Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Chip]

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

Your projections are irrelevant.

There is no "gene for" homosexuality.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you project.

You have no proof otherwise.

I speak the truth.

So I will not shut up.

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

 

[Napoleon]

Please post a clear anatomical difference.

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

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

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

There is no "gene for" homosexuality.

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

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

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

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your projections are irrelevant.
There is no "gene for" homosexuality.
One's sexual orientation is obviously not a conscious choice.
Nor is there any real evidence for gestational chemicals as a cause.
Thus it is obvious that the only rationally acceptable cause is during post-natal brain development that concludes by the age of five.
Such brain development is greatly influenced by the environment, family-of-origin relationships, idiosyncratically.

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

Again, you project.
You have no proof otherwise.
I speak the truth.
So I will not shut up.
Your pretentious allusion to being a university "Authority" does in no way alter the truth of what I have told.

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

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

 

[9sublime]

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

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

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

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

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

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

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

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

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

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

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

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

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

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

 

[numinus]

Could you demostrate the veracity of this statement please?

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

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

and

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

(my highlights)

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

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

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

a+b = b+a and a*b=b*a​

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

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

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

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

That is why john paul II made the millenium apology.

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

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

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

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

 

[Chip]

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

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

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

I have told you the truth based on obvious realities.

Your intention to take obvious realities and spin them into esoteric complications so that you can do the same when I re-present them is your denial mechanism.

Just like it is high school textbook science that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, so is the information equally commonly available regarding the origin of homosexuality, merely for the searching.

It is not my job to educate you about obvious realities.

When you are ready ... you will do your own self-edifying search ... or you will stop denying what you know to be true, which is more likely what will happen.

For now, it is merely my job to point you in the right direction ... simply by telling the truth.

I have done that.

The rest is up to you.

Good luck to you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

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

A statement by a philosopher is not proof, it's a statement that 20 other philosophers will argue with, it's a glorified opinion. Philosophers used to say that the Earth was flat too--didn't make it true. If you get into realm of religious philosophers you can find proof of absolutely ANYTHING.

All logical conceptions (such as mathematics) start with basic axioms. Axioms have NO rigorous proof nor require one because they are INTUITIVELY TRUE.
I direct you to the commutative property of binary operation in the set of real numbers, (which is incidentally, included in my son's first grade math):

a+b = b+a and a*b=b*a​

Your son's math aside, are you really saying that mathematical axioms do not have to be proved true? I remember when I took that kind of math that we spent a lot of time on the proofs, we didn't intuit those proofs, we logically proved them on paper. The idea that some mathematical axiom is automatically true and does not require rigorous empirical proofs just because someone postulates it, is nonsense.

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

I have come to despise the swollen human ego allows a person not only to claim to know what life is about and what God wants, but gives them the unbelievable temerity to condemn others to misery and death if they do not agree. The Roman Catholic Church has caused more suffering on this tiny planet than most, yet never hesitates to condemn others, burn them on stakes, form Inquistions, hold kangaroo courts, and pretend to righteousness while wallowing in deceit and corruption.

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

Perhaps it addresses the love of two spirits created by God, two spirits who have a bond that you in your overweening pretension to omniscience have decided to condemn. Who are YOU to say their love has no value?

That is why john paul II made the millenium apology.

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

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

So he apologized for some of the most ghastly and disgusting behavior in human history, behavior that made a mockery of everything that Jesus stood for, everything that He taught? If the Catholic Church had learned the lesson then his apology might have had some meaning, but history shows us that it has been "business as usual" since then, right up to today when the Church is still protecting its pedophile priests and its vast financial holdings. The Catholic Church stands as a monument to hypocrisy and as one of the worst examples of human debauchery in history.

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

I have a sneaking suspicion that church encyclicals will spin the truth to make the church look good. What I hear are the words of the Pope preaching hate against homosexual people, what I read are the calls for justice from the thousands of victims of pedophile priests sheltered and succored by the Church, moved from parish to parish and allowed to continue raping children while condemning homosexual people who never harmed a child in their lives.

Your religion and your church have no credibilty, your bloody history speaks to loudly, the cries of your victims drown out your bleating of dogmatic sophistries. You do not speak for God. Your church does not speak for God. And your hates speak more loudly than your words. And I mean this in the nicest possible way. ​

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

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

I actually agree with a lot of the stuff in that article. Dr. Bailey however is not to be trusted, he's done some very bad science and come to some ridiculous conclusions. A far better source would Dr. Louann Brizendine's book THE FEMALE BRAIN, which cites her life work and more than 1000 other peer reviewed journal articles.

Please note that what he actually said in the article was:"I'm not even sure females have a sexual orientation." This was speculation, nothing more.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have told you the truth based on obvious realities.

Yes, you have, so what? I can say the opposite thing with just as much conviction. The trick is to provide some proof for your arguments, Chip, we would all love to take your word as Gospel, but sorry--you just don't have the credibility to carry it off.

Your intention to take obvious realities and spin them into esoteric complications so that you can do the same when I re-present them is your denial mechanism.

Great semantics, but no proof. You may "re-present" them until doomsday, but that does not constitute evidence or proof.

Just like it is high school textbook science that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, so is the information equally commonly available regarding the origin of homosexuality, merely for the searching.

It is not my job to educate you about obvious realities.

When you are ready ... you will do your own self-edifying search ... or you will stop denying what you know to be true, which is more likely what will happen.

For now, it is merely my job to point you in the right direction ... simply by telling the truth.

I have done that.

The rest is up to you.

Good luck to you.

The upshot of this last bit of drivel is that you are admitting that you don't have a shred of anything to demonstrate the validity of your argument, so you just bleat like a sheep and hope no one will notice. You really should look into a career in relgious broadcasting, I think you have an aptitude for bullshipping.

 

[Force-of-the-Truth]

.

Dr. Bailey however is not to be trusted, he's done some very bad science and come to some ridiculous conclusions.

When scientists attempt to draw philosophical conclusions from their work, I always disagree with them on the grounds that they are overstepping their field of expertise. This, from looking him up, is what I gather he has done. However, that doesn't negate his research.

Please note that what he actually said in the article was:"I'm not even sure females have a sexual orientation." This was speculation, nothing more.

The New York Times article was less ambiguous on the point. In everyday discourse, the findings would be described as concluding that all women are potentially bisexual, but to scientists the word "bisexual" necessarily excludes monosexuality (exclusive heterosexuality or homosexuality), which choice of sexual preference does not. At any rate, whether sexual preference is a choice among some, none or all, I don't consider homosexuality in any way inferior to heterosexuality, so I support full gay equality. To me, those who focus on whether or not homosexuality is a choice miss the point. It does no harm and leads to meaningful relationships, so there is no reason it should be discouraged.

 

[Chip]

Yes, you have, so what? I can say the opposite thing with just as much conviction. The trick is to provide some proof for your arguments, Chip, we would all love to take your word as Gospel, but sorry--you just don't have the credibility to carry it off.


Great semantics, but no proof. You may "re-present" them until doomsday, but that does not constitute evidence or proof.


The upshot of this last bit of drivel is that you are admitting that you don't have a shred of anything to demonstrate the validity of your argument, so you just bleat like a sheep and hope no one will notice. You really should look into a career in relgious broadcasting, I think you have an aptitude for bullshipping.

Again, your projections are irrelevant.

And I will simply not lead a horse to water who is obviously obstinately not ready to drink ... as I have much better things to do with my valuable time than to waste it.

When you are ready to learn ... the truthful answers will pretty much find you.

 

[DrWho]

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

This is a quote from this article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199706/homosexuality-biology/2

"The study, as LeVay himself readily admits, has several problems: a small sample group, great variation in individual nucleus size, and possibly skewed results because all the gay men had AIDS (although LeVay found "no significant difference in the volume of INAH 3 between the heterosexual men who died of AIDS and those who died of other causes"). As of this writing, LeVay's findings have yet to be replicated by other researchers. LeVay himself has extended his search for dimorphism according to sexual orientation to the corpus callosum, which he is studying by means of magnetic-resonance imaging. Until his original findings are confirmed, the notion that homosexuals and heterosexuals are in some way anatomically distinct must hold the status of tantalizing supposition."