[jeffreyH]

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.

[exothermic]

By demonstrate I hope you don't mean prove since proving a negative will be interesting to observe.

I meant precisely what I said.

[IAMREALITY]

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....

[jeffreyH]

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

It is easy to dismiss things that are not well understood.

[exothermic]

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

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.

~

[exothermic]

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?

[Alan McDougall]

Can the problem be reduced to?

Nature?

or

Nurture?

Take your pick!

[IAMREALITY]

.

So what is it that I don't understand?

Reality. 

Logic. 

Reasoning. 

[dlorde]

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.

[Tim the Plumber]

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.

[Alan McDougall]

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

[exothermic]

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.

~

[exothermic]

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.

[exothermic]

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.

[exothermic]

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.

[exothermic]

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.

~

[exothermic]

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.

[exothermic]

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?

[jeffreyH]

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.

[exothermic]

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:










































































~