing belief, there are plenty of other places in his writings where you'd expect him to say so, and he doesn't.)

The word 'against' in 'that which is against nature' is a clear mistranslation. The Greek word here is 'para,' which means not 'against' but 'in excess of.' (It's translated as 'more than' in the preceeding verse, in fact, and in many other places in the New Testament. The Greek word meaning 'in opposition to' is 'kata.') The very same phrase, 'para phusis,' is even used to describe the activity of God Himself in Romans 11:23-24, 'And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree.'

What Paul seems to be condemning here is not homosexuality per se (in fact, the absence of any reference to homosexuality in the list of sins that immediately follows, in verses 29-31, is striking) but the satisfying of one's desires in excess of what is fitting to one's nature. (This is also how the passage was interpreted by early Christian theologians; Saint John Chrysostom, for example, felt that it was an important point that the men and women had previously enjoyed satisfactory heterosexual relations."


So this is how people assert that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Since I usually restrict myself to the KJV, it doesn't help me, but I thought other people might find it interesting.

[Christian]

I do want to respond, and hopefully I will. I just need to find the time. I a couple of days maybe.

[ImpyTimpy]

I think Christian ran away...

[Loki]

ImpyTimpy,

I think Christian ran away
Anytime I mention "that poster" in any post of mine, he seems to reply within minutes. Here, let me try... "Christian? Are you out there???"...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Christian
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
I was wondering the same. Come back Christian!! I'm one of your biggest peeps!!! (and why did you ever split with Edge?)

Thanks (I think) What is "split with Edge"?


You know, your former partner! How quickly they forget.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
** Another anecdote warning **

I know a man who was brought up in a family of 3 other brothers. His brothers are all straight but he's gay. When he was younger he pretended to be straight and even got into a long term relationship with a woman - basically kept trying to tell himself he's not gay. He simply couldn't keep it up anymore and finally him and the woman split up. Since then he came out of the closet and admitted that since he was little he always knew he was somehow different but didn't realise he was gay until later into his teenage years. He's had a hard life and from my chats with him he wishes he was straight.

From that alone I can see homosexuality does not appear to be a choice.

I disagree.
Children (and adults!) often act bad for attention. They prefer negative attention to no attention at all.

Here, at this point, someone is bound to ask me if I believe that people act gay to get attention. :D I don't. I'm just pointing out that negative conceqences will not necessarily preclude making one choice over another.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I'm not sure how helpful this is going to be, since it does show the answer to be indeterminant, but leaning strongly towards genetic.

http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html

There are other articles out there as well, but I haven't had much time to get or read them.

[ImpyTimpy]

That doesn't make sense.

In order to get negative attention from being gay, the guy would've had to "act gay" from a young age. As I said, he tried to act straight (he got married and had a child)...

So if we were to make sense of what you said, it'd mean acting straight was done for negative attention... That makes even less sense.

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I disagree.
Children (and adults!) often act bad for attention. They prefer negative attention to no attention at all.

Here, at this point, someone is bound to ask me if I believe that people act gay to get attention. :D I don't. I'm just pointing out that negative conceqences will not necessarily preclude making one choice over another.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I'm not sure how helpful this is going to be, since it does show the answer to be indeterminant, but leaning strongly towards genetic.

http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html

There are other articles out there as well, but I haven't had much time to get or read them.

If it's genetic, that means it can be treated. Or would this be going too far?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
That doesn't make sense.

In order to get negative attention from being gay, the guy would've had to "act gay" from a young age. As I said, he tried to act straight (he got married and had a child)...

So if we were to make sense of what you said, it'd mean acting straight was done for negative attention... That makes even less sense.



I never said he acted gay to get attention. I don't know the details of his life. My point was that people do not always act in a way that seems easy or has a positive outcome. The argument that people wouldn't choose to be gay, or reveal that they were abducted by aliens, or say that they heard the voice of Jesus because they may have a difficult life or be persecuted isn't necessarily true.
As a generalization, it's not valid. IMHO.

[ImpyTimpy]

Actually, I don't think you can lump alien abductions or hearing voices of Jesus with being gay together. The first two have entire groups of "believers" that flock to these people. People who claim these things do it in order to get that 10 seconds on TV I believe.

The last one carries with it a lot of social pressure especially if you're in highschool. You're not likely to appear in some UFO special if all you say is you're gay. You're more likely to be made fun of or rejected by your family.

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I never said he acted gay to get attention. I don't know the details of his life. My point was that people do not always act in a way that seems easy or has a positive outcome. The argument that people wouldn't choose to be gay, or reveal that they were abducted by aliens, or say that they heard the voice of Jesus because they may have a difficult life or be persecuted isn't necessarily true.
As a generalization, it's not valid. IMHO.

[BMM]

A few years ago my friend Jerry Knuijt (author of "The Hoax of Mormonism") did some investigating into the christian stand on homosexuality. During our discussions, he pointed out that he could only find one reference in the Bible that dealt with homosexuality. If I recall correctly it was in Deuteronomy. What he found that was interesting was that even though homosexuality was an "abomination," incest--it seems--wasn't. At least it wasn't specifically listed in the Hebrew laws. We all know the present christian stand on that subject. Knowing what I do about the history of religions, I cannot accept the Bible as the word of God when all the evidence points to its authorship being men who seemd to be recording the customs and mores of their times. The fact that customs have changed over time--in all religions--just goes to show that the Bible is subject to interpretation by those who follow its philosophy, and that those people are just as willing to reject such philosophy as someone who might disagree with their beliefs. And, there are many other examples of selective interpretations of the Bible by christians in history that I'm aware of. So I ask the question. Why should I, or anyone else follow some fundamentalist's selective interpretations of biblical law when all they have to do is change the rules any time the bible disagrees with their notions of right and wrong? I think I'll mind my own business and allow homosexuals to do the same.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by c4ts
If it's genetic, that means it can be treated. Or would this be going too far?
If heterosexuality is genetic, then that means it can be treated, too. In fact, there is some researcher somewhere who can make flys gay by setting the temperature to the right level when they are being born. Thus saving all those flys from a boring life of heterosexuality.

"Treated" is a loaded word. It assumes that what you are doing is helping the person. Changing a person's sexual orientation, or just making them more like everyone else, is not necessarily helping them.

Why not say that being black can be treated, since it's just a genetic condition?

:rolleyes:

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Actually, I don't think you can lump alien abductions or hearing voices of Jesus with being gay together. The first two have entire groups of "believers" that flock to these people. People who claim these things do it in order to get that 10 seconds on TV I believe.

The last one carries with it a lot of social pressure especially if you're in highschool. You're not likely to appear in some UFO special if all you say is you're gay. You're more likely to be made fun of or rejected by your family.



And some people don't seek to be outcast? People don't rebel against what society considers 'normal'? People have never been known to do things that would make their family reject them?

And when you rebel against one thing, you can usually find another group of people who believe the same thing you do, and will support you.

But in trying to explain my point, I keep getting sidetracked from it. Here it is:
People can and do choose to bring negative concequences upon themselves for various reasons. Therefore, there is evidence that:
Someone could never have chosen to be gay because of the negative concequences isn't necessarily true.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

And some people don't seek to be outcast? People don't rebel against what society considers 'normal'? People have never been known to do things that would make their family reject them?

And when you rebel against one thing, you can usually find another group of people who believe the same thing you do, and will support you.

I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm simply pointing out that this would in fact be a very extreme case.


But in trying to explain my point, I keep getting sidetracked from it. Here it is:
People can and do choose to bring negative concequences upon themselves for various reasons. Therefore, there is evidence that:
Someone could never have chosen to be gay because of the negative concequences isn't necessarily true.
Of course this is a possibility. However, chances of that happening are usually slim.

Don't forget, there are people who declare that they used to be gay but no longer are.

Anything is possible, the thing is it just doesn't happen often enough to be considered as a possible cause.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm simply pointing out that this would in fact be a very extreme case.

Teenagers.


Of course this is a possibility. However, chances of that happening are usually slim.

Don't forget, there are people who declare that they used to be gay but no longer are.

Anything is possible, the thing is it just doesn't happen often enough to be considered as a possible cause. [/B]

I also don't consider it a possible cause. (Or a rare one, if at all.) I merely dislike the argument that people don't choose to do difficult things.

[Yahzi]

Ratman & Impy
You guys realize that you both agree, right?