Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Cells, Microbes & Viruses => Topic started by: thedoc on 09/12/2015 11:50:02
-
Glenn Smit asked the Naked Scientists:
At a church group meeting the question came up: Is a person born homosexual (gay) or do you become gay? There were different opinions, I would appreciate it if you could clarify.
What do you think?
-
The correlation between fraternal-birth-order and sexual-orientation shows male-homosexuality can have a biological origin ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation
-
I don't think there such thing as a gay gene: humans can change sex orientation at their own will. Furthermore no scientific evidences has been made to prove the existence of a gay gene. Homosexuality is not genetically acquired but rather a sexual orientation developed over time.
-
... humans can change sex orientation at their own will.
If that were true why do gay people persist with their sexual-orientation despite all the pressure* they are under to go straight ? . Given the persecution & punishment which comes with being gay, no-one would choose homosexuality.
[ * e.g. being ostracised / beaten / jailed / executed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/24/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death/) ]
-
... humans can change sex orientation at their own will.
If that were true why do gay people persist with their sexual-orientation despite all the pressure* they are under to go straight ? . Given the persecution & punishment which comes with being gay, no-one would choose homosexuality.
This seem like another fight between free will and determinism; However homosexuality should not be regarded as a crime since its taking roots in the cultural heritage of mankind, not genetics.
-
In my opinion, one will become homosexual, since newborns, babies and children do not have sex. Sex is a choice one makes in the teen years when the tools develop. Someone who likes internet porn does not have this propensity from birth, since genetics are ancient and conservative, while computers and internet are too new for this to be engraved on the DNA. Sex is one of the most pleasurable things to do and has an instinctive imperative, so the ends can often justify the means.
It is not unusual for a male child to be more feminine or a female child to be more masculine; Tomboy. This can happen when children of the opposite sex better relate to the parents or siblings, and friends of the opposite sex. It is not also unusual for a child to pretend they are a solider, a dancer, a fireman, race car driver, etc. But as they get older, some children continue to dream, while others change with the demands of life.
If you have a nurturing environment which helps you keep a childhood dream alive, one may continue to pursue that dream into adulthood. If you have unconditional love to support a dream; mother, then unpractical dreams will linger too long. The high rate of suicide and addiction in gay men seems to suggest many are at odds with themselves. Culture has the highest acceptance of all time so this should have reversed, yet it persists. This can happen if a dream is assumed to reflect reality but is contrary to the DNA. The unconscious mind will attempt to restore natural balance with this push undermining the fantasy. There will be hole in their psyche.
For example, if a person thinks they are the best dancer and they pursue this into adulthood, due to a loving coach, but can never quite dance properly but keeps trying to satisfy the fantasy, they will become more and more depressed and subject to supplemental behavior, to make up for the gap that is forming.
If you look at homosexuality in terms of evolution, this form of sexual behavior cannot procreate. If we assume Darwin and modern evolution is correct, there is no way to pass forward homosexual genes connected to sex. This is not to say that the homosexual personality, beyond sex, cannot have a positive impact on others. That is passed forward, through the mind and not through genetics. A person with dreams can have a positive impact on others, due to their enthusiasm, but when the dream is at odds with the DNA, there is a backlash; overcompensation.
-
... humans can change sex orientation at their own will
The alleged success-rate in converting people from gay to straight is very poor ...
... 3% reported changing their orientation to heterosexual ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy#Changing_Sexual_Orientation:_A_Consumer.27s_Report
That self-reported 3% figure isn't necessarily the truth , it could be lower.
-
Complex behavioral traits in humans rarely have a simple genetic answer. Most behaviors are an interaction of multiple genes (each with a small contribution) and the environment.
There are many theories about heritability of homosexual behavior, and some actually claim to have evidence to back them up.
One theory is that the mothers and sisters of a homosexual man have more children, which compensates for one man who has fewer children.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
I vaguely recall one reported case that did seem to be traceable to a single gene. Some mosquitoes in the lab were found to have a gene mutation that caused a change in protein folding at a certain temperature. Since mosquitoes take on the external temperature, raising the temperature above a threshold caused mosquitoes carrying this gene to switch their attention to a different pheromone, and back when the temperature was reduced. Effectively, they became temperature-dependent homosexuals. (Unfortunately, I can't find a reference to the report, which makes me suspect my recollection...)
-
I still can't find the discussion on mosquitoes, but here is a single-gene trigger in fruit-flies, also in pheromone processing:
http://www.livescience.com/2094-homosexuality-turned-fruit-flies.html
Unlike insects, humans can consciously override most behaviors (at least temporarily).
- Conscious decisions are influenced by role models, education, church groups, logic, fashion, fame and fortune, among many other environmental factors.
- These same environmental factors influence us unconsciously, as do genetic factors.
- Pheromones, if they are active in humans, probably operate below the conscious level
So I suspect that sexual orientation in humans will be less genetically clear-cut than in insects.
-
Sexuality is an instinctive imperative. An instinctive imperative is an unconscious impulse needed for the survival of the individual and/or the species. Eating food is also an instinctive imperative. An instinctive imperative is analogous to an energy curve, where this is an activation energy, and then a slide down the curve toward lower energy; satisfaction.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chem.wisc.edu%2Fdeptfiles%2Fgenchem%2Fsstutorial%2FText13%2FTx133%2Ftx133p2.GIF&hash=eac4ed58ad615cd8c8d43ba887a920bd)
If I was brought up in a particular culture, I will learn, from a child, to like and even prefer my own ethnic foods. My cultural training will set conditions to help me satisfy the needs of the instinctive imperative of eating. The culture provides the training and the practice so I can generate the activation energy and slide own the energy curve toward satisfaction.
I may argue my strong desire for my ethnic food is genetic, because this food has been prepared for a thousand years and all my ancestors ate this food. They bred in this food eating behavior, resulting in my liking this food. Others will argue that any baby from one culture could have brought up into another culture and conditioned to like this food, even without that food gene.
As a closer analogy, the vegetarian will not eat meat. Meat will not generate the active energy therefore it cannot satisfy the imperative. Is this due to a veggie gene? Or is this due to wealthy cultures having an unnatural access to foods from around the world, where even summer food can be obtained in winter. This allows one to make such choices.
If you lived in a cold rugged climate and would only eat veggies, you would starve in the winter, since little veggie food is available. If you can buy fresh tomatoes from another hemisphere, at the market, you can sustain all winter long and never cause the imperative to take matters into its own hands. On the other hand, if you were stuck in the snow, starving for veggies which are not there, the need to eat will cause meat to look good. In the graph above, an instinctive imperative can catalyze its own activation energy, so the ends will justify the means, even if this is in conflict with the choice of the ego.
If you look at modern male prisons, the unavailability of females results in many of the men engaging in homosexual behavior. This is the vegetarian in the winter, away from the grocery store, with the instinctive imperative active. The instinct can override the normal bias of the ego and provide its own activation energy. The ends will justify the means, since the ends is survival.
When it comes to the DNA and its extrapolation into the body, the combined affect is like a team, with a good team more than the sum of its parts. A sports team can be composed of a group of average players, but as a team they can gel to become champions. Once you are a champion, which is more than the sum of the parts, this to the average members of the team, will making them all stronger beaming with pride.
In terms of the body, the DNA is the coach and the cells are the team. With humans this can add to more than the sum of its parts. The champion affect stemming from the team is the inner self, which is the center of the unconscious mind. As the champion this can feedback to the team and the DNA. In terms of instinctive imperatives, the activation energy is the energy difference between the champion and the team, with the champion given freedom to choose many paths. But if there is a blockage, so the team starts to decline, then the coach or DNA will act as a capacitance; genetic, change the team to restore the champion.
-
Sex is a choice one makes in the teen years when the tools develop.
Not true, a persons sex is biological not a choice they can make.
-
Not true, a persons sex is biological not a choice they can make.
I disagree. Homosexuality is not genetic. It is a choice made by free will and sexual orientation.
-
... Homosexuality is not genetic. It is a choice made by free will ...
Is paraphilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias) also "a choice made by free will" ? : why would anyone choose bizarre/dangerous/impractical/illegal sexual-activities ? . Answer: they don't have a choice about their orientation : it's biological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia#Causes), ( but not necessarily genetic ).
-
Is paraphilia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias) also "a choice made by free will" ? : why would anyone choose bizarre/dangerous/impractical/illegal sexual-activities ? . Answer: they don't have a choice about their orientation : it's biological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia#Causes), ( but not necessarily genetic ).
There's nothing biological in homosexuality; It is a sexual orientation driven by nature.
-
There's nothing biological in homosexuality; It is a sexual orientation driven by nature.
Are you saying nature isn't biological. If biology doesn't determine the nature of living things, then what does ?
bi·o·log·i·cal
adj.
1. Of, relating to, caused by, or affecting life or living organisms
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/biological
-
Are you saying nature isn't biological. If biology doesn't determine the nature of living things, then what does ?
No. Homosexuality isn't natural therefore it is not biological. Evolution didn't create gay attraction, it is a choice to select sexual preferences.
-
... Homosexuality isn't natural ...
Homosexuality is not the norm, but it occurs in nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals), therefore it is natural.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Maybe you should stick to your specialist subject (https://www.google.com/search?q=tkadm30+cannabis+site:thenakedscientists.com/forum), or even better take your business (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tkadm30+cannabis+-thenakedscientists) elsewhere.
-
Homosexuality is not the norm, but it occurs in nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals), therefore it is natural.
Homosexual animals cannot reproduce, therefore evolution could not have created homosexuality.
Maybe you should stick to your specialist subject, or even better take your business elsewhere.
LOL. I guess your anti-cannabis campaign is profoundly uneducated but who cares. Thanks for your comments. [;)]
-
Can't imagine that it doesn't have a genetic element. Certainly plenty of potential social advantages for bi-sexuality. Both single sex bonding and non-violent dominance/submission. Given a genetic advantage for that then surely some are going to find their own sex more fun.
Very much doubt that there is a gay gene but a complex of genes that result in an adventurous atitued towards life choice sounds likely. Being gay is a life choice and no more reprehensible than being owned by cats or living for football. Hmm so are the same genes in Man U supporters? Best maybe not to ask them....
-
Another way to look at homosexuality is to do a gene count. If one is born as a biological male, for example, there are a large number of genes connected to their primary and secondary sexuality characteristics of a biological male. If we assume homosexuality is also genetic how many genes does this choice take? What is the selective advantage of using a couple of genes, to override ten times as many genes?
An analogy is like the body of the cow is all set up, by a large number of genes to eat grain and grass. The cow decides it only want to eat fish and eggs. How does this choice benefit natural selection so it can persist? There is no natural selective advantage to override a long term natural design, in favor for something that is not biologically coordinated.
Many people question the current theory of evolution due to its exemption clauses when it comes to social issues.
Homosexuality comes from the operating system of the brain, and not from the genetics. Consciousness is more than the sum of its genetic parts, allowing us free will and choice. Consciousness is like the team being more than the sum of the players. The inner self, which is the center of our unconscious mind is connected to our DNA. It maximizes what we have biologically. The ego is connected to free will and choice; conscious mind. Choices that appear innate, but which depart from the dominance of genes do not come from the inner self, but rather come from firmware somewhere in the middle. Off center will create a compulsiveness instead of the calmness of the natural animal.
Drug and alcohol addiction falls under the same category. One can become addicted to where the behavior appears almost instinctive, even though the majority of the genes are not geared to support this. This is not from the inner self. Someone addicted to a new designer drug does not have special genes that evolved before the drug itself. This is connected to consciousness being more the sum of tis generic parts, allowing choice and free will to appear, that can move behavior, off center.
-
Free will and choice?
I believe in them because it make it so much easier to hate anybody whose genetics, upbringing and environment result in actions I don't particularly care for.
Seriously though, I ain't gay, or a drunk. That's because I'm not attracted to blokes and don't enjoy being drunk. It's my choice not to bang my head against a brick wall too. So if genetics doesn't have its part why am I different?
-
Is being gay genetic? We don't know, from a science perspective, at present, as far as I'm aware. If it was, would one gene be responsible for it? I'm inclined to think that something that appears to be a substantial aspect of someone's core drive and where we don't just have either gay or straight people - there appears to be a huge continuum between gay and straight, with various forms of bisexuality etc - wouldn't just be as a result of one single gene. Many human traits, including eye colour, for example, appear to be the result of several genes, producing a heritable characteristic.
Say it had a genetic basis - it might not be exclusively of genetic cause. There may be environmental influencers that could be connected to its manifestation, when specific genetic profiles exist. Those environmental influences may be something like the birth order, mothers' hormonal levels in the womb or experiences that people have as they develop, before or after birth. Maybe all humans have the same abilities to have all sexual orientations, though only those experiencing certain conditions get the rarer ones. Humans are different from most animals in that they have a consciousness that allows them some self-awareness and understanding. Many animals act more impulsively, without prior recognition or consideration of the potential effects of their actions. We do know that homosexuality occurs naturally, as other animal species demonstrate it. If it was a behaviour that some species typically didn't socially tolerate, for example by punishing or hurting individuals who engaged in it, then many animals would learn to be inhibited from pursuing such behaviour - a bit of a Pavlovian response. Human cultures have varied in their acceptance of gay behaviour, with many now accepting same sex marriages, for example. In the past, lack of tolerance was likely to have inhibited people from having the relationships that they would have liked.
So we probably don't know its cause(s). We're perhaps just mere beginners in our understanding of our brains too, as well as personality. There are some fundamental aspects of personality, such as openness to experience which appear to have genetic elements underpinning them. I use openness to experience as an example, as possibly someone who is more open to experience could be considered as the sort of person who might stray from a more traditional course of behavioural pursuit of desire. Overall it appears that our genetic origins for personality traits has some evidence behind it - but what may be valid for core personality traits (such as the Big 5 personality traits), may not be relevant for sexual orientation.
In the end, does understanding the causes for things that aren't pathological, matter as much as ensuring that we all live healthy and satisfying lives? My general regard is that the latter is more important. People will always be different to each other, that's part of the beauty of us all - we're unique.
-
The correlation between fraternal-birth-order and sexual-orientation shows male-homosexuality can have a biological origin ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation
I couldn't disagree more. The study in which that conclusion was drawn from comes with an admission from the authors that the results were likely affected by selection bias. It doesn't belong in a peer-reviewed journal.
Nonetheless, the notion that homosexuality is genetically-originated is laughable at best, and will never be scientifically-validated.... ever.
-
Is being gay genetic? We don't know, from a science perspective, at present, as far as I'm aware.
Will never happen. Homosexuality is a preference.
Just like animals, humans must procreate to exist.
Homosexuals can't procreate.
There's no way science will ever identify a genetic link. It simply does not exist.
-
In my opinion, one will become homosexual, since newborns, babies and children do not have sex. Sex is a choice one makes in the teen years when the tools develop. Someone who likes internet porn does not have this propensity from birth, since genetics are ancient and conservative, while computers and internet are too new for this to be engraved on the DNA. Sex is one of the most pleasurable things to do and has an instinctive imperative, so the ends can often justify the means.
It is not unusual for a male child to be more feminine or a female child to be more masculine; Tomboy. This can happen when children of the opposite sex better relate to the parents or siblings, and friends of the opposite sex. It is not also unusual for a child to pretend they are a solider, a dancer, a fireman, race car driver, etc. But as they get older, some children continue to dream, while others change with the demands of life.
If you have a nurturing environment which helps you keep a childhood dream alive, one may continue to pursue that dream into adulthood. If you have unconditional love to support a dream; mother, then unpractical dreams will linger too long. The high rate of suicide and addiction in gay men seems to suggest many are at odds with themselves. Culture has the highest acceptance of all time so this should have reversed, yet it persists. This can happen if a dream is assumed to reflect reality but is contrary to the DNA. The unconscious mind will attempt to restore natural balance with this push undermining the fantasy. There will be hole in their psyche.
For example, if a person thinks they are the best dancer and they pursue this into adulthood, due to a loving coach, but can never quite dance properly but keeps trying to satisfy the fantasy, they will become more and more depressed and subject to supplemental behavior, to make up for the gap that is forming.
If you look at homosexuality in terms of evolution, this form of sexual behavior cannot procreate. If we assume Darwin and modern evolution is correct, there is no way to pass forward homosexual genes connected to sex. This is not to say that the homosexual personality, beyond sex, cannot have a positive impact on others. That is passed forward, through the mind and not through genetics. A person with dreams can have a positive impact on others, due to their enthusiasm, but when the dream is at odds with the DNA, there is a backlash; overcompensation.
You nailed it in the first sentence.
That alone is inarguable.
-
they don't have a choice about their orientation
They make the choice during sexual development. Sexual preference isn't predetermined.
-
they don't have a choice about their orientation : it's biological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia#Causes)
Tell that to my gay neighbor who was once married to a man and had 3 kids.
Examples similar in context are utterly endless.
~
-
Most behaviors are an interaction of multiple genes (each with a small contribution) and the environment.
There are many theories about heritability of homosexual behavior, and some actually claim to have evidence to back them up.
There is no validated scientific evidence for the "heritability of homosexual behavior", and there never will be. Sexual preferences have nothing to do with genetics.
-
I vaguely recall one reported case that did seem to be traceable to a single gene. Since mosquitoes take on the external temperature, raising the temperature above a threshold caused mosquitoes carrying this gene to switch their attention to a different pheromone, and back when the temperature was reduced. Effectively, they became temperature-dependent homosexuals. (Unfortunately, I can't find a reference to the report, which makes me suspect my recollection...)
It wouldn't matter if you found the link or not. A genetic mutation initiated by altering insect thermoregulation in a laboratory wouldn't validate anything relating to the notion that sexual preference is genetically-linked.
-
here is a single-gene trigger in fruit-flies, also in pheromone processing:
http://www.livescience.com/2094-homosexuality-turned-fruit-flies.html
Humans don't have a CG6070 gene which governs male courtship behavior, so how exactly does this relate to the topic in question?
-
For a wonman that conceives boys the more that are born the more likely that they will be homosexual. I am not sure about girls as I have not seen any data. In the case of boys this is similar in nature to the mother developing an alergic syndrome that affects feotal development. Other factors include the mixture of hormones and what proportions they are at certain periods of development. I came across the information a few years ago now so I don't have references to hand.
-
In the case of boys this is similar in nature to the mother developing an alergic syndrome that affects feotal development. Other factors include the mixture of hormones and what proportions they are at certain periods of development. I came across the information a few years ago now so I don't have references to hand.
You're stating these things as fact.... yet you provide no references?
lol
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation)
-
And
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology)
I can find more if you require.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation)
The study in which that conclusion was drawn from comes with an admission from the authors that the results were likely affected by selection bias. It doesn't belong in a peer-reviewed journal.
-
And
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology)
None of the research by Savic and Lindström was based on the fetal and/or neonatal brain. Neuroimaging data of an adult brain does nothing to support your position.
-
I can find more if you require.
Oh please do.
-
The correlation between fraternal-birth-order and sexual-orientation shows male-homosexuality can have a biological origin ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation
Another way to explain this is, most young parents, when planning their family, would like to have a boy and a girl. One of each sex gives parents the full parent experience. If parents, also plan to have a limited family, due to economics, but have only boys, they may fixate on the next and maybe last child being a girl. They will want a girl. This fixation can extend to after birth, with the child consciously or unconsciously, taught to play the role of girl.
In the older days, when parents would have large families of 6-8 or more children, there was always next time. But if economics means you can only see yourself affording 2 children, the clock can runs out faster for the dream of biological symmetry in your children, so choice will take over to make this symmetry.
Children are impressionable, with conditioning from before age of 4, able to alter their entire life. One can look at child development as a function of a wide range of human adult problems to see how easy programming can alter small children.
-
None of the links I posted suggested a genetic link but that during development of the feotus there are factors which determine variables such as finger length and brain structure. You appear to be fixated on the answer you believe to be true without following ALL the references supplied. Cherry picking is not scientific. Supply references that back up your position. "rotfl" back atcha.
-
None of the links I posted suggested a genetic link but that during development of the feotus there are factors which determine variables such as finger length and brain structure. You appear to be fixated on the answer you believe to be true without following ALL the references supplied. Cherry picking is not scientific.
Are you serious? I already read/commented on both of the links you provided.
Once again, none of the research is based on embryonic or postnatal development. Neuroimaging data of an adult brain does nothing to support your position.
None of those "factors" influence sexual preference in fetal or neonatal development.... because there is no sexual preference during fetal or neonatal development!
~
-
OK So you are one of those people who think gay people can be "cured". Please correct me if I am wrong. Usually this mean ultra orthodox religious views.
-
OK So you are one of those people who think gay people can be "cured". Please correct me if I am wrong. Usually this mean ultra orthodox religious views.
lol... How do you "cure" a preference?
So enough with the diversions. Back to the scientific evidence... or in this instance - complete lack thereof:
You mentioned something about links. Keep them coming if you'd like, but I'm quite familiar with peer-reviewed research.... and there is zero evidence indicating that courtship behavior or sexual orientation is predetermined. Likewise, there never will be.
The hypothalamus is where sexual drive and parturition originates - but those are formed throughout development. There's a good reason why we don't think about sex or sexual orientation when we're infants. Anyone with a basic understanding of fetal or neonatal development knows the complexity of intrauterine and/or extrauterine homeostasis, and the HPA-axis at this period is consumed with the biological maturation of vital organ systems such as the central nervous system, lungs and liver. The notion that sexual preference is "hard-wired" is utter foolishness.
-
Not sure it's a fully understood situation yet, but what's for certain is that it isn't a 'choice', nor is it something that can be 'cured', nor that it's due to how they were raised etc, as some of the ignorant out there believe. What's for certain, is that it's a part of their core, who they are, and that something somewhere along the way, whether through fetal development, brain development, or genetics etc, something gets glitched and instead of having their standard orientation towards the opposite sex will instead be oriented towards their own. It's not a 'preference', it's a part of who they are. That much is fact and certain, even if it's not yet fully understood as to the 'why'.
The important part to know though is that they are people just as much as those with standard orientations, are far more often even more decent and moral, are some of the most wonderful human beings you'll ever come across, and deserve to be treated with just as much respect, dignity, kindness, grace, love and support as anyone else. That's the only thing that really kinda matters at the end of the day, and the thing that society really needs to do better with; though admittedly we've come a long way.
-
PS: Wow.. just read through all the replies... I'm astounded that so much ignorance can be found on an intelligent forum like this. Really saddens me in fact. Just totally disappointed to find some of what I read here... Obviously far more work needs to be done...
-
It's not a 'preference', it's a part of who they are. That much is fact and certain
You are wrong - unequivocally. You'd need an elementary understanding of physiology for your statement to hold any merit. "It's part of who they are" means nothing from a physiological or scientific aspect. Sexual orientation is in fact a preference which is not predetermined - but adopted during childhood development or as an adult. Pick up a textbook.
~
-
The important part to know though is that they are people just as much as those with standard orientations
No... it's not "the important part to know"
This is a science forum. Did you happen to catch the thread tittle????
Is homosexuality genetic?
Save your moral speeches for some other forum please. Your comments are utterly void of scientific context, and have no bearing on the topic in question.
~
-
It's not a 'preference', it's a part of who they are. That much is fact and certain
You are wrong - unequivocally. You'd need an elementary understanding of physiology for your statement to hold any merit. "It's part of who they are" means nothing from a physiological or scientific aspect. Sexual orientation is in fact a preference which is not predetermined - but adopted during childhood development or as an adult. Pick up a textbook.
~
What a load of malarkey. No, you don't choose somewhere along the way based on your upbringing as to which gender you're gonna find yourself attracted to and identifying with. It's just beyond absurd. They, just like us, feel it as part of their core identity, and it most definitely is an orientation and not a 'preference'. It is their core identity. They do not 'choose' that identity. It is simply part of them. That much is certain and isn't even up for debate.
-
The important part to know though is that they are people just as much as those with standard orientations
No... it's not "the important part to know"
This is a science forum. Did you happen to catch the thread tittle????
Is homosexuality genetic?
Save your moral speeches for some other forum please. Your comments are utterly void of scientific context, and have no bearing on the topic in question.
~
It's absolutely the most important part to know, science forum or otherwise. And I'll present my moral speeches anywhere I damn well please, and will not seek your permission to do so. And if you cared about science so much, you'd actually rely on it.
1-2% of those who have gone through conversion therapy succeeded. Pretty sure if it was a 'preference' that number would be, ya know, higher and stuff...
Anyway, not even gonna debate this issue with you. I find your position to be disgusting, shameful and hurtful to the community, along with some others replies here. But like I said, it isn't even up for debate. It is part of who they are at their core, biologically. It is not a choice. It is not a preference. It is not something learned. Period. Fact. Shame on those who want to claim otherwise. Just friggin disgusting. Goodbye.
-
It is their core identity. They do not 'choose' that identity.
Tell that to my gay neighbor who was married to a man for 23-years, had 3 kids.... then turned gay. The examples go on and on.
That much is certain and isn't even up for debate.
...... said IAMREALITY...... lol
-
It's absolutely the most important part to know, science forum or otherwise. And I'll present my moral speeches anywhere I damn well please, and will not seek your permission to do so. And if you cared about science so much, you'd actually rely on it.
1-2% of those who have gone through conversion therapy succeeded. Pretty sure if it was a 'preference' that number would be, ya know, higher and stuff...
Anyway, not even gonna debate this issue with you. I find your position to be disgusting, shameful and hurtful to the community, along with some others replies here. But like I said, it isn't even up for debate. It is part of who they are at their core, biologically. It is not a choice. It is not a preference. It is not something learned. Period. Fact. Shame on those who want to claim otherwise. Just friggin disgusting.
Your posts are laden with drivel and zero science. Wrong forum.
~
-
I find your position to be disgusting, shameful and hurtful to the community, along with some others replies here.
Oh please.
Again..... wrong forum.
This thread isn't about the morality of being gay, or how to treat gay people as individuals.... it's about the [fact] that sexual orientation has nothing to do with genetics, nor is it predetermined at birth. Anybody with a basic understanding of embryonic or neonatal brain development knows that sexual preference is adopted during childhood development or as an adult. Get a clue.
~
-
It is their core identity. They do not 'choose' that identity.
Tell that to my gay neighbor who was married to a man for 23-years, had 3 kids.... then turned gay. The examples go on and on.
That much is certain and isn't even up for debate.
...... said IAMREALITY...... lol
I find your arrogance to be filled with irony... that you actually think the intelligent audience of this forum overall will be reading my position in this thread and finding it worthy of mockery, yet reading your positions, such as gay people just 'poof!' turning gay, and looking at them with admiration. You couldn't be more misguided. I'll let your words, absurdities, and positions speak for themselves towards the intellectual audience. I don't need to say a thing about them. You'll see no further replies from me. I don't need to wage argument in defense of something the intellectual community already knows to be obvious.
-
Just so that I won't be accused of bias, here is another viewpoint.
https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/ (https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/)
-
And just to be thorough.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/)
-
Just so that I won't be accused of bias, here is another viewpoint.
https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/ (https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/)
And just to be thorough.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/)
Thanks for the links however, none of the research is based on embryonic or postnatal development. Neuroimaging data of an adult brain does nothing to support the false notion that sexual orientation is "hard-wired" or predetermined.
~
-
Just so that I won't be accused of bias, here is another viewpoint.
https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/ (https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/)
And just to be thorough.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/)
Thanks for the links however, none of the research is based on embryonic or postnatal development. Neuroimaging data of an adult brain does nothing to support the false notion that sexual orientation is "hard-wired" or predetermined.
~
I never said it was based on research of any kind. Simply that the views differed from those I had previously posted.
-
And just to be thorough.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/)
The other link I couldn't get over how ignorant the author was. Her logic was so tragically flawed.
This link was good though. There was also this part:
So your brain was influencing your sexual preference even before you were born.
This can explain why many gay people feel that they have always been gay.
And also so many studies referenced showing the evidence that it is biological in nature overall. Just kinda surprised in the 21st century there are still those that believe it to be a choice. But, well, then again, we have those ignoramus climate change deniers too, and people that still think the earth is only 5000 years old, so I guess maybe I shouldn't be so surprised.
-
I never said it was based on research of any kind. Simply that the views differed from those I had previously posted.
I appreciate the different viewpoints however, none of those views lend any scientific credence whatsoever to the notion that sexual orientation is predetermined.
-
There is never a simple cause in biological or social development. No evidence can be completely ruled out as a factor. However the weight to be placed on any one factor has to be determined in light of all available evidence. The answer is likely to be somewhere in between the extremes.
-
so many studies referenced showing the evidence that it is biological in nature overall.
Nope.... there was zero scientific evidence provided in those links to support your opinion - and if you think there were.... present them and I'll demonstrate how the assertion is utterly false.
-
so many studies referenced showing the evidence that it is biological in nature overall.
Nope.... there was zero scientific evidence provided in those links to support your opinion - and if you think there were.... present them and I'll demonstrate how the assertion is utterly false.
By demonstrate I hope you don't mean prove since proving a negative will be interesting to observe.
-
By demonstrate I hope you don't mean prove since proving a negative will be interesting to observe.
I meant precisely what I said.
-
so many studies referenced showing the evidence that it is biological in nature overall.
Nope.... there was zero scientific evidence provided in those links to support your opinion - and if you think there were.... present them and I'll demonstrate how the assertion is utterly false.
ZZZzzzzzz....
-
Hormones during development play a role in the development of later life health issues. While not the same as sexual orientation these do start in the womb.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2010-0517 (http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2010-0517)
It is easy to dismiss things that are not well understood.
-
Hormones during development play a role in the development of later life health issues. While not the same as sexual orientation these do start in the womb.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2010-0517 (http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2010-0517)
Yes, and fetal hypothalamic neurohormones are detectable in the HPA axis within 8 to 12-weeks of gestation - but nobody is arguing the presence of hormones, or that they have an influence on early physiological development.
As stated by Perinatol et al 2001, "the fetal HPA axis is precisely-structured for an intricate sequence of specifically fetal developmental events"
None of these events include sexual drive, courtship behavior or sexual preference. The fetal HPA axis is utterly consumed at this stage with differentiation and maturation of vital organ systems which are necessary for immediate neonatal survival following birth. This is just basic physiology.
~
-
It is easy to dismiss things that are not well understood.
No it's easy to dismiss opinions that are not backed by factual evidence.
So what is it that I don't understand?
-
Can the problem be reduced to?
Nature?
or
Nurture?
Take your pick!
-
.
So what is it that I don't understand?
Reality.
Logic.
Reasoning.
-
Will never happen. Homosexuality is a preference.
Just like animals, humans must procreate to exist.
Homosexuals can't procreate.
There's no way science will ever identify a genetic link. It simply does not exist.
I don't know the answer to the question, but yours is not a sound one. Trivially, homosexuals can and do procreate, many of them in conventional marriages. Individuals vary in many ways, and there's no good reason to believe that all individuals should have similar proclivities.
As for procreation, a look around the natural world will reveal many species in which a proportion, or even most, of the population is infertile and physically cannot reproduce, and others where only a proportion of the fertile individuals get to reproduce. It isn't difficult to find credible evolutionary and/or social models that would favour a proportion of sexual ambiguity and/or homosexuality in a population. Homosexual behaviour is widespread in the natural world, so it isn't surprising or unnatural that it should be found in humans too.
Whether it's mainly nature or nurture, or a complex interplay of both (I suspect the latter), we're not all peas in a pod, and I'm left wondering how someone could consciously make that choice without some existing predilection for it - I certainly couldn't - and why they would want to do so, given the social stigma - and worse - associated with it in so many cultures.
I think it's also worth remembering that there does seem to be a clear difference between gender identity and sexuality - not entirely surprising, as they involve distinct brain areas.
-
I don't know what the view of the scientific community is on this but for me my experience is that there is no way that there cannot be a biological basis for the difference. I say this after being chatted up on a Greek beach for 4 hours by a bloke without realising due to there being naked women close by. And all the rest of life.
That it may be a result of genetics or of a behaviour changing infection of some sort I have no idea.
-
Absolute homosexuality by complete disassociation sex born with would lead to the extinction of the human species.
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?
Alan
-
don't know the answer to the question, but yours is not a sound one.
Please clarify.
Trivially, homosexuals can and do procreate
Speaking of "not sound".... no.... homosexuals most certainly cannot procreate.
~
-
I'm left wondering how someone could consciously make that choice without some existing predilection for it
Who said anything about a conscious choice?
Sexual orientation is merely a preference. That doesn't mean an individual has to actually choose.
-
I don't know what the view of the scientific community is on this but for me my experience is that there is no way that there cannot be a biological basis for the difference.
Everything pertaining to the human body is "biological".
It's just not predetermined.... it's adopted during and/or following sexual development.
That's just basic science.
-
The answer is likely to be somewhere in between the extremes.
There are no extremes here. Sexual orientation is in no way genetic, nor is it predetermined.
It's just basic science which confirms that postnatal neural pathways inhibit sexual-development hormones until an individual reaches puberty - this results in a homeostatic-delay in libido, parturition & courtship behavior.... and sexual orientation.
-
fetal hypothalamic neurohormones are detectable in the HPA axis within 8 to 12-weeks of gestation - but nobody is arguing the presence of hormones, or that they have an influence on early physiological development.
As stated by Perinatol et al 2001, "the fetal HPA axis is precisely-structured for an intricate sequence of specifically fetal developmental events"
None of these events include sexual drive, courtship behavior or sexual preference. The fetal HPA axis is utterly consumed at this stage with differentiation and maturation of vital organ systems which are necessary for immediate neonatal survival following birth. This is just basic physiology.
Sexual orientation is in no way genetic, nor is it predetermined.
It's just basic science which confirms that postnatal neural pathways inhibit sexual-development hormones until an individual reaches puberty - this results in a homeostatic-delay in libido, parturition & courtship behavior.... and sexual orientation.
In case I forgot to mention.... these are all scientific facts, verifiable via peer-reviewed text.
~
-
Not sure it's a fully understood situation yet, but what's for certain is that it isn't a 'choice'
No. Sexual orientation is a subconscious preference that is adopted over time.
-
I think it's also worth remembering that there does seem to be a clear difference between gender identity and sexuality - not entirely surprising, as they involve distinct brain areas.
Do you mean different areas of the hypothalamus - or are you talking different hemispheres?
If it is as clear as you suggested, could you elaborate on what "the difference between gender identity and sexuality" is in your view, and how it relates to the topic?
-
I'm left wondering how someone could consciously make that choice without some existing predilection for it
Who said anything about a conscious choice?
Sexual orientation is merely a preference. That doesn't mean an individual has to actually choose.
So do I prefer choice A or do I prefer choice B? Whether concious or not a preference is a choice. To say it isn't is a contradiction in terms.
-
So what is it that I don't understand?
Reality.
Logic.
Reasoning.
Yet as usual - nearly everything I've posted is supported by peer-reviewed research.
Here's what your usual 'void-of-science' drivel is supported by:
~
-
I'm left wondering how someone could consciously make that choice without some existing predilection for it
Who said anything about a conscious choice?
Sexual orientation is merely a preference. That doesn't mean an individual has to actually choose.
So do I prefer choice A or do I prefer choice B? Whether concious or not a preference is a choice. To say it isn't is a contradiction in terms.
Now you're trying to tell me that a subconscious preference is no different from a conscious one?
Oh lawdy.
sub·con·scious:
1. Of or concerning the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one's actions and feelings.
con·scious:
Aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.
-
Sadly we no , longer have man or woman, him or her, now it in "It or "Thing" or "Non-Binary" which exist in the grey area between.
God or evolution are, losing their grip and keep making millions and millions of mistakes, by putting the consciousness or souls
into the wrong bodies?
Highly incompetent evolution or a messed up creator, take your pick?
-
I don't know what the view of the scientific community is on this but for me my experience is that there is no way that there cannot be a biological basis for the difference.
Everything pertaining to the human body is "biological".
It's just not predetermined.... it's adopted during and/or following sexual development.
That's just basic science.
So you think that you could have adopted it. That you, to some degree, chose or were conditioned to be hetro.
I don't think that it was that way with me. I think that a very loud and base part of my brain assess female reproductive potential every time I see a woman. It is a matter of me choosing to be a civilised man that I repress this most of the time.
-
I don't know what the view of the scientific community is on this but for me my experience is that there is no way that there cannot be a biological basis for the difference.
Everything pertaining to the human body is "biological".
It's just not predetermined.... it's adopted during and/or following sexual development.
That's just basic science.
So during or following sexual development I prefer to have legs so viola! I have legs. My biology is ultimately my choice. That is an imprecise use of language for one so eager to criticise others. Oh lordy lordy. lol rofl! Where exactly are the links to your peer reviewed exidence? Excuse the sarcasm it was predetermined.
-
So during or following sexual development I prefer to have legs so viola! I have legs. My biology is ultimately my choice.
Do you know the primary difference between physical & cognitive development? The majority of cognitive development is influenced by external factors.... so no, your sarcastic example is trash.
-
That is an imprecise use of language
Wrong.... you completely misconstrued my statement.
for one so eager to criticise others. Oh lordy lordy. lol rofl!
Are you serious? You're a moderator on an internet forum. Please.
Where exactly are the links to your peer reviewed exidence?
I'm not spoon-feeding you anything. I've done the research. I'm primarily the only one here who brought relevant science to the discussion. If you think what I'm saying is [not] scientifically factual..... there should be no problem proving me wrong in a forum full of "scientists".
~
-
All you have done since you joined is tell everyone how they are wrong and you are right. In quite a derogatory manner too. If you don't supply supporting references this deprives others of arguing with your point. This gives you a superior position from which you can argue anything. To see yourself reflected back is always a shock 'lol lol rotfl'. If you wish to be treated with respect then that is how you should treat others. I suggest you provide others the opportunity to peruse your references.
-
All you have done since you joined is tell everyone how they are wrong and you are right. In quite a derogatory manner too.
BS. You forgot to mention that "everyone" refers to a poster named IAMREALITY.
If you don't supply supporting references this deprives others of arguing with your point. This gives you a superior position from which you can argue anything.
Nobody else in this thread provided supporting references - including yourself. What a joke.
In the case of boys this is similar in nature to the mother developing an alergic syndrome that affects feotal development. Other factors include the mixture of hormones and what proportions they are at certain periods of development. I came across the information a few years ago now so I don't have references to hand.
-
If you wish to be treated with respect then that is how you should treat others.
I demonstrate respect until I'm disrespected.
I suggest you provide others the opportunity to peruse your references.
You first.
-
If you wish to be treated with respect then that is how you should treat others.
I demonstrate respect until I'm disrespected.
I suggest you provide others the opportunity to peruse your references.
You first.
You are the one stating that there is no link between sexual orientation and prenatal development. If you want us to assess the quality of your references then why not be a grown up and post the information. Or are we in the playpen?
-
So during or following sexual development I prefer to have legs so viola! I have legs. My biology is ultimately my choice.
Do you know the primary difference between physical & cognitive development? The majority of cognitive development is influenced by external factors.... so no, your sarcastic example is trash.
With respect please tell us by answering the two questions below.
If fact a yes on anyone will clear up the confusion!
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Do you believe that homosexuality is
By Choice.........................................?
Or by an inborn genetic component?.....................................?
Thank you
Alan
-
The way I like to look at homosexuality, is by doing the math. If a person has a fully functional reproductive system as well as all the other secondary characteristics this takes a lot of genes. If a person is inclined to a sexual orientation that contradicts this; homosexual or transgender, even if this is do to one gene, the genetic scales do not balance.
Humans have free will and choice, meaning we can choose paths that do not optimize our own genetic scale. I can choose to eat things that my body is not genetically equipped to digest and metabolize. I can choose to eat rocks; rock gene. This may make me appear cool among my peers, because I am a daredevil, pushing the frontiers. But it is not consistent with natural selection; artificial selection based on prestige. Natural selection has already selected the best foods for me, based on what is already genetically optimized in me at birth.
Why don't we treat nutrition the same way as we do sexuality? If someone likes junk food, we will attribute this to the junk food gene, that lurks among the other junk genes. The reason we don't do this is, we will do a gene count and optimize nutrition to this. There is a dual standard in science.
The reason that genetically imbalanced choices are possible is consciousness is more than the sum of its genetic parts. Consciousness works on the principle that the team is more than the sum of its players; genetics. As an analogy, if we had a computer, which suddenly began to generate AI, this would be a grand surprise, because the AI, would be more than the sum of the original programs and hardware. Because it is more, it has the capacity to feedback some of the excess, to the computer, and alter the very programs that make it exist.
Free will and choice is connected to the conscious team being more than the sum of its genetic parts. It is also connected to the human brain having two centers of consciousness. The original center or inner self is connected to our genetics summation and our natural instincts; unconscious. The secondary, which is more modern, is connected to our conscious mind and is called the ego. The ego can make choices that differ from the inner self.
Between the ego and the inner self are many layers of the human psyche, which are semi-conscius to unconscious. Below the ego is the personal unconscious. This is connected to memories that were conscious at one time, which may or may not still be conscious. These can be retrieved with hypnosis.
Below that is the shadow, which is the interface between the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is connected to our human nature and is common to all humans; identify us as a species. The below the shadow are the firmware of the collective unconscious, then the inner self. The most logical place for such deep seated choices, is between the personal unconscious and inner self; shadow and personality firmware; instinct and feeling.
Personally I don't have any problem with any choice that does not harm others. New choices can be innovative and part of the learning experience. But I don't think it is right for science and politics to teach misinformation, calling products of will and choice, natural instinct. The litmus test is natural instinct always uses limited resources in the most effective way. It does not need government and social excesses to sustain any form of behavioral choice. Consider the unit cost of one transgender person. This is not found in nature, so it can't be natural. It is a choice, which if self supplying, does not harm anyone.
Go to a natural eco-system and then compare this to the same animals in zoo, with a zoo based on choice and artificial selection. Which costs more to sustain? In the zoo a lot of genes cannot be fully used due to the human choices. These need to be supplemented which can get very expensive,
-
Do you believe that homosexuality is
By Choice.........................................?
Just like heterosexuality, it's primarily a subconscious preference that develops over time - and external influences during childhood development play a pivotal role in shaping that preference.
Or by an inborn genetic component?.....................................?
No way.
Although I've seen literature vaguely [suggesting] such a genetic link... I've seen zero empirical evidence to support the notion whatsoever.
-
You are the one stating that there is no link between sexual orientation and prenatal development.
Yeah and you are the one stating that homosexuality is due to "an alergic syndrome that affects feotal development".... and you want me to list references? lol
If you want us to assess the quality of your references
I'm not here for a quality assessment - and especially not from some moderator who tries making it seem as if I'm only here to prove others wrong. Please.
Go look through my post history and you'll see I gladly help others when the opportunity arises [take the CFS thread as an example].
then why not be a grown up and post the information. Or are we in the playpen?
I posted the information. You can "assess the quality" all you want.
~
-
Go look through my post history and you'll see I gladly help others when the opportunity arises [take the CFS thread as an example].
Help? Lmao. All you did in that thread was tell the patient what the competent Dr said they had was a fake disease, even though it's fact that it isn't with mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves it, then diagnosed them instead with something they almost certainly don't have lol. No, you helped no one in that thread at all. But I guess we should keep that fight there.
And in this thread all you're doing is being highly offensive and waging a battle based on zero science and that is hurtful to so many, by claiming homosexuality is a choice. It is also a highly absurd position. They may not fully understand what is happening in nature that causes it to happen biologically, but they most certainly know it isn't by choice. And if it's one fact that stands out above all others by a mile that proves it, it's the 1-2% rate of success of conversion therapy. That squashes your argument on its face.
And Alan,
No, god isn't losing any grip for he isn't real in that capacity, souls also don't exist and aren't 'placed' in anyone, and evolution has nothing to do with homosexuality so isn't losing its grip either (or at least it wouldn't seem it does, unless some sort of natural solution to population control) . Hs is something that simply sometimes happens in nature, they just simply don't yet understand why.
-
Go look through my post history and you'll see I gladly help others when the opportunity arises [take the CFS thread as an example].
Help? Lmao. All you did in that thread was tell the patient what the competent Dr said they had was a fake disease, even though it's fact that it isn't with mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves it, then diagnosed them instead with something they almost certainly don't have lol. No, you helped no one in that thread at all. But I guess we should keep that fight there.
And in this thread all you're doing is being highly offensive and waging a battle based on zero science and that is hurtful to so many, by claiming homosexuality is a choice. It is also a highly absurd position. They may not fully understand what is happening in nature that causes it to happen biologically, but they most certainly know it isn't by choice. And if it's one fact that stands out above all others by a mile that proves it, it's the 1-2% rate of success of conversion therapy. That squashes your argument on its face.
Science can be offensive sometimes. I believe exothermic is scientifically correct in saying that there's no genetic predisposition in homosexuality, period. Homosexuality is driven by our cultural heritage to live the way our consciousness is telling us. Otherwise, our sexual organs would have been designed without the purpose of reproduction, and the human race could not have survived. So, homosexuality is not directed by evolution or genetics; It is directed by our free will to have sexual preferences.
-
Help? Lmao. All you did in that thread was tell the patient what the competent Dr said they had was a fake disease, even though it's fact that it isn't with mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves it, then diagnosed them instead with something they almost certainly don't have lol. No, you helped no one in that thread at all.
You and your absent-minded/scientifically-void drivel.
This is a physiology-based science forum.... you wouldn't know anything about help.
The patient's doctor is blatantly incompetent. It doesn't take 3-years to eradicate a simple mycoplasma/rickettsia infection.... only to blame the symptoms on something that "has no treatment and no cure." Lazy/baseless medicine.
The patient is immunocompromised and suffering from fatigue-related symptoms which are directly attributed to the chronic infections. You're just an ignorant person with zero scientific intellect, so you'll never understand.
-
Go look through my post history and you'll see I gladly help others when the opportunity arises [take the CFS thread as an example].
Help? Lmao. All you did in that thread was tell the patient what the competent Dr said they had was a fake disease, even though it's fact that it isn't with mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves it, then diagnosed them instead with something they almost certainly don't have lol. No, you helped no one in that thread at all. But I guess we should keep that fight there.
And in this thread all you're doing is being highly offensive and waging a battle based on zero science and that is hurtful to so many, by claiming homosexuality is a choice. It is also a highly absurd position. They may not fully understand what is happening in nature that causes it to happen biologically, but they most certainly know it isn't by choice. And if it's one fact that stands out above all others by a mile that proves it, it's the 1-2% rate of success of conversion therapy. That squashes your argument on its face.
And Alan,
No, god isn't losing any grip for he isn't real in that capacity, souls also don't exist and aren't 'placed' in anyone, and evolution has nothing to do with homosexuality so isn't losing its grip either (or at least it wouldn't seem it does, unless some sort of natural solution to population control) . Hs is something that simply sometimes happens in nature, they just simply don't yet understand why.
You obviously selectively took out of my statement what suited you and ignored the rest of the content of my post!
This is what I actually said?
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
"God or evolution are, losing their grip and keep making millions and millions of mistakes, by putting the consciousness or souls into the wrong bodies? " I included consciousness for those like you who do not believe that we have a sou.l
Sadly we no , longer have man or woman, him or her, now it in "It or "Thing" or "Non-Binary" which exist in the grey area between.
Highly incompetent evolution or a messed up creator, take your pick?"
"GOD OR EVOLUTION"
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
I respect your right to your opinion, but that is all it really is because you cannot prove the non-existence of God just like I cannot prove God exists to you. "Both are faith-based beliefs"
Alan
-
Help? Lmao. All you did in that thread was tell the patient what the competent Dr said they had was a fake disease, even though it's fact that it isn't with mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves it, then diagnosed them instead with something they almost certainly don't have lol. No, you helped no one in that thread at all.
You and your absent-minded/scientifically-void drivel.
This is a physiology-based science forum.... you wouldn't know anything about help.
The patient's doctor is blatantly incompetent. It doesn't take 3-years to eradicate a simple mycoplasma/rickettsia infection.... only to blame the symptoms on something that "has no treatment and no cure." Lazy/baseless medicine.
The patient is immunocompromised and suffering from fatigue-related symptoms which are directly attributed to the chronic infections. You're just an ignorant person with zero scientific intellect, so you'll never understand.
I agree with you!!
Homosexuality is a perversion, I don't mean that in a depraved way, depravity is a human attribute not found in animals and we have the gall to think that we are better and above them as sentient beings.
The only real unconditional love I have ever had the pleasure to receive was from my beloved pet dogs!
-
Go look through my post history and you'll see I gladly help others when the opportunity arises [take the CFS thread as an example].
Help? Lmao. All you did in that thread was tell the patient what the competent Dr said they had was a fake disease, even though it's fact that it isn't with mountains upon mountains of evidence that proves it, then diagnosed them instead with something they almost certainly don't have lol. No, you helped no one in that thread at all. But I guess we should keep that fight there.
And in this thread all you're doing is being highly offensive and waging a battle based on zero science and that is hurtful to so many, by claiming homosexuality is a choice. It is also a highly absurd position. They may not fully understand what is happening in nature that causes it to happen biologically, but they most certainly know it isn't by choice. And if it's one fact that stands out above all others by a mile that proves it, it's the 1-2% rate of success of conversion therapy. That squashes your argument on its face.
Science can be offensive sometimes. I believe exothermic is scientifically correct in saying that there's no genetic predisposition in homosexuality, period. Homosexuality is driven by our cultural heritage to live the way our consciousness is telling us. Otherwise, our sexual organs would have been designed without the purpose of reproduction, and the human race could not have survived. So, homosexuality is not directed by evolution or genetics; It is directed by our free will to have sexual preferences.
Right on now we agree on something, so maybe our future debates are going to be more productive?
Thank you!
Alan
-
The postnatal neuroendocrine reproductive axis isn't even functional prior to reproductive maturation/puberty - yet we're supposed to believe one's sexual orientation is already predetermined at this physiological stage of development?
No.... just no.
~