"Born a Homo"?

[wade]

I'm arguing based on biology...On science. You are arguing based on your fear of absolute truths. I feel attraction to lots of people - I only have sex with women. I'm attracted to Men of character. Fortunately, my mind isn't so jacked up as to make me think I have to do em up the butt as a response to that attraction.

It's ironic to me that you fault the Bible because the existance of God relies so much on FAITH, yet your believe in homosexuals being born that way requires leaps and bounds of faith I can't comprehend.

No, you are arguing based upon your homophobic upbringing and your homophobic faith. Science and Biology support my position, that about 1-2% of the populations are just wired wrong and find the same sex attractive.

Consider the following:

The most highly publicised was reported by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard in "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation" in the Archives of General Psychiatry, December 1991. These researchers recruited gay male subjects through advertisements in the gay media and sent questionnaires, which included questions on sexual orientation, to their male siblings. They reported that:


52% (29/56) of MZ twins,
22% (12/54) of DZ twins,
9.2% (13/142) of non-twin brothers,
and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers of gay men

were also gay themselves. The researchers estimated that the heritability of male homosexuality was between 31% and 74%. A similar study carried out by the same researchers on the siblings of lesbian women reported concordance rates of 48% for MZ twins, 16% for DZ twins, 14% for non-twin sisters and 6% for adoptive sisters. Heritability was estimated as between 27% and 76%.
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/ge/genetic_basis_for_homosexuality.html

Here are some more links on the subject:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#5
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/bulgarians/nih-ngltf.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

As you can see, there is strong evidence that there are genes on the X chromosome that greatly influence sexual orientation. Even the NIH study supports this view.

--------

I believe in God, just your God. I do not require juvinile homilies invented to keep me in line to have faith.

Wade.

 

[dmp]

No, you are arguing based upon your homophobic upbringing and your homophobic faith. Science and Biology support my position, that about 1-2% of the populations are just wired wrong and find the same sex attractive.

Consider the following:



Here are some more links on the subject:

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html#5
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/bulgarians/nih-ngltf.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

As you can see, there is strong evidence that there are genes on the X chromosome that greatly influence sexual orientation. Even the NIH study supports this view.

--------

I believe in God, just your God. I do not require juvinile homilies invented to keep me in line to have faith.

Wade.

The evidence you show is invalid - The twins issue is the most compelling - if one twin were gay, the other - since he/she has an IDENTICAL genetic make-up would ALSO be gay, right?

I'm not saying people aren't 'disposed' towards certian behavior - but to make allowances for their disposition because they cannot help themselves?

Bullshit.

No legitimate Biology/Scientist believes homosexuals are victims of their genetics. (note the period)

 

[wade]

The evidence you show is invalid - The twins issue is the most compelling - if one twin were gay, the other - since he/she has an IDENTICAL genetic make-up would ALSO be gay, right?

I'm not saying people aren't 'disposed' towards certian behavior - but to make allowances for their disposition because they cannot help themselves?

Bullshit.

No legitimate Biology/Scientist believes homosexuals are victims of their genetics. (note the period)

Why is it invalid - because you don't like it?

So you would have a man go through life denying his desire to be with other men just because you don't like it? What allowances are you being asked to make here =d=, other than to let them live their lives as they wish? It is you who have the problem and are trying to tell them what to do.

To understand the genetic argument you need to understand genetics - there is more involved than just genes. Genes also have to be active, even in identical twins there is no gaurantee that both will have the same activity level of every gene, in fact it's just about gauranteed they won't. This is why sometimes one of a pair of identical twins will develop luekemia, but the other does not.

What you say is not true, there are legitimate scientists and biologists who believe homosexuality is genetic, but they will also say there is not yet proof that this is the case, just strong evidence.

Wade.

 

[-Cp]

Why is it invalid - because you don't like it?

So you would have a man go through life denying his desire to be with other men just because you don't like it? What allowances are you being asked to make here =d=, other than to let them live their lives as they wish? It is you who have the problem and are trying to tell them what to do.

To understand the genetic argument you need to understand genetics - there is more involved than just genes. Genes also have to be active, even in identical twins there is no gaurantee that both will have the same activity level of every gene, in fact it's just about gauranteed they won't. This is why sometimes one of a pair of identical twins will develop luekemia, but the other does not.

What you say is not true, there are legitimate scientists and biologists who believe homosexuality is genetic, but they will also say there is not yet proof that this is the case, just strong evidence.

Wade.

Your problem Wade (like many other ignorant people) is that you're associating someone's desires with genetic make-up. If I had a desire to smoke, drink, cuss, commit adultry, rob a bank - would those bad behaviors be blamed on my genes or bad choices/behavior? You can't have it both ways... Our desires either stem from complete genetic makeup or personal choices....

 

[eric]

Well I have studied some genetics, and to my knowledge there exists no hard evidence linking any gene with any specific behavior. What is more likely is a genetic influence, but that is a far cry from saying someone is programmed a certain way. There are a host of social and environmental factors that lend themselves to one's behavioral makeup.

 

[DKSuddeth]

As you can see, there is strong evidence that there are genes on the X chromosome that greatly influence sexual orientation. Even the NIH study supports this.b

would this not strengthen the argument that homosexuality is not a 'choice' but something thats designated on biology at birth?

 

[wade]

Well I have studied some genetics, and to my knowledge there exists no hard evidence linking any gene with any specific behavior. What is more likely is a genetic influence, but that is a far cry from saying someone is programmed a certain way. There are a host of social and environmental factors that lend themselves to one's behavioral makeup.

Behavior and sexual orientation are not really the same thing. If a man is attracted to other men, that will influence his behavior.

I'm sure there are a lot of social and environmental aspects to homosexuality. In fact, I'd say that in many cases this is the main reason behind it. I believe about 1-2% of the population is genetically disposed toward homosexuality, which does not account to the 5-6% occurance we actually see.

Wade.

 

[eric]

strong evidence

Strong evidence is not hard evidence !

Taking the position that genetics WILL, not could influence, our behavior is a dangerous way of thinking. So in the near future when genetics are understood at a much more detailed level, I guess we should start to arrest potential criminals at birth.

 

[Joan]

This is mainly for Darin - but here goes - you can ask anyone of my children if I am ever wrong - they will say NO. If at a given time I say that the sky is a light shade of lavendar - they will argue against it and tell me that I am wrong - but the old lady never gives in! So they basically have given up on arguing with me - I will get the last word in no matter what. And when I feel I am right - I AM RIGHT - so pfffft.

 

[eric]

I'm sure there are a lot of social and environmental aspects to homosexuality. In fact, I'd say that in many cases this is the main reason behind it. I believe about 1-2% of the population is genetically disposed toward homosexuality, which does not account to the 5-6% occurance we actually se

All speculation, theory, and opinion, am I wrong ?

 

[wade]

Your problem Wade (like many other ignorant people) is that you're associating someone's desires with genetic make-up. If I had a desire to smoke, drink, cuss, commit adultry, rob a bank - would those bad behaviors be blamed on my genes or bad choices/behavior? You can't have it both ways... Our desires either stem from complete genetic makeup or personal choices....

Your problem -Cp, like many other ignorant people, and yes you are very ignorant indeed, is that you consider sexual orientation to be based upon a choice. People don't choose to have sexual desires, they are programmed that way. That is a fact. Why is it so hard to believe that some people are just wired wrong in this aspect? The answer is simple, it goes against what you've been taught. There is no one more ignorant than those who have been taught bullshit and do not realize bullshit when they see it.

How can you seriously compare the sex drive, a key factor in survival, with smoking, drinking, cussing, etc.... It is stupid to even propose such a thing.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Strong evidence is not hard evidence !

Taking the position that genetics WILL, not could influence, our behavior is a dangerous way of thinking. So in the near future when genetics are understood at a much more detailed level, I guess we should start to arrest potential criminals at birth.

I agree. However with something like sexual orientation it is a little different than criminal activity. A genetically homosexual man simply finds other men attractive in the way most of us find women attactive. That wiring is deep in every person, since it is based on procreation and procreation is essential to survival of the species.

And there is also the existing YY and YYY chromosome issue. These males WILL rape, it's a fact, I don't think there is one known case of such and individual not doing so. In this case, I think we should take action to protect the public, and this probably does mean locking them up.

Wade.

 

[eric]

Now I am not saying that people wake up one day, and say to themselves hey this is a good day to turn gay ! I am sure there are strong undercurrents within them that eventually drive them to acknowledge what they have been feeling for quite a while. I am also sure it is not easy for someone to face this realization, but to say they have no choice in the matter, I just flatly reject that.

 

[eric]

And there is also the existing YY and YYY chromosome issue. These males WILL rape, it's a fact, I don't think there is one known case of such and individual not doing so. In this case, I think we should take action to protect the public, and this probably does mean locking them up.

Could you post a link to this wade. Not to be challenging, but I would sincerly like to examine this data for myself. I have not heard of any study of this sort, but would be most interested.

Now the part that does not make sense about being programmed for procreation is, what possible purpose could homosexuality serve in the context of natural selection. Since homosexuals can not reproduce, it would require the same genetic mutation to repeat itself over and over in the exact same way. This is highly improbable.

 

[wade]

Now I am not saying that people wake up one day, and say to themselves hey this is a good day to turn gay ! I am sure there are strong undercurrents within them that eventually drive them to acknowledge what they have been feeling for quite a while. I am also sure it is not easy for someone to face this realization, but to say they have no choice in the matter, I just flatly reject that.

Well, sure they have a choice. The choise is basically abstinence or homosexuality, because they have no desire for sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex.

I had a girlfriend for many years who had (and still has) a gay friend. He was raised in a home with 4 brothers, none of whome were gay. He was one of my girlfriends best friends from about age 5. One day, when they were both 14, he kissed her, and he said that that was the day he knew for sure that he was gay. He wanted to be strait, but he was gay, and it was not something that he was encouraged to do in any way.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Could you post a link to this wade. Not to be challenging, but I would sincerly like to examine this data for myself. I have not heard of any study of this sort, but would be most interested.

I'll try to locate some info on it, but it is a difficult subject to research. There is a taboo about publishing articles that might lead to genetic discrimination. I think I have a report somewhere in my archives (physical not online) which discusses XYY and XYYY chromosomes in prison populations, and shows that there is an abnormally high concentration of of males with this disorder in the sex crimes population.

Now the part that does not make sense about being programmed for procreation is, what possible purpose could homosexuality serve in the context of natural selection. Since homosexuals can not reproduce, it would require the same genetic mutation to repeat itself over and over in the exact same way. This is highly improbable.

Well, first off we are only talking about a 1-2% occurance. Furthermore, it appears to be based on the X chromosome and requires more than one gene be involved. Ta-Sac's is not a plus for propogation, but it persists, and it only involves one gene. Just because some percentage of a family will not propogate does not mean the genes for that percentage will not propogate, expecially if they are X chromosome related, on other members of the family. And just because someone might have this combo and be gay does not mean that they won't engage in heterosexual relationships and produce offspring.

Wade.

 

[dmp]

Why is it invalid - because you don't like it?

So you would have a man go through life denying his desire to be with other men just because you don't like it? What allowances are you being asked to make here =d=, other than to let them live their lives as they wish? It is you who have the problem and are trying to tell them what to do.

To understand the genetic argument you need to understand genetics - there is more involved than just genes. Genes also have to be active, even in identical twins there is no gaurantee that both will have the same activity level of every gene, in fact it's just about gauranteed they won't. This is why sometimes one of a pair of identical twins will develop luekemia, but the other does not.

What you say is not true, there are legitimate scientists and biologists who believe homosexuality is genetic, but they will also say there is not yet proof that this is the case, just strong evidence.

Wade.

It's invalid because it's not accepted by the majority of science or biology. The evidence is weak - I'm sure if I had an hour to spend on Google I could refute the 'studies' you have cited.

Again - you confuse the argument...

Homo's want ppl to think they are victims of their actions. They ask for special rights and tolerances. Live their life - fine..don't make the rest of society accept their preferences.

 

[wade]

It's invalid because it's not accepted by the majority of science or biology. The evidence is weak - I'm sure if I had an hour to spend on Google I could refute the 'studies' you have cited.

Again - you confuse the argument...

Homo's want ppl to think they are victims of their actions. They ask for special rights and tolerances. Live their life - fine..don't make the rest of society accept their preferences.

And for every site you could find refuting it I could find one that upholds it. And your sites would almost all be political or religously based, not science at all. In fact, I think you would have a very hard time finding even one credible scientific site that would support your argument.

Homosexuals do not ask for special rights and tolerances, they ask for the same rights and tolerances as everyone else has a right to expect. The problem is that people like you think that this is somehow "special" when it applies to gays.

You seem to be quite terrified of homosexuality - and you know what that implies don't ya? :funnyface

 

[-Cp]

Your problem -Cp, like many other ignorant people, and yes you are very ignorant indeed, is that you consider sexual orientation to be based upon a choice. People don't choose to have sexual desires, they are programmed that way. That is a fact. Why is it so hard to believe that some people are just wired wrong in this aspect? The answer is simple, it goes against what you've been taught. There is no one more ignorant than those who have been taught bullshit and do not realize bullshit when they see it.

How can you seriously compare the sex drive, a key factor in survival, with smoking, drinking, cussing, etc.... It is stupid to even propose such a thing.

Wade.

So I'm ignorant because I don't swollow the kool-aid you've been shooting up?

Fact - Butt-pirates are NOT pre-programed that way

One of the most persistent and culturally damaging Homosexual Urban Legends is the erroneous claim by homosexual activists that they are "born gay" or that their sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence and is fixed and unchangeable.

One or both of these urban legends has been perpetuated not only by homosexual activist groups but by prestigious organizations like the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

The American Psychological Association, for example, features a Q&A section on its web site that deals with sexual orientation. To the question, "Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?" the APA answers: "No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

In a follow up question, "Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?" the APA answers: "No. … The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."

Current research from professional organizations like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) dispute the APA's pro-homosexual position.

Regrettably, however, homosexuals have used this particular urban legend to fight for anti-discrimination laws and for "hate crime" laws that provide special legal protections for homosexuals not accorded to heterosexuals. They have also used this fraudulent claim to push for homosexual recruitment programs in public schools under the guise of providing "safe schools" for "homosexual" teenagers. Homosexuals have also demanded sensitivity training for those who are repelled by homosexual behavior. Currently, transgendered individuals (those who cross-dress or are undergoing sex change operations), are also now claiming to be "born transgender." Transgenders are demanding federal laws to protect them from societal disapproval. (See TVC's Special Report on this: "A Gender Identity Goes Mainstream.")

Great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend-but it is slowly but surely being debunked. This is being done not only by conservative psychologists and psychiatrists, but by the admissions of homosexual researchers themselves.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a NARTH associate, was one of the main forces behind the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

Dr. Spitzer is now convinced that men and women who have a homosexual orientation can change through therapy. His most recent findings were published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).

NARTH summarized his findings on its web site. Dr. Spitzer interviewed some 200 men and women who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted five years or longer. According to Spitzer, his findings show that "the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation."

One of the most compelling articles to dispel the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is: "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. This essay is published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality web site.

The authors of this study carefully quote a number of homosexual researchers who have worked for years to locate a "gay gene" or some other genetic basis for homosexuality. They have failed and are now admitting that such evidence may never be found.

Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a bit of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome. He has written: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . . . I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men noted: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, 52% of identical twins were both homosexual; only 22% of non-identical twins were both homosexual; and 9.2% of non-identical twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality.



By your own logic, we could as easily dismiss the freaks in the world that have sex with animals...

 

[-Cp]

Regent University's Law Review for Spring, 2002, is entirely devoted to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a study, " Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen.

After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual lifestyle.

Gender Confusion: Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers stated in 1995, that "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality. Some of the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.

Failure To Internalize Maleness: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has written: "Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model."

Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: "Many studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile, detached father."

Sexual Abuse By Same-Sex Predator: In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.

Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual sons. His paper is entitled: "An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective."

Dr. Dickson's study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child's later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.

His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984), which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were non-victims. As Finkelhor observed: "It may be common for a boy who has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2) because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man. Once he labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity." (Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).

Dr. Dickson's study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: "An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection."

Dr. Dickson continues: "Given the relational deficits [with his mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother."

Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has written: "…In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have had early exposure to pornography…."