[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.

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.

[Alan McDougall]

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?

[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.

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[exothermic]

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.

[exothermic]

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".

~

[jeffreyH]

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.

[exothermic]

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.

[exothermic]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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?

[Alan McDougall]

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

[puppypower]

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, 

[exothermic]

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.

[exothermic]

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.

~

[IAMREALITY]

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. 

[smart]

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.

[exothermic]

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.

[Alan McDougall]

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

[Alan McDougall]

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!

[Alan McDougall]

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