Homosexuality is in the Genes?

[Razor]

-Being gay is wrong-

 

I hope, seriously, that BOTH sides of the debate have resolved this dumbass moral conflict. If everyone would get off their middle aged Inquisition-esque bullshit Christian moral high horses, we would all realize that the only things in life that are wrong are things that hurt people. If it doesn't hurt anyone, it's not wrong, end of story. If you happen to think differently... then oh well because you're incorrect. Before anyone jumps in yelling "ZOMG he's a n00b he don't gots teh respectz0rz fer ottter believes!" I will say this; sometimes it's necessary to step on the beliefs of others, and don't say you wouldn't tell a gay-basher f**K YOU in a hurry if he said you can't have a boyfriend.

 

THAT is a completely moot point. It has never been the discussion and I hope it doesn't ever become a discussion. Anyone who believes being gay, bisexual, transgendered, or whatthehelleveryouare is wrong is an idiot, plain and simple. However, that does NOT mean that we have to bury the truth in order to disarm those who would twist it to their purpose. Truth is good, and whether the truth is that you're gay because you're born that way or you're gay because your dad didn't hug you enough doesn't matter. However, for those of us who want to know, the truth is something worth striving to understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Addressing people specifically now.

 

Benji: Unless you'd failed to read you would have known that my general idea is that your genetic material makes up the raw material, the blank slate, of who you are. You might be smarter or dumber, bigger or smaller, happier or sadder even, because of your genes. However, the way you perceive these things, the way you deal with them, the way you take stimuli from the world and arrange it in your mind determines the ultimate outcome of what this raw material becomes. That, at the moment, is the only theory that I can believe. Nothing else has enough backing or makes enough sense. If you'll do some research you'll find that there is a GIGANTIC difference between cases of autism. That definitely suggests to me that they're caused by different things, yes? Well, you also see that there's a GIGANTIC difference between sexualities. That kinda suggests to me that sexual development is influenced by a myriad of things as well. As for the apes, how the f**K do you know their daddy didn't beat them? MAYBE that's what caused it. It's not really that farfetched. Then again, maybe a poacher killed their father and the dominant male figure was absent. Maybe the father didn't accept the offspring. Maybe it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the father. How can you assume that animals do not have similarly if not as or even more complex mental processes than humans do? You can't.

 

Colin: I'm happy you're happy. That's a wonderful thing and I hope it lasts forever. Just because you're not interested doesn't mean other people are not, and I don't think that if we take the time to educate people and use positive peer pressure that anyone will ever make a successful moral argument against homosexuality.

 

Trevor: I agree with you 100%. There is no possible way that anyone can claim that all cases of homosexuality are a conscious choice. That's like saying that a phobia of snakes or an affinity to the color purple are conscious decisions. Sometimes it just ain't that way.

 

Lesfeux: My own father's neglect was because of his drinking problems and the fact that he had severe bipolar disorder as well as a complex because of the fact that his little sister took his place as being the baby of the family. Don't attempt to stereotype anyone and I won't stereotype you. I think that some people, including teenagers and adults alike, like to obsessively hope that it's a factor determined at birth because they're too afraid to fight the real problem. They want to be able to say "Oh, it's not my fault, I was born like this!". Well, what if you weren't born like that? Would that make you wrong? I say we should fight the obsolete morals that dominate our society instead of attempting to conform and find a solution that casts the blame away. Oh, and by the way, any father who neglects his child because his child's sexuality isn't hetero deserves to be drawn and quartered.

 

Conner: Delightful as usual.

 

Birds: Yeah, it is a bit strange, although each time the evidence presented changes a little so I guess it merits a discussion.

 

To sum up...

 

Gay=/=bad. Gay=straight=bi=anythingthatdon'thurtanybody=normal. Psychology=/=why people are gay. Genetics=/=why people are gay. Genetics+Psychology=why people are gay. Bitchiness=/=good reason to break out insipidly stupid stereotypes. Bad daddy=/=the only psychological factor contributing to homosexuality. Obsolete morals=bad. Truth=good. Misuse of truth=bad. Not reading posts=bad. Me talking this much=bad.

 

Me=shutting the hell up now. Have a wonderful day.

[Benji]

Benji: Unless you'd failed to read you would have known that my general idea is that your genetic material makes up the raw material, the blank slate, of who you are. You might be smarter or dumber, bigger or smaller, happier or sadder even, because of your genes. However, the way you perceive these things, the way you deal with them, the way you take stimuli from the world and arrange it in your mind determines the ultimate outcome of what this raw material becomes. That, at the moment, is the only theory that I can believe. Nothing else has enough backing or makes enough sense. If you'll do some research you'll find that there is a GIGANTIC difference between cases of autism. That definitely suggests to me that they're caused by different things, yes? Well, you also see that there's a GIGANTIC difference between sexualities. That kinda suggests to me that sexual development is influenced by a myriad of things as well. As for the apes, how the f**K do you know their daddy didn't beat them? MAYBE that's what caused it. It's not really that farfetched. Then again, maybe a poacher killed their father and the dominant male figure was absent. Maybe the father didn't accept the offspring. Maybe it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the father. How can you assume that animals do not have similarly if not as or even more complex mental processes than humans do? You can't.

 

 

 

 

 

No, I'd didn't fail to read your view

[BeaStKid]

Hi there,

 

As a psychiatrist (& gay) trying to help fellow gays come to terms

with their sexuality & other issues along the Coming Out Continuum,

one of the questions I am always asked by the gay &/or his parents

is - Is there real convincing evidence that one is born gay?

 

I try to give an unbiased answer that the research of the past decade

& a half is increasingly pointing more & more in favour of a

biological basis of sexuality. I usually quote a few studies briefly

when asked to elaborate.

 

Sometimes I do come across a gay who wants to have a detailed update

on the biology of homosexuality. I ususally e-mail him the relevant

references.

 

A brilliant update about the science of homosexuality was published

in June 2007 in the magazine 'Discover - Science, Technology, and The

Future'. I am pasting it below. It is a long article having quite a

few technical words (though mainly written for non-medical

professionals) , so only those who are genuinely interested read it.

 

My purpose of sharing this update is not to stir up the

eternal 'nature vs nurture' debate of homosexuality, but to just give

you an insight into the painstaking scientific efforts that are being

made to understand homosexuality better. I am aware that this still

might stir up some idiosyncratic responses, but that's okay.

 

Am sorry for pasting it in one mail itself, but the content is all

internally connected.

 

Cheers

From a mail I received via a Yahoo! Group

 

------------ ------

 

The Real Story on Gay Genes

Homing in on the science of homosexuality

[Razor]

I skimmed. I still think it's utter bullshit. Sexuality is not static. Over time, preferences change dramatically. That also lends a good bit of credence to the counter argument.

 

I say again. Give me solid proof and I will believe. Studies that suggest do only that, suggest. There are studies that would suggest just the opposite, just as convincingly I'm sure.

 

Proof.

 

 

 

 

And on that note.... oranges. That is all.

[Conner]

I skimmed. I still think it's utter bullshit. Sexuality is not static. Over time, preferences change dramatically. That also lends a good bit of credence to the counter argument.

 

I say again. Give me solid proof and I will believe. Studies that suggest do only that, suggest. There are studies that would suggest just the opposite, just as convincingly I'm sure.

 

Proof.

And on that note.... oranges. That is all.

 

Ok, so I nominate Jamie as our resident doubting Thomas. Actually, I'd like to refer to him as our resident party pooper, but I'm trying to be unbiased.

 

He raises a good point, though. I realize that this thread addresses homosexuality in the genes, but, personally, I wouldn't object if someone were to post research from the the dark side....uhmmm....I mean the 'nurture' side, you know, those evil behaviortalists. We should be looking at the counter arguments as well.

 

Anyone? (not me 'cause I'm just an idea guy )

 

Conner

[Matthew]

Ok, so I nominate Jamie as our resident doubting Thomas. Actually, I'd like to refer to him as our resident party pooper, but I'm trying to be unbiased.

 

He raises a good point, though. I realize that this thread addresses homosexuality in the genes, but, personally, I wouldn't object if someone were to post research from the the dark side....uhmmm....I mean the 'nurture' side, you know, those evil behaviortalists. We should be looking at the counter arguments as well.

 

Anyone? (not me 'cause I'm just an idea guy )

 

Conner

It's hard to find counter articles that even try to be scientific.

 

This Family Research Institute article says that homosexuality is a choice, and attempts to refute Dr. Dobson's assertion that it is a disorder brought about by nurture.

 

"In FRI

[Drewbie]

It's hard to find counter articles that even try to be scientific.

 

This Family Research Institute article says that homosexuality is a choice, and attempts to refute Dr. Dobson's assertion that it is a disorder brought about by nurture.

 

"In FRI

[Conner]

The FRI article is nothing but drivel. They offer no science whatsoever to support their position, just right wing dogma. Basically they're thought terrorists.

 

 

Conner

[Matthew]

The FRI article is nothing but drivel. They offer no science whatsoever to support their position, just right wing dogma. Basically they're thought terrorists.

 

 

Conner

 

 

But they have something better than science, they have rumor and dogma and hyperbole. That tends to be listened to more than well-reasoned scientific analysis.

[Graeme]

I skimmed. I still think it's utter bullshit. Sexuality is not static. Over time, preferences change dramatically. That also lends a good bit of credence to the counter argument.

What Jamie has said highlights one of the crucial issues with discussions in this area -- what is homosexuality?

 

At the Religious Tolerance website's introduction to the topic of homosexuality, they point out that the two extremes in the debate have different definitions for homosexuality. This means that they aren't debating the same thing.

 

If (like me) you believe sexuality is a spectrum from same-sex attracted to opposite-sex attracted, then my interpretation of what Jamie is saying is that a person can move on that spectrum. I happen to agree, but I don't think they can move very far -- that word "dramatically" he used is too extreme for me.

 

Jamie -- can you define what you mean by "sexuality"? I can't debate your statement above until I know what you're talking about, because I suspect it is different to my definition of "sexuality" (or, more precisely, sexual orientation).

I say again. Give me solid proof and I will believe. Studies that suggest do only that, suggest. There are studies that would suggest just the opposite, just as convincingly I'm sure.

Define "solid proof". We can't even prove that gravity (the force that causes objects to be attracted to each other) exists. All we have is a set of observations that appear to meet a theory. After Newton, Einstein came along and said that Newton's theory was just an approximation and the reality was something completely different -- that what we are observing is the result of a space-time distortion, not the attraction of two objects....

[myself_i_must_remake]

i suppose i have a little explaining to do.

 

i think that the 'nurture' argument manages to stay so lively because the ability to blame is in fact, convenient for people. now, several people mentioned that being gay shouldn't involve blame because it's not a problem.

 

well. let's investigate.

 

My BF moved in two blocks from me in 7th grade, that was in the spring of 2002. I saw the moving truck and walked down to see who was moving in and met Doug. It was like we'd been best friends all of our lives. Doug's Chinese, and I've always really liked Asian guys. I think they are super sexy because of their eyes and smiles and especially if they have that kinda spiky hair like he has.

 

From the minute I met Doug I had this huge crush on him, but there was no way I was going to tell him. I was totally freaked about coming out to him. Jeez, we were only 12 years old.

 

I was probably drooling all over him whenever we were together. One day during the summer between 7th and 8th grades, he stared at me and asked me if I wanted to mess around. I asked him what he meant (talk about being clueless!), and he leaned in and kissed me. That was definitely one of those "I thought I'd died and gone to heaven" moments. For me it was one of my most important life-defining moments. Beats a Kodak moment all to hell!

 

Anyway, the summer between 8th and 9th grades we officially became BF's. We're still together and plan on being that way for the rest of our lives. We're both 17, we graduated from high school on June 8th, and we will be freshmen at UC Berkeley in the fall.

 

Colin

 

colinian made that post forever ago but i remember reading it.

now. let's see what he said in this topic.

 

Why does there have to be a blame game? WtF is wrong with being gay? I'm a guy, I'm in love with Doug who's a guy, and he's in love with me. Jeez, there's no one to blame, I'm happy with who I am and how I am and I don't want to change.

 

 

Colin

 

so he sees no reason to blame anyone. but is it surprising? he had his love life set up at a very early age, so he didn't have to go through the struggle of looking for years and years, and sneaking out on dates with guys who are-

 

a ) easy

b ) unintelligent

c ) awkward

d ) one-dimensional (i'm gay and that's all i do!)

e ) annoying

f ) stuck up because they get so many guys (well obviously, many gay guys are pretty desperate, it's not hard to get them)

 

so... colinian doesn't think there's any need to blame. well, duh. why would he?

 

dear colinian,

 

you will probably read this because you are active on this site. this wasn't used AGAINST you by any means. by and large, you say intelligent and interesting things on this forum. again, this is not an attack. i'm just saying, your response isn't surprising considering you flew over an obstacle that many teens have to climb with fifty pound weights attached to their ankles. i am glad for you. it's nice to see things like that happen in the world. and i'm not saying you got around some of the other issues we have to face as a minority, i'm just saying that you circumvented what i would say is my least favorite aspect about being gay: having a small and unimpressive section of the population to work with.

 

do i sound like an elitist asshole? i do? oh. that's because i am. if i were straight, my standards would be completely normal, but because i'm gay, the fact that i'm frustrated with my dating experiences makes me stuck up.

 

so be it.

 

but i've gotten off topic.

 

my point is that being gay is not easy, and that it would make sense that some people would want to blame our condition on a person instead of finding out that some gene tickled another one the wrong way, or some hormones got out of control.

 

what else...

 

oh. allegedly my comment about father neglect being a result of homosexuality instead of the cause upset people. well. let's just say i'm a little annoyed that i thought outside of the homosexuality box and it wasn't received well. i'm not saying it's always the case, and i'm not saying that it's good when it does happen, but i'm willing to bet that it does actually happen.

 

i mean imagine my father. had me when he was twenty-one. he cried when i was born. i can only guess that he was imagining what i would grow up like: star athlete, loves cars, steady stream of admiring girls, great group of guy friends to "chill" with, make relatives proud with my young manly charm.

 

but instead he got a four year old boy who wouldn't stop doing handstands and cartwheels. one who hates cars. one who has a stream of admiring girls, not because they want me, but because they respect me and because they are my group of friends to chill with. i'm an athlete. not the star high school one. my dad would be hard pressed to find other nineteen-year-old boys in the area who can do front aerials and full-twisting backflips. but that's not what he wanted. i'm supposed to tackle other boys to wrestle an oddly shaped ball from their hands, not do pretty things and land on my feet. my hair should be short and spikey instead of having layers and colors in it. my relatives don't know how to handle me. i am the walking reason some older people say "kids these days." granted, i'm not as overboard as i feel like i'm making myself out to be. but the point is that i'm not the ideal boy, and where i don't excuse my father's neglect, i understand it, and personally i think that is a HUGE step to take for someone who's lived my life and is only nineteen.

 

i used to blame him. it was so easy and it felt good. but then i saw the evidence that points the other way, and i saw how overwhelming it is and how much sense it makes. i can be objective as i have just shown you. what other person on this forum has argued AGAINST themself? i see myself as i am, not through a pleasant filter where i can't see that anything's my fault.

 

i was a disappointment to my father. i understand why. i accept it. why? because he was a disappointment to me. but the fact remains, i understand why he doesn't like me.

 

Don't attempt to stereotype anyone and I won't stereotype you.

 

now razor, that was a silly thing to say. did i say that all fathers of homosexual boys are victim by default? no. i'm just saying that i don't think the failures of a father/cocksuckingson relationship are surprising. and i'm also saying i don't think they're always completely in the wrong. now... to parallel your warning, i will say:

 

Don't attempt to attack things that I haven't said and I won't attack things you haven't said.

 

However, I will attack things you have said. Case in point-

 

I skimmed. I still think it's utter bullshit. Sexuality is not static. Over time, preferences change dramatically. That also lends a good bit of credence to the counter argument.

 

I say again. Give me solid proof and I will believe. Studies that suggest do only that, suggest. There are studies that would suggest just the opposite, just as convincingly I'm sure.

 

I find it hard to take you seriously when you say that after BeastKid posted that well-suited article for this forum. "Over time, preferences change dramatically." really? what are the statistics on that? do everyone's sexual preferences change? do they all do so dramatically? when will mine change? i've liked the cock since i knew how to, and it hasn't wavered since. i've heard stories about people changing sexuality, but a good number of those stories also end up to be cases of "I was gay but forced myself to hide it blah blah." so that leaves very few cases to support a claim about sexual orientation changing dramatically over time. you could call me out and say "but i said preferences, not orientation." well, in the context of this forum, we're talking about preference, and a good look around would show you that the overwhelming majority of people's sexualities do not change. this upset me because you use the word preference, but what about those of us who'd prefer to be straight? there are times when i do. especially when i was younger, i tried to force myself to like girls. i prefered to be straight, but i couldn't no matter how i tried.

 

and then there was this thriller.

I say again. Give me solid proof and I will believe. Studies that suggest do only that, suggest. There are studies that would suggest just the opposite, just as convincingly I'm sure.

 

you're sure there are studies that suggest the opposite, just as convincingly. meanwhile, the other side of the argument is actually represented here, and we don't have to take anyone's word for it. they actually took the time to find it for us, and not just have confidence that eh... they're out there somewhere, really they are.

 

i think your mind is closed to the idea of homosexuality being predetermined. why? well, you've been shown a good deal of evidence that supports the idea, but you say you want proof. that's understandable enough, except for the fact that you've accepted the other argument on no grounds whatsoever.

 

what am i saying? you're inconsistent. you're more critical of the nature argument than you are of your own. am i making sense? sometimes i ramble and i know what i'm trying to say, but it doesn't get through well enough.

 

as for conner. i feel like i disappointed you because the things i say come off so harsh, but i need to be that way to get my point across. people like to blame. it's not rocket science. it's not true of all cases, but the number of gay teens i've talked to who dislike or even "hate" their dad and blame him for their sexuality is hard to ignore. you are fifty-six. why does this matter? well, i don't imagine when you were my age, that you had the internet to talk to other gay teens, and i feel like being a gay teen when you were was hell and that you got very little contact with the community. point being, you haven't necessarily surveyed the modern gay teen population to the extent i have. and i feel like you've stayed mostly on this site, which as far as i've seen, attracts mostly likable gays. makes sense doesn't it? we're a brand of homo that prefers to read pornography, and to have it have a plot line, and discuss weighty issues instead of just swap cum and rail each other.

 

let's not call what i said stereotyping. let's call it observation.

 

i think i've played gadfly enough today.

[Graeme]

Thanks, lesfeaxdemoncoeur, for your thoughtful post.

 

There are a number of motivations for wanting to know what causes homosexuality. Blame is one, curiosity is another. For me, personally, it is partially curiosity and partly so I can have (hopefully) a counter for those who tell me it's a choice and I should choose otherwise.

 

One thing that has always bothered me regarding research on homosexuality is that they never have a representative sample. They can't -- there are too many people still in the closet. For example, I have never been approached to take part in any sexuality research, and I've never volunteered. My circumstances dictate that, for at least the next few years, I stay largely in the closet. Therefore, I, and others like me, are not included in any research.

 

Even that article posted above annoyed me in at least one place because it was confusing masculine/feminine with sexuality (the section on making female rats masculine by exposing them to testosterone at an early age).

 

There is nothing wrong with proposing suggestions outside of the box -- that's how humanity often expands its knowledge. However, most of the thinking outside of the box does fail because the box is there for a good reason Your experiences make you wonder if father neglect could be one cause of homosexuality. My experiences make me wonder if pre-pubescent sexual episodes could be one cause of homosexuality. My first sexual experience was when I was six or seven, and was with someone a few years older than me. That continued for several years until I stopped it -- but I can't help wondering if it "switched" me onto homosexual behaviour (a case of Jamie's accumulated experiences "making" me homosexual). I have since read enough to know that it is unlikely but I can't stop wondering. If you like, one reason I'm keen for homosexuality to be partially genetic is that it means that my early experiences didn't make me gay. Yes, I'm biased, but I not blind to the arguments for and against.

 

Finally, for Jamie:

 

Research has shown that if one of a set of identical twin is gay, the other is 50% likely to share that orientation. For fraternal (non-identical) twins, it's 20%. For other siblings, it is well below that figure. I don't see any way of explaining those numbers without accepting that genetics plays a part in determining sexual orientation. Yes, genetics is not the only factor involved (otherwise the identical twins would be both gay 100% of the time), but if genetics were not involved then there shouldn't be a difference between the fraternal and identical twin percentages.

 

That is as solid a proof as I can come up with at the moment that genetics are involved. I can't come up with a reasonable alternative explanation that doesn't involved genetics.

 

As for the nurture argument, did you read the section in the article about the boys raised as girls? To recap, a study was made on a set of boys that, due to deformed genitals when they were born, were surgically altered to have vagina's and were raised as girls. According to the article, every single one of them ended up attracted to women, not men. In other words, they obeyed the default orientation for their genetic sex, and not the default orientation for their apparent sex and the sex that they were raised to be. That is a powerful argument against nurture being the primary driver of sexual orientation.

[Conner]

i feel like some people, specifically teenagers, may hold to the nurture side because it gives them something to blame.

 

what would millions of angsty homosexual adolescents do if they found out their fathers' neglect wasn't the cause?

and what if they had to think that the fathers' neglect was because of their alternative sexuality, and not the other way around?

 

gasp.

 

The above quote is your original post. Below is your explanation for it.

 

what else...

 

oh. allegedly my comment about father neglect being a result of homosexuality instead of the cause upset people. well. let's just say i'm a little annoyed that i thought outside of the homosexuality box and it wasn't received well. i'm not saying it's always the case, and i'm not saying that it's good when it does happen, but i'm willing to bet that it does actually happen.

 

You were not thinking outside the box, lesfeux. Your explanation basically says: that some fathers become neglectful when they discover their son is gay; some fathers are supportive; and it's not good when fathers react neglectfully.

 

I don't believe that anyone would take exception to any of these statements.

 

My impression of your original post is that you were lashing out at someone. The latter part especially made little sense to me.

 

Conner

[myself_i_must_remake]

alright then i guess i'm just a f**kin idiot then...

 

i was annoyed with a group. not a specific person.

 

if i want to upset a particular person, i will call them out by name and not talk around it.

 

i've seen teenagers do what i mentioned. it's not arguable.

 

thinking about homosexuality from the father's point of view i would say is thinking outside of the realm of most gay nineteen-year-olds. but apparently i was just stating the obvious.

 

cool.

[Conner]

Ok, Billy, let's bury the hatchet.

 

No, not in my head!

 

Conner

[BeaStKid]

Lets just say---Until proved!!! lol

[Razor]

I made the post brief purposefully to avoid stoking the flames on this lil fire, lol.

 

My definition of sexuality is what gets you hard, lol. What turns you on? That'd be what I call sexuality. It's not just boys or girls or both. It's other things as well, y'know. I've met a LOT of people who have changed their ideas of what turns them on and what turns them off. Developing/losing fetishes, going after a different type of your gender of interest, all the way up to the most dramatic; pursuing a different gender.

 

ALL of those are plausible and have happened to a lot of people. I've met more than one person who has, mid-life, decided to pursue the other gender, and had a genuine change of interest. I don't know why, I don't know how, but I know it happens.

 

My definition of proof is logically showing that the other explanations are invalid. That hasn't been done yet.

 

Don't say that people have attempted to provide the alternative research, because basically no research even exists based on seriously entertaining the counterargument. Most experimental situations would be ethically wrong. You can't take a kid and purposefully attempt to make them gay or straight and be morally sound, so you can't prove any triggers. Also, the main body of people doing research like that is made up of those religious whackos who do things in a non-scientific manner.

 

So... yeah... I'ma drop it. Until someone proves it by showing the exact causative trigger for sexual preference, I'm not buying it.

[Graeme]

I made the post brief purposefully to avoid stoking the flames on this lil fire, lol.

 

My definition of sexuality is what gets you hard, lol. What turns you on? That'd be what I call sexuality. It's not just boys or girls or both. It's other things as well, y'know. I've met a LOT of people who have changed their ideas of what turns them on and what turns them off. Developing/losing fetishes, going after a different type of your gender of interest, all the way up to the most dramatic; pursuing a different gender.

 

ALL of those are plausible and have happened to a lot of people. I've met more than one person who has, mid-life, decided to pursue the other gender, and had a genuine change of interest. I don't know why, I don't know how, but I know it happens.

I suspected your definition was wildly different from mine, and I was right. You are, at least partially, using behaviour for your definition. By your definition, I'm straight because my only observable gender of interest is female (my wife), but if something happened to my wife, I would "turn" gay, as I have made the decision that I would never do to another woman what I did to my wife when I came out to her. However, the observed behaviour doesn't correspond to a change of my sexuality. It is a change in the way I allow myself to express my sexuality, which is a subtle but important difference.

 

Equally, most of the things you've indicated have nothing to do with sexual orientation, though I'll concede they are all to do with sexual preference. Most people use sexual preference as a synonym for sexual orientation, but it appears obvious from your post that you do not. I will agree that sexual preference (the things that one likes to do sexually; the things or people that one likes to have sex with) is very much driven by your environment and conscious & unconscious decisions that have been made. Bad and good sexual experiences with something can turn a person off or on to that particular activity.

 

My definition of proof is logically showing that the other explanations are invalid. That hasn't been done yet.

 

...

 

Until someone proves it by showing the exact causative trigger for sexual preference, I'm not buying it.

Okay, based on your definition of the proof required, and what you are looking for, I can be quite confident in saying you'll never see the proof you are asking for, one way or the other, in your lifetime (and I hope you reach the ripe old age of 200). Sexual orientation AND sexual preference are functions of the brain, and the brain is the most complex organ in the human body. We haven't even mastered understanding memory, which is an order of degree less complex than trying to understand motivation. Trying to determine the exact trigger(s) (be those genetic or environmental or a combination of the two) that control higher brain functions is way beyond us at this point in time.

[Razor]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Graeme. Attempting to understand something so complex is a task that'll take a lot of time, and achieving complete understanding will require comprehension of many individual factors.

[Benji]

I agree wholeheartedly with you Graeme. Attempting to understand something so complex is a task that'll take a lot of time, and achieving complete understanding will require comprehension of many individual factors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......I'm so not going here!!

[Conner]

......I'm so not going here!!

 

What are you talking about, Benji? :wacko:

[Benji]

What are you talking about, Benji? :wacko:

 

 

Oh, nothing really.....this topic was a little heated a few pages back!

[BeaStKid]

Oh, nothing really.....this topic was a little heated a few pages back!

That I have to agree with...

[Ieshwar]

Damn it! I'm coming late to the party!

 

What thing I really don't understand: why are you guys bent on trying to divide the reasons between nurture and nature! Isn't it obvious that it's both? I mean, just look at what Graeme said :

 

Research has shown that if one of a set of identical twin is gay, the other is 50% likely to share that orientation. For fraternal (non-identical) twins, it's 20%. For other siblings, it is well below that figure. I don't see any way of explaining those numbers without accepting that genetics plays a part in determining sexual orientation. Yes, genetics is not the only factor involved (otherwise the identical twins would be both gay 100% of the time), but if genetics were not involved then there shouldn't be a difference between the fraternal and identical twin percentages

 

This shows that genes play a role but there're other factors that affect- nurture!

 

And what is nurture? I'm feeling like you're defining nurture as lack of father affection. Very sick definition, if you ask me. Perhaps, it affects a role but there got to be other factors too. Or else, the children from single-parent family will be gays and lesbians. So will be Pais Hilton. So why are you not thinking about other factors too that composes this 'nurture' factor? I'm thinking of one rght now- mistrust of the female species.

 

Don't misunderstand me. I really respct and like them! They've proved themselves better than the macho boys in many places and I'm happy for them. But trusting them with one of my secret- nope! Mauritian girls are like... live radio! But I have heard about fag hags too so I'm not completely right.

 

But I got another explanation for homosexuality.

 

I mean, have you noticed how gays are the ones who have refined taste (for clothes, looks...), better looks (some of us are concerned about looks), artistically endowed (Da Vinci, Michealangelo, GAY AUTHORS! ), intelligent (this thread!)...

 

Don't you feel like we're kinda selected by the God to carry the flame of homosexuality? Like the Chosen ones? Sorry, I don't have proof though.

 

Take care,

Ieshwar

[Benji]

Damn it! I'm coming late to the party!

 

What thing I really don't understand: why are you guys bent on trying to divide the reasons between nurture and nature! Isn't it obvious that it's both? I mean, just look at what Graeme said :

 

 

 

This shows that genes play a role but there're other factors that affect- nurture!

 

And what is nurture? I'm feeling like you're defining nurture as lack of father affection. Very sick definition, if you ask me. Perhaps, it affects a role but there got to be other factors too. Or else, the children from single-parent family will be gays and lesbians. So will be Pais Hilton. So why are you not thinking about other factors too that composes this 'nurture' factor? I'm thinking of one rght now- mistrust of the female species.

 

Don't misunderstand me. I really respct and like them! They've proved themselves better than the macho boys in many places and I'm happy for them. But trusting them with one of my secret- nope! Mauritian girls are like... live radio! But I have heard about fag hags too so I'm not completely right.

 

But I got another explanation for homosexuality.

 

I mean, have you noticed how gays are the ones who have refined taste (for clothes, looks...), better looks (some of us are concerned about looks), artistically endowed (Da Vinci, Michealangelo, GAY AUTHORS! ), intelligent (this thread!)...

 

Don't you feel like we're kinda selected by the God to carry the flame of homosexuality? Like the Chosen ones? Sorry, I don't have proof though.

 

Take care,

Ieshwar

 

 

 

....It should probably put this under "What made you smile today