Iowa ban on same-sex marriage...

[Teflor Lyorian]

Whether or not sexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Relationships are a choice.

[Kifle]

Show me your scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. If you can't then I'll have to assume you're basing your argument on your religious beliefs (liberal world view that is).

My evidence would be reformed homosexuals.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

[Sarvis]

Show me your scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. If you can't then I'll have to assume you're basing your argument on your religious beliefs (liberal world view that is).

"Swaab announced an
even more remarkable discovery five years later, in 1990. He had found, he wrote in an article in the journal Brain Research, that a
cluster of cells in the human brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus was dimorphic—but dimorphic according to sexual orientation
rather than sex. Swaab said that the suprachiasmatic nucleus was nearly twice as large in homosexual men as it was in heterosexual
men.
If true, this was something wholly new: an anatomical difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals."

My evidence would be reformed homosexuals.

"Kinsey and his co-workers for many years attempted to find patients who had been converted from homosexuality to heterosexuality
during therapy, and were surprised that they could not find one whose sexual orientation had been changed. When they interviewed
persons who claimed they had been homosexuals but were now functioning heterosexually, they found that all these men were simply
suppressing homosexual behavior. . . and that they used homosexual fantasies to maintain potency when they attempted intercourse.
One man claimed that, although he had once been actively homosexual, he had now "cut out all of that and don't even think of men—
except when I masturbate.""

Both of those are from this paper: https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~bmay ... y_Burr.pdf

[kiryan]

I'll point out to the part you must've missed... "IF TRUE". Going even farther, did he demonsrtate that there was a casual relationship between this biological difference and homosexuality (IE do babies have it) and how strong was the correlation is?

Are you honestly trying to say that there is not 1 person on this earth who was a homosexual and then was "cured" of homosexuality? If that is true, which it is not, then its because you used a self serving definition of homosexual... as the researchers criticized in Kifle's article used a self servicing definition of homosexual acts as "competition and dominance ritual".

You liberals love to create definitions that exclude all other view points.

==

Kifle, your link would seem to conclusively prove that homosexuality exists in nature and is natural.

However, you should admit that it does not cite any of these animals as practicing homosexuality exclusively. Sarvis' argument is that exclusive homosexual behavior is trait you are born with and as such makes hetrosexual relationships an inadequate remedy.

[Sarvis]

I'll point out to the part you must've missed... "IF TRUE". Going even farther, did he demonsrtate that there was a casual relationship between this biological difference and homosexuality (IE do babies have it) and how strong was the correlation is?

Maybe, I have other things to do and stopped reading at that point. You asked if there were any evidence, and there is. Did I say causal? No. It's a physical difference between hetero and homosexual males. That points to it not being a choice, though maybe the same thing that causes homosexuality also causes the enlarged dealie. So getting caught up on causation doesn't help you. Sorry!

Are you honestly trying to say that there is not 1 person on this earth who was a homosexual and then was "cured" of homosexuality?

If "cured" is in quotes because you'll say a guy is no longer gay because got married and had kids, but still sucks dick out of a glory hole in airport bathrooms, then no. That's certainly "cured."

Otherwise yes, I will say that no one has ever been truly cured of homosexuality. First: It appears to be biological, thus leaving behavioral therapies ineffective as per the article. Second, we don't entirely understand what causes it physically. In theory, it could be cured one day if we understand what physically causes it and correct it. Maybe there will be a pill or something.

Until then, pretending to be straight while fantasize about men doesn't mean you're straight. Sorry!

If that is true, which it is not,

Prove it. I provided evidence, now it's your turn.

then its because you used a self serving definition of homosexual...

Nope. I just read the article. Sorry, but if you want to be with men you are gay. If you sleep with women only because society tells you to, you're still gay.

[kiryan]

Please give me your definition of a homosexual.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

As someone with a degree in Psychology, I'd like to quickly point out two things, based on the two articles referenced by Sarvis and Kifle.

Sarvis, that study, and similar studies showing a difference in hippocampus size, did indeed show size differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. The main issues other psychologists and scientists had was that it tried to portray a correlation between size difference and proof of birth differences. They argued that although the difference was significant, there was no evidence that #1 it had always been since birth, and not something that occurred later in their lives, and #2 that an abnormal size, or difference, would be a possible indicator of a mental, or really neurological, disorder, and nothing something positive at all.

Kifle, linking homosexual activity in men and the sex or pairing in the animal kingdom is erroneous. Most, if not all, animals that are studied and identified, incorrectly, as homosexual, do not engage in the act for the same reason that humans do. They are incorrectly and/or purposefully misusing the term homosexual to describe sexual acts or attacks between animals of the same sex. A consultation of most any dictionary or homosexual human immediately destroys that usage of the term, almost completely. Is it two same-sex living beings screwing each other (homo, sexual)? Mostly, yes. But that's all commonality between the terms. Dominance, control, mating rituals, are all reasons that are usually identified as causes for what is usually identified as homosexual sex or acts. That article also mentions how the young in one species usually lend a hand with oral sex on the adults. Yeah...


I'm not trying to insult or demean your findings, but trying to clarify that on those TWO specific points, both science and psychology have much in the way of disagreement and/or un-acceptance.


My point: there are other ways to argue for or against homosexuality being classified as abnormal, unnatural, biological, mental, etc. Trying to compare monkeys humping to assert dominance or lesbian female ducks is just incorrect. There are plenty of articles on the matter, we read some in college. Same with the hippocampus and neural studies.

[Kifle]

No offense, Adriorn, but you should read the article I posted again. The end actually covers your refutation -- briefly, but it does. And a lot of the examples address the dominance issues. Secondly, the human social system has gotten increasingly complex. Psychologists have argued, very well, that physical attraction, love, and a host of other emotions we deem as "complex" are simply biologically ingrained.

And I'm not sure how mating rituals would refute homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

The sum of your post ignores most of what was said in the article. A quick summary of the good parts: Certain primates craft dildos out of wood (as masturbation, evidence of sexual gratification as fun rather than pure mating ritual, dominance, or control) and the bird pairings which last a lifetime (both sexes) while mating only for reproductive reasons with the opposite sex. I find it extremely hard to entertain the notion that you can lump a pair male of geese who spend their entire lives with each other, having sex with each other, and only having sex with a female for offspring into a group of animals which only have homosexual encounters for ritual, dominance or control. For one, dominance is a pack behavior. A pack of two, where the sex is initiated by both, does not have this quality. Again, control would be the same issue. They don't have sex as a mating ritual because, well, they are well aware they can't impregnate each other as evidenced by their going to a female for such purpose.

As for the young helping with oral, well, what do you expect? Animals don't have the social stigmas we have associated with sex. For animals, sex is pleasure, dominance, and mating... none of which are frowned upon in their "societies". All this indicates is that it is further evidence of sex for pleasure with complete disreguard for human sensibilities. I don't think the baby animal will be emotionally damaged because it gave a bj a few times as a child. More than likely, it will be taught that pleasure is good, pain is bad, and you should strive for one and avoid the other. Seems pretty useful in the animal kingdom.

Now, as far as psychology goes, they still have work to do in the field, and as a degree holder who's been through all the history classes and the various psych courses, I'm willing to bet you're inclined to agree on that point. Second, it's a soft science -- meaning, validating a causal link is nearly, if not totally, impossible (more so than a hard science). Due to the complexity and scope of human behaviors and emotions, recreating a single event for verification is hard enough, then to prove the underling cause is even more difficult. That is not to say that I disagree with all of psychology or that I don't agree with the field at all; however, I do take what is said in the field with a grain of salt.

Furthermore, as much as we'd like to contextualize the behaviors of the animal kingdom to those of the human society, we can't. We can't say that a baby zebra giving a bj to a lion means that child porn or molestation is ok. We can't say that since male apes screw other male apes that it's ok for humans to do the same. That is just a bad argument. Human society is more complex, and for good reason from time to time. Because we do have a more complex emotional system, having a human child mimic the actions of an ape child in this sense would be disastrous for the human while it could be beneficial to the ape. We are in different environments; however, we can do one thing with this information: homosexuality is not a choice. All evidence of the animal kingdom suggest that homosexuality (in reference to sexual pleasure and life partners) is alive and well in the animal kingdom. Do some do it out of control, dominance, etc? Of course. Do all animals of all species do this? Of course not. To say otherwise would be to disregard what is right in front of you.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

I read the whole article Kifle, and my points don't ignore the article, they try to refute it. My point, which is what I said at the end, is almost exactly the same you used at the end of your post :)

Furthermore, as much as we'd like to contextualize the behaviors of the animal kingdom to those of the human society, we can't. We can't say that a baby zebra giving a bj to a lion means that child porn or molestation is ok. We can't say that since male apes screw other male apes that it's ok for humans to do the same. That is just a bad argument. Human society is more complex, and for good reason from time to time.

Trying to compare the two, and use the animal kingdom as a way to say that homosexuality is "normal" or not a choice in humans is where I disagree. There are other ways to argue the non-choice or normality of homosexuality in humans. But trying to say that animals having same-sex sex is the same as humans, is bad science or at the least bad terminology. Saying that some animals and humans enjoy sexual gratification, however, is true. That statement is true. They brought that up as a 'hey look, but THIS'. That was there to try and give the appearance of validity to the rest of the article. But trying to use the term homosexual to describe animal same-sex is improper. Is the visual appearance of two guy ducks living together and two guys doing it similar? Sure, damn looks really similar. But...

There's much more attached to the term homosexual, because, like you said, human society IS more complex. I'll completely disagree with one thing you said, though: "however, we can do one thing with this information: homosexuality is not a choice." I don't (fully) see the connection you're making. 4-5% of those ducks, other animals never, others rarely, others often...too little. I'm not saying it TOTALLY isn't possible, but right now, not enough evidence has been shown, statistically significant, to say that statement. Also, we don't know what the full, life experiences of those ducks were that lead them to that partnering. It might be done out of a lack of females in the region, or failed mating, or non-dominant ducks...etc, etc. But when the article says that 5% of the ducks go gay, did they bother to actually study the factors around their choice versus the other 95% of ducks? A closer study might show there are reasons for that partnering. Trauma? Duckling experiences? Lack of imprinting? etc. I'm using those examples on purpose, of course.

Now, to sorta criticize the article: The title: 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality. There are over 1 million animal species on Earth. So that's 1%. Statistically poor, which goes back to that other thread we posted in about statistics.

Now, as far as psychology goes, they still have work to do in the field, and as a degree holder who's been through all the history classes and the various psych courses, I'm willing to bet you're inclined to agree on that point. Second, it's a soft science -- meaning, validating a causal link is nearly, if not totally, impossible (more so than a hard science). Due to the complexity and scope of human behaviors and emotions, recreating a single event for verification is hard enough, then to prove the underling cause is even more difficult. That is not to say that I disagree with all of psychology or that I don't agree with the field at all; however, I do take what is said in the field with a grain of salt.

Yup, Psychology still has work to do, and it heavily relies on Statistics to be classified as a true science. Without true statistical significance in findings, it is too prone to bias and manipulation (I stopped my Doctoral studies quickly, for a reason). I can, somewhat, say the same thing about bad science, or untrue science. It has the appearance of true science, but on true examination, one begins to see many aspects that it failed to take into consideration, errors, etc. But definitely, statistically, provabilitily (totally made that up), science is better. But, alot of the factors that science fails to take into consideration, psychology does. Psychology had homosexuality listed as a disorder up until the revised DSM came out in the 70s. Alot of peer pressure from gay shrinks and the gay community finally made them take it out of the disorders list. That's a whole 'nother discussion, however. I went on a tangent there.

[Kifle]

Again, I didn't intend to offend. Thought you may have skimmed a bit. I do it quite often :)

I agree that one being does not naturally imply continuity in the other, but it makes, for me, a strong case. The animal kingdom is the best place to gather data that allows insight into human behavior sans society. For instance, much of the science surrounding human attraction has been taken from the animal kingdom. So, to most researchers, especially in behavioral psychology, look towards the animal kingdom to see a distorted human foundation with respect to mechanics.

You're right, though, and I was overreaching in my assessment. It doesn't imply that homosexuality isn't choice, but it makes a strong argument that it isn't. Like you've pointed out, we cannot suppose a 1:1 correlation between animal and human behavior, but I think the diversity of species that engage in these behaviors, also note that they are some of the most intelligent in the world (therefore most like us evolution-wise with respect to behavior), give some type of credibility to the study.

Furthermore, because there is a lack in studied species (1% as you point out), does not imply that this behavior isn't in other species; it simply means that it isn't found, or we haven't looked for it -- or it has been disregarded due to taboo or personal perspective (homophobes would be less likely to catalog homosexual behavior. They would also be more likely to catalog it as dominance or ritualistic or controlling as that is what they'd rather see). The problem here being that of personal perspective and bias. This does not mean that it has happened or that it has always happened; simply, it means that the studies are open to a very probable flaw, and skepticism is necessary; also, it implies that the study is in primacy and deserves a closer look.

Also, to see this behavior in other animals, again close in intellectual evolution, is telling. I'm not sure it is necessarily bad science. It would be bad science if someone were to guarantee correlation based solely on those grounds (like I did for a moment), but a statement similar to "because it is found in other species in the animal kingdom, which we are a part of, and that this behavior is lacking of our complex thought patterns, which divert us from genetic bias, it would seem as though the animals which display such tendencies towards same-sex coupling are genetically marked for such behavior". And I think that is where the strength of the correlation argument begins and ends.

I also want to add, to avoid any confusion on my stance here, that homosexuality is not a choice; however, homosexual behavior can be. If I go out and give a bj tomorrow because, for some odd reason, I feel the need to put a cock in my mouth, I'm still straight. I still want to bang my wife. Because I have free will, I can choose to ignore my genetic markers; however, it is much harder to do so. So, homosexuals can indeed become straight in action, but the original desires and tendencies will be hard to destroy, and, in most cases, is only done through intense indoctrination, fear, trauma, or brainwashing.

[kiryan]

This started when I suggested that we could outlaw lesbian marriage because lesbian marriage takes women off the market which contributes to a public harm Sarvis cited as too many males with no woman. Sarvis rejected this saying just beacuse lesbians can't marry doesn't meant they're going to start screwing men. Fair point, but then I say homosexuality is a choice and he states its not a choice.

For the purpose of arguing this point, homosexuality is different than bisexuality. What your study cites kifle is bisexuality. What Sarvis needs to validate his point is proof that exclusive homosexuality is natural... not bisexuality. If lesbians are really bisexuals then they will just "screw a man" if lesbian marriage is illegal as a matter of choice.

but regardless of where this started... Where is the evidence that this is anything other than animals doing what feels good? or engaging in taught behavior (dominance rituals)? Children play with themselves before they have been taught anything about sex... is that sexual behavior or just doing what feels good? I would imagine animals fall more into this classification than a homosexual designation...

The increased brain stuff is the best evidence of a biological link, but again there is no evidence that its causual. It could just as easy be the result of homosexual behavior or some other factor. Its not yet evidence that homosexuality is a choice although I concede it may someday be that...

None of the material presented is evidence that homosexuality is biological.

--and then maybe we should talk about whether biological predisposition = lack of a choice. There is the "fat gene". does that give you an excuse to be obese? There's a clan of Irishmen who'se decesndents have racked up some AMAZING stats on violent crime over like 200+ years. They've been studying their genome for about 20 years and have found some interesting genetic mutations. Are these choices? I find underage girls sexually attractive... does that make me a pedophile?

When it comes down to it, humans are most fundamentally different from most animals because we can assert our mind over our biology. Can you argue that failure to assert your mind to "suppress" behavior such as homosexuality... is anything other than a choice?

[Sarvis]

Can you argue that failure to assert your mind to "suppress" behavior such as homosexuality... is anything other than a choice?

I'm stating that a homosexual pretending to be straight is still a homosexual.

[Sarvis]

Oh, and Kiryan you're missing the point of the article. You asked for evidence, not proof. That is evidence of a biological link with homosexuality. The chances of a portion of the brain being enlarged by homosexuality seem pretty damn slim to me... but that's not the point.

The point is that you have NO evidence that it's a choice. The article not only gives evidence of biological differences, but actively refutes everything that might indicate it is a psychological choice or pathology.

[kiryan]

Please provide a more detailed definition...

is a person who prefers homosexuality but is exclusively and actively practicing hetrosexuality for social benefit a homosexual?

Are bisexuals homosexuals?

I'll give you closet homosexuals who are married by have a predominately gay sex as homosexuals, but a person who has practicied or even prefers homosexuality but engages in exclusive hetrosexuality is not in my opinion a homosexual.

[Sarvis]

Please provide a more detailed definition...

is a person who prefers homosexuality but is exclusively and actively practicing hetrosexuality for social benefit a homosexual?

That's called being gay. You know those couples that sleep in separate beds and never have sex? Yeah, that's probably them.

Or wait, should we go with your reasoning: If a man dresses like a woman and pretends to be a woman, is he actually a woman?

Are bisexuals homosexuals?

No, they are bisexuals.

I'll give you closet homosexuals who are married by have a predominately gay sex as homosexuals, but a person who has practicied or even prefers homosexuality but engages in exclusive hetrosexuality is not in my opinion a homosexual.

Your opinion is wrong. Pretty much always, in fact.

[kiryan]

You know its insults like that that makes me think the Muslim's just might have the right idea.

[Sarvis]

You know its insults like that that makes me think the Muslim's just might have the right idea.

Awww... and you claim to be so different from them. :P

Waiting for it though, what is your proof that homosexuality is a choice. Acting is acting. Christopher Reeve can not, in fact, fly. I can eat my mom's cooking and say it was a great meal, but that doesn't mean I liked her cooking.

Who you are is different from how you act in public.

And yes, if you are attracted to underage girls you are a pedophile:

pe·do·phile   
[pee-duh-fahyl] Show IPA
–noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.

[kiryan]

are you attracted to 17 year old girls Sarvis? Are you a pedophile?

I'll get to it, don't have time to research right now.

[Kifle]

Kiryan, the article I linked showed species that engage in life long bonds with same sex partners, having sex and the rest. The times when these species engage in intercourse with the opposite sex is only for procreation. That does not make them bisexual. Bisexuality is when there is an attraction, and subsequent pleasure, from having sex with both sexes. This is not the case in these examples. The sex with opposite sex partners is simply biological reasons -- the desire to procreate. Outside of that, the sex is meaningless. You cannot lump all people or animals which have sex with the opposite sex as one thing or another without motive. If you remove context from any situation, your assumptions will most likely be wrong.

As an analogy, I do not say that a professional football player is a baseball player because he plays catch with his son. Simply, he is playing catch with his son, but he is a football player still. Furthermore, we do not say a woman is a man or a cross dresser because she wears her husband's boxers to bed; simply, again, she is a woman who wore what was convenient at the time.

Your example of the "fat gene" is a bad one, and here is why: The "fat gene" is associated with negativity; we do not want to be fat and it is unhealthy, so we alter ourselves in order to go against nature. Now, if there are homosexual markers, a gay gene, otherwise known as a Corth, you, by analogy, assume negativity and a need to alter it based on possible damage or societal perspective. All this analogy does is make you seem as though, even if homosexuality were genetic, that you would be against it regardless. Which, for the sake of this argument, gives your stance much less credibility because you are not entering into the discussion to educate yourself or others, you enter into the discussion to browbeat others into taking your position while never allowing the evidence to sway your decision or perspective. In this case, it would be best to simply walk away from the discussion as you have nothing of merit to add to it.

What you are doing is forcing the evidence to support what it does not -- much like statistics can be manipulated, or a soundbite can cause damage to a public person when taken out of context.

Now, you asked for evidence, and we've given it to you. There is good evidence to support this view; however, you have yet to provide any evidence that homosexuality is a choice.

As to your last statement about choice, you're entering into a discussion that is untenable on either side. You've created a paradox which is unwelcome in a discussion about practicality. It is like the argument I champion in religious discussions -- altruism is veiled egoism. No mater what you do, you are always choosing what pleases you. It is a paradox which removes any ability to act selflessly. Now, does it make sense? Of course it does, but in the realm of practicality, it is useless. Nevertheless, to say that allowing ourselves to act in accordance with our genetic predispositions is a "choice" sidesteps the actual discussion in terms of practicality. We would be inclined to agree with you due to the logical consequences of your statement, but it doesn't change anything other than accepting the reality of choice per se. There is still the issue of whether or not you should choose to be straight if you are predisposed to being homosexual. Since there are no negative's to the person or society if a percentage of humans are predisposed to homosexuality, the choice shouldn't have to be made. Regardless of all that, the argument further sidesteps the issue by creating a straw man -- that you presuppose genetics while still arguing they have a choice not to, rather than choosing to be gay in the first place.

Most importantly, with respect to your last statement, you are using the fallacy of false analogy: Simply put, you are analogizing the word choice when you are using the word choice in two different respects. You link gay to choice (as in choice to be gay) and then choice (to not be gay) back to gay and then drawing your conclusion. You can see how the analogy both creates the aforementioned straw man and is only created by false analogy. That is a double fallacy whammy in one statement :)

[Kifle]

are you attracted to 17 year old girls Sarvis? Are you a pedophile?

I'll get to it, don't have time to research right now.

The criminal justice system in some states would say yes, some would say no. It is a question of law rather than philosophy.

[Sarvis]

are you attracted to 17 year old girls Sarvis? Are you a pedophile?

I'll get to it, don't have time to research right now.

There is a clinical definition to pedophilia, which is:

The DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for pedophilia are as follows. First, for 6 months or more the person has had strong, recurring sexually stimulating urges, fantasies, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a child or children below the age of puberty (usually 13 years of age or younger.) - http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... &q&f=false


There's a bit more, but can't cut and paste for some reason. I guess to actually be a pedophile it has to interfere with your life in some way.

Then again, pedophilia actually is a pathology whereas homosexuality is not.

[kiryan]

lol

pedophilia is a pathology and homosexuality is not.

Why is that? Why is pedophilia a pathology? just because its defined that way?

[Sarvis]

lol

pedophilia is a pathology and homosexuality is not.

Why is that? Why is pedophilia a pathology? just because its defined that way?

Well, because the article I posted earlier talked about experiments that had disproved it as a pathology.

As for pedophilia... I'm guessing.

[Teflor Lyorian]

This conversation has gone over to the ridiculous.


I'll put it bluntly, the general consensus opinion of the medical and scientific communities is that sexuality isn't necessarily a choice, however, no single biological cause has been identified as determining sexual orientation.

Some evidence has suggested that gay sexual orientations may be passed through maternal genetics, but it's weak. Evidence also exists for environmental factors, for instance, some evidence has suggested that gays are more likely to have more older brothers.

Frankly with the current body of science, it's very hard to say whether homosexuality is a choice or not - but I am certain of one thing. I don't feel that MY sexual orientation (what I am sexually attracted to) is a choice. Even if it is a choice, it's certainly my right to make it.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

Well, because the article I posted earlier talked about experiments that had disproved it as a pathology.

As a negative pathology, mostly, yes. There are still some that position it as one psychological aspect mixed in with possible biological ones. It's like saying that ADHD is 100% biological. Yeah, no. There are still many who argue it might be closer to 10% biological. The amount of true, TRUE, scientific evidence proving it as such is slim. ADD, however, has been more scientifically shown to be biological in origin. Here are some counter-examples, including two prominent researchers of homo/sexuality.

Dr. Dean Hamer, the "gay gene" researcher, and himself a gay man:

"Genes are hardware...the data of life's experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what's installed at the factory and what's added by the user."

When asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

--"New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey state that "a biopsychosocial model" best fits our knowledge of causation, with various combinations of temperament and environmental events leading to homosexuality. They say:

"Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality."

--R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993.

Among Jeffrey Satinover's conclusions in "The Gay Gene":

"(1) There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but 'component' is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. 'Linkage' and 'association' do not mean 'causation.'

(2) There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public."

--Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.

Brain researcher Dr. Simon LeVay:

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.

"In 1988, PFLAG member Tinkle Hake surveyed a number of well-known figures in the field about their views on homosexuality. She asked: 'Many observers believe that a person's sexual orientation is determined by one of more of the following factors: genetic, hormonal, psychological, or social. Based on today's state-of-the-art-science, what is your opinion?'

"The answers included the following: 'all of the above in concert' (Alan Bell), 'all of these variables' (Richard Green), 'multiple factors' (Gilbert Herdt), 'a combination of all the factors named' (Evelyn Hooker), 'all of these factors' (Judd Marmor), 'a combination of causes' (Richard Pillard), 'possibly genetic and hormonal, but juvenile sexual rehearsal play is particularly important' (John Money), and 'genetic and hormonal factors, and perhaps also some early childhood experiences' (James Weinrich)." (Page 273)

--Simon LeVay (1996), in Queer Science, published by MIT Press.

The American Psychological Association:

"Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation...However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."

--From the A.P.A.'s booklet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"

[Sarvis]

What's clear from all of that, Adriorn, is that no one is waking up one morning and deciding they want to be gay. It's not a choice. It's the result of a lot of other factors.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

What's clear from all of that, Adriorn, is that no one is waking up one morning and deciding they want to be gay. It's not a choice. It's the result of a lot of other factors.

POSSIBLY! The key word here is possibly. What might be clear from that is that all the social and psychological factors endured since birth might have caused a deviation in the brain, in the psyche of the person, and one day they realized 'hey, I'm gay'. If by 'it's not a choice' you mean like myopia isn't a choice, then I get your definition.

Until you have a true longitudinal study covering a statistically significant population size, including brain scans, daily social observations, etc, you can't say 'It's the result of...' The longitudinal study might show homosexuality to be a 100% biological difference, and it being only that. It might show it being 90% psychological or social in nature. But right now, we can't say 'it's this...' Tack on the large amount of political activist "studies", religiously-based "studies", and you have a large mix of non-scientific trash.

[Kifle]

This conversation has gone over to the ridiculous.


I'll put it bluntly, the general consensus opinion of the medical and scientific communities is that sexuality isn't necessarily a choice, however, no single biological cause has been identified as determining sexual orientation.

Some evidence has suggested that gay sexual orientations may be passed through maternal genetics, but it's weak. Evidence also exists for environmental factors, for instance, some evidence has suggested that gays are more likely to have more older brothers.

Frankly with the current body of science, it's very hard to say whether homosexuality is a choice or not - but I am certain of one thing. I don't feel that MY sexual orientation (what I am sexually attracted to) is a choice. Even if it is a choice, it's certainly my right to make it.

I think your last paragraph ends the discussion.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Yeah, I really shouldn't discuss my sexual attractions on the forums. Instant conversation killer.

[kiryan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/0 ... ence_Is_Up

In 2002, 12.4 percent of females said they'd engaged in some form of same sex behavior; in 2006 to 2008, that figure was up to 13.4 percent.

For men in the same group, however, the percentage fell. In 2002, 5 percent reported some same sex activity; between 2006 and 2008, only 4 percent did.

Women were twice as likely to report a same-sex experience than men (about 12.5 percent versus 5.2).

Where I'd like to go with this is back to Sarvis' point that men without mates are by his evidence harmful to the public. As more women choose same sex relationships (note the statistics are more relatable to bisexuality than homosexuality) do we have a public / societal harm we need to deal with?

If homosexuality in women goes up to 20%, can we regulate their behavior to prevent a harm to society?

[Teflor Lyorian]

Historically, our government isn't given a lot of mandate to regulate in the bedroom.

[Ragorn]

If homosexuality in women goes up to 20%, can we regulate their behavior to prevent a harm to society?

More importantly, why would we want to?? KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING??

[kiryan]

I sure do Ragorn~ unfortunately even if polygamy becomes legal... I can't convince Laurel to even go for a 3 some =(

[Teflor Lyorian]

Make it hotter?

[Sarvis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/sexual-behavior_n_830822.html#s248407&title=Abstinence_Is_Up

In 2002, 12.4 percent of females said they'd engaged in some form of same sex behavior; in 2006 to 2008, that figure was up to 13.4 percent.

For men in the same group, however, the percentage fell. In 2002, 5 percent reported some same sex activity; between 2006 and 2008, only 4 percent did.

Women were twice as likely to report a same-sex experience than men (about 12.5 percent versus 5.2).

Where I'd like to go with this is back to Sarvis' point that men without mates are by his evidence harmful to the public. As more women choose same sex relationships (note the statistics are more relatable to bisexuality than homosexuality) do we have a public / societal harm we need to deal with?

If homosexuality in women goes up to 20%, can we regulate their behavior to prevent a harm to society?

1) That's sexual experiences, NOT relationships. Kissing a girl in a nightclub doesn't mean she's not blowing a guy once she gets home
2) Still, the best you're going to do with this line of "reasoning" is that both polygamy and gay marriage should be legal

[Kifle]

I sure do Ragorn~ unfortunately even if polygamy becomes legal... I can't convince Laurel to even go for a 3 some =(

That has to suck :)