Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Dr.Who]

Exactly.

I do not doubt that phelp's swimming abilities and jordan's basketball abilities have considerable basis in genetics. But then again, a genetic potential is meaningless unless manifested by choice.

The essence of this topic is clear -- that a genetic basis for homosexuality is sufficient reason to craft a law exclusively for homosexuals.

I believe that is the whole reason for the gentics/enviro debate.

We can't discriminate based on things that people have no control over, like skin color or gender or age. But we do and should discriminate over all sorts of things that people do have control over like criminal activity and ignorance.

If being gay were genetic and not a result of decisions or controllable factors then we should probably alter the way we make laws regarding the issue. And why did I start that sentence with the words "being gay?" could it be that the terminology has been shaped so well by the movement that it is a part of everyone's vocabulary.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Only one scientist was named, perhaps the most senior collaborator in this research. As far as independent scientific corroboration is concerned, that still counts as just one.

So, I guess you were out to misrepresent science --- again.



Just because I prefer to read books other than those disguising as gay propaganda doesn't mean I don't read books, now, does it? It just means I don't read your sort of books.



Which is irrelevant nonsense since the topic is about whether homosexuality is genetic or not. For the sake of argument, if left-handedness or alcoholism are indeed genetic, does that, in any way, suggest homosexuality is also genetic?

Do you have any scientific evidence that proves conclusively that it is indeed genetic? If you have, then it would be futile to post something that does not even involve homosexuality, don't you agree?

I had to laugh when I read this response. You didn't read what I wrote but instead responded to what you wanted me to have written.

Invincible ignorance is when you will NOT learn, an example of this is bad-mouthing a research work that is nearly 800 pages in length based on the studies of thousands of scientists all over the world WITHOUT YOU EVEN HAVING CRACKED THE COVER OF THE BOOK. Don't look, Nums, that way you'll never have to see.

What is not irrelevant is the painful fact that ignorant people like yourself have been ignoring science and jumping to idiotic conclusions for most of human history. If we all acted like you are on this thread we would still be depending on phrenology and phlogiston, beating mentally ill people to drive out the devils, excoriating alcoholics for moral turpitude, bleeding people to let out the evil humors, and refusing to shower or bathe because the "godly stink" is our best defense against illness. Do you still maintain that the Earth is flat? Are you still arguing with the germ theory of disease?

One of the reasons that I don't post much anymore is the "shallow-end of the gene pool" responses from the likes of you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The APA has offically said that there is no proof. Yet, as a former shrink I am aware of the evidence that it just may be (twin studies).

However, just like alcoholics still choose to drink or not and left handed people can choose to use their right hand, the same is certainly true for gays. a genetic predisposition may make it easier to make one choice or harder to make another but it rarely eliminates choice.

I agree that making laws just for homosexuals is not a good idea, that's why I think that we should have equality. The gay haters have been passing laws AGAINST gays for a long time and that is just simply discrimination and bigotry.

All consenting adults should be allowed to engage in the sex acts they wish with other consenting adults. The idea that gay people should refrain from expressing their sexuality with other consenting adults while at the same time not asking heterosexual adults to refrain is a double standard based on religious dogma and nothing more.

Alcoholism is damaging to the people who suffer from it, being left-handed or homosexual are not inherently damaging and thus do not require legal restrictions.

 

[zakiyeh]

Alcoholism is damaging to the people who suffer from it, being left-handed or homosexual are not inherently damaging and thus do not require legal restrictions.

I think homosexuality is damaging. both for the individual and for the society. As for the individual it can be both physical and spiritual damage. I think the second is more provable.I think the man and woman are two oppositr parts of a circle which help each other to become one perfect being.
As for the society it breaks the net of a family-based society. No school is better than the family for children to learn moral codes. Now I don't call two men and a child or two women and a child a family. A family has got to have a MUM and a DAD. Even if I walk down a step and do call that a family (which of course will not have all benefits of the correct family) we should have some statistics about what percentage of homosexuals actually do adopt a child or are successful at keeping it until he/she grows up.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think homosexuality is damaging. both for the individual and for the society. As for the individual it can be both physical and spiritual damage. I think the second is more provable.I think the man and woman are two oppositr parts of a circle which help each other to become one perfect being.
As for the society it breaks the net of a family-based society. No school is better than the family for children to learn moral codes. Now I don't call two men and a child or two women and a child a family. A family has got to have a MUM and a DAD. Even if I walk down a step and do call that a family (which of course will not have all benefits of the correct family) we should have some statistics about what percentage of homosexuals actually do adopt a child or are successful at keeping it until he/she grows up.

You are entitled to your opinion based on your religious beliefs, but it's not science and there is no science to back it up--just as there was no science to back up the accusation of moral turpitude in relation to alcoholics, nor for demon possession being the cause of mental illness, nor for burning women at the stake for witchcraft.

Research HAS been done on children raised by gay parents and they have found no substantive differences between hetero and homo parenting outcomes. Children who come from loving homes do alright whether the loving home is gay or straight or even a single parent home.

Religious opinion should not be the basis for law.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Zakiyeh Said:

I think homosexuality is damaging. both for the individual and for the society. As for the individual it can be both physical and spiritual damage. I think the second is more provable.I think the man and woman are two oppositr parts of a circle which help each other to become one perfect being.
As for the society it breaks the net of a family-based society. No school is better than the family for children to learn moral codes. Now I don't call two men and a child or two women and a child a family. A family has got to have a MUM and a DAD. Even if I walk down a step and do call that a family (which of course will not have all benefits of the correct family) we should have some statistics about what percentage of homosexuals actually do adopt a child or are successful at keeping it until he/she grows up.

You are entitled to your opinion based on your religious beliefs, but it's not science and there is no science to back it up--just as there was no science to back up the accusation of moral turpitude in relation to alcoholics, nor for demon possession being the cause of mental illness, nor for burning women at the stake for witchcraft.

Research HAS been done on children raised by gay parents and they have found no substantive differences between hetero and homo parenting outcomes. Children who come from loving homes do alright whether the loving home is gay or straight or even a single parent home.

Religious opinion should not be the basis for law.

Well said Mare; and as with all things that we founded this great United States of America on is the truth that all men are created equal, freedom of worship/religion, separation of church and state, etc., etc., etc., it is what THIS country was founded on...to be free of those judgmental religious controlling beliefs. And for every statistical data that the frightened church controlled mentality pull out for 'proof of good parenting' the stats that compile the majority of the physically/mentally/sexually abused children in this country are done by heterosexually married couples...far more heterosexual males abuse young men then the gay gendered males do!!!

And yet the 'good religious right minded sheepal' would abolish the gay/lesbian human by "praying away the gay" if it was in their power to do so. LMAO

 

[SW85]

FWIW, I tend toward the belief that homosexual impulses, at least in men, are largely genetic in nature. The consensus in evolutionary psychology today seems to be that it is a manifestation of a hereditary trait that is evolutionarily useful and common in women but rare and destructive in men. The fact that homosexual men tend to have larger families on the maternal side confirms this (and suggests that the trait in question involves the desire to have sex with lots of men). The genetic case is also backed up by the fact that it co-presents with things like left-handedness and the presence of older biological brothers (but only in right-handed men).

That said, the question of where homosexuality comes from is basically immaterial. There is simply no good case for changing the law to accomodate gays' desire to co-opt the word "marriage" to describe their relationships.

And on a minor aside, I am positively baffled that so many gays insist that homosexuality is caused by genetic factors when they are, in almost every other way, typically cultural determinists. Why would one deliberately advance the idea that his sexual orientation is the product of an incurable genetic defect?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The consensus in evolutionary psychology today seems to be that it is a manifestation of a hereditary trait that is evolutionarily useful and common in women but rare and destructive in men.

I'd like to see some documentation to support this statement. How is it evolutionarily useful and common in women, while being rare and destructive in men? Gay men are more rare than Lesbian women?

That said, the question of where homosexuality comes from is basically immaterial. There is simply no good case for changing the law to accomodate gays' desire to co-opt the word "marriage" to describe their relationships.

It isn't so much co-opting the word "marriage" as it is the cultural benefits attendant thereto. Is there any reason to deny gay people the right to legal equality?

And on a minor aside, I am positively baffled that so many gays insist that homosexuality is caused by genetic factors when they are, in almost every other way, typically cultural determinists. Why would one deliberately advance the idea that his sexual orientation is the product of an incurable genetic defect?

Right now homosexuality is condemned as an evil "lifestyle" choice, but if sexual orientation is genetic then it cannot be an evil lifestyle choice any more than dark skin can be the Mark of Cain, as was taught by the Christian religion at one time.

 

[samsara15]

Live and let live. Homosexuals leave other people alone, by and large, so why can't we leave them alone? Heterosexuals hit on the wrong people now and then, and so do homosexuals. We all make mistakes. All you have to do, even in the military, is say NO.

I always was dismayed at how much some people seemed to violently despise homosexuals. I grew up in a small rural NE NC town, in the 1950s. Back in those days, anyone who was homosexual in that town would have justifiably been fearful for both their life and their health.

Do the more extreme of you want to ban Catholic priests? I often wonder how many little girls Catholics priests molest. Celibate priests are not a good idea, no matter what their sexual preferences may be. Even so, most priests and most people are not child molestors.

 

[numinus]

I believe that is the whole reason for the gentics/enviro debate.

We can't discriminate based on things that people have no control over, like skin color or gender or age. But we do and should discriminate over all sorts of things that people do have control over like criminal activity and ignorance.

Marital laws are not meant to discriminate anyone's sexual preference. I have given enough reasons for marriage -- namely, the assertions of the udhr and the crc.

Whether a particular sexual preference is genetic or not is irrelevant to the given reasons for marriage. And while discrimination against gays is unfortunate, I fail to see how changing the definition of marriage will help.

If being gay were genetic and not a result of decisions or controllable factors then we should probably alter the way we make laws regarding the issue.
And why did I start that sentence with the words "being gay?" could it be that the terminology has been shaped so well by the movement that it is a part of everyone's vocabulary.

Again, this does not make any sense.

The udhr and the crc gives the reasons for marriage -- none of which has anything to do with homosexuality.

So why alter it?

 

[numinus]

I had to laugh when I read this response. You didn't read what I wrote but instead responded to what you wanted me to have written.

I responded exactly to the news article you have provided. That news article is ENTIRELY irrelevant to homosexuality.

Invincible ignorance is when you will NOT learn, an example of this is bad-mouthing a research work that is nearly 800 pages in length based on the studies of thousands of scientists all over the world WITHOUT YOU EVEN HAVING CRACKED THE COVER OF THE BOOK. Don't look, Nums, that way you'll never have to see.

You posted the title of a book which I have not read and whose assertions you never bothered to post. If it is a peer-reviewed scientific paper, then by all means, post it here.

What you provided a link to, and which I have read, is that news article talking general behavior which has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Duh?

What is not irrelevant is the painful fact that ignorant people like yourself have been ignoring science and jumping to idiotic conclusions for most of human history.

Have you or any of your gay self-help books identified the homosexual gene yet?

I wonder who exactly is 'jumping to idiotic conclusions'?

If we all acted like you are on this thread we would still be depending on phrenology and phlogiston, beating mentally ill people to drive out the devils, excoriating alcoholics for moral turpitude, bleeding people to let out the evil humors, and refusing to shower or bathe because the "godly stink" is our best defense against illness. Do you still maintain that the Earth is flat? Are you still arguing with the germ theory of disease?

LOL.

Again, you provide examples of scientific facts as if the homosexual gene can be considered as scientific fact, by association.

Duh?

One of the reasons that I don't post much anymore is the "shallow-end of the gene pool" responses from the likes of you.

LMAO.

It is futile to peddle suggestions and innuendos about homosexuality as scientific fact -- as you have been doing here. Not posting nonsense in this vein would indeed be the smart thing to do.

 

[numinus]

It isn't so much co-opting the word "marriage" as it is the cultural benefits attendant thereto.

What cultural benefit might that be?

Is there any reason to deny gay people the right to legal equality?

How in heaven's name does marriage deny gay people legal equality? Do you even know what legal equality is?

Right now homosexuality is condemned as an evil "lifestyle" choice, but if sexual orientation is genetic then it cannot be an evil lifestyle choice any more than dark skin can be the Mark of Cain, as was taught by the Christian religion at one time.

Nonsense.

There is no such thing as a genetic potential with moral worth.

 

[SW85]

I'd like to see some documentation to support this statement. How is it evolutionarily useful and common in women, while being rare and destructive in men? Gay men are more rare than Lesbian women?

The hereditary trait in question is the predisposition to have sex, and to enjoy having sex, with lots and lots of men. It is very obvious how this would confer evolutionary advantage on the women who possess it and a disadvantage on the men who possess it.

The advantage, FYI, is that women with the trait will have more than enough male children to offset the ones whose drive to procreate is compromised by its manifestations.

Psychology Today had a useful article on the topic written for lay people.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I responded exactly to the news article you have provided. That news article is ENTIRELY irrelevant to homosexuality.

What the article addresses is the way that people jump to conclusions about things like left-handedness, homosexuality, mental illness, and skin color before they know what causes those things. The article just gives another example.

You posted the title of a book which I have not read and whose assertions you never bothered to post. If it is a peer-reviewed scientific paper, then by all means, post it here.

See above why I posted the link. I gave you the title and the author of the book which is based on hundreds of peer review research articles and papers.

Have you or any of your gay self-help books identified the homosexual gene yet?

A characteristic can be genetic before we figure which genes or complex of genes causes it. You wish to vent your hatred and bigotry on gay people before we even know what causes them to be that way. I, on the other hand, think that they should be treated like everyone else until we have a real reason to treat them otherwise.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What cultural benefit might that be?

The self-same cultural benefit that accrues to legally married couples: equality before the law so that all the laws currently granting special rights and privileges to legally married people will apply to gay people.

How in heaven's name does marriage deny gay people legal equality? Do you even know what legal equality is?

Marriage does not deny gay people equality, it's the laws granting special rights and privileges to legally married people and the legal exclusion of one group of tax paying citizens for no reason but religious bigotry that denies gay people equality.

Nonsense.
There is no such thing as a genetic potential with moral worth.

You really missed the point on that one, Nums, am I going too fast for you?