Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Indeed it seems that is the major problem, although I cannot help but wondor if part of the reason you disregarded the rest of my argument, is because you found yourself somewhat stumped by what I had to say...No, I would have to go into much too in depth an explanation due to our different perspectives.

Oh well, moving on......

You mentioned possibilities as to what may or may not the the cause of homosexual tendencies...let's evaluate:

1)Perhaps simple play behaviors

Like....? Perhaps the choice to behave in a manner that, while not overtly but very subtly, fit more with a feminine stereotype. Then a slightly more feminine play, and so on, over the course of years.

2)perhaps which friends were chosen

So it's thier fault ? No, but the choice impacted your future behavior, choosing a more feminine bo over a more masculine boy, choosing girls over boys, their behaviors impacted yours to some degree. There is no "fault", just fact.

3)Perhaps the choice of foods you ate the morning you played with the first female child in your early years that resulted in a horrible experience in the presence of (altered to be a more accurate statement)[b] a girl. [b]This is one statement not two.

NEver happened....I had a pretty nice childhood, and most straight guys HAVE had a very horrible experience with women..that never made them gay.... The point is that stating why is too complicated to respond to.

There are infinite possible choices that would eventually lead to homosexual behaviors. I do not think that the choice was, "Oh, that boy is cute", or anything like that, it was subtle and extremely innocent.

Would you say it was my fault that I am Bisexual ? No, but the choices you made and experiences you had resulted in your sexuality.

Originally posted by PVS
hmm...i think the burden is on both sides, as this is not a "does it or doesnt it exist" debate but rather an "either or" debate. just my 2 cents

Originally posted by Regret
Perhaps simple play behaviors, perhaps which friends were chosen. Perhaps the choice of foods you ate the morning you played with the first female child in your early years that resulted in a horrible experience with a girl. There are infinite possible choices that would eventually lead to homosexual behaviors.

David, apparently, I have an enduring emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to you, because I ate something that made me feel nauseated before I played with my older sister for the first time. 🙄

Originally posted by Regret
Show me the gay virgin that has never stated that they have tendencies this way, that knows no individuals that are gay.

Me, from the time I was a small child to before I had sex for the first time.

Originally posted by Regret
It isn't even a simple either or, it could be a combination.

well, yes. i guess i oversimplified, but you catch my meaning im sure

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This argument commits the logic fallacy of Argument From Ignorance. actually it is a statement of scientific ignorance

This argument commits the logic fallacy of Slothful Induction.
No, the evidence is purely inconclusive. The physiological differences may be due to either learning or genetics, there is no conclusive evidence.

First, psychologists define homosexuality as “an enduring emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to members of the same sex,” not as a behavior.Some psychologists do. Some do not

Second, according to extensive research by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association there is currently no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is learned.or that it is genetic

* See above.

Ask and you will receive. [/B]

A sibling's behavior will impact the behavior of the other sibling, particularly in twins.

The gene claim is not conclusive as a proper genetic examination is currently not possible. The study would need to include a large number of heterosexual males to prove that such a gene does in fact result in homosexual behaviors. The gene claims presented are controversial assumptions that do not reflect the scientific community at large and are considered inconclusive at this time.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
David, apparently, I have an enduring emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to you, because I ate something that made me feel nauseated before I played with my older sister for the first time. 🙄

Originally posted by Regret
Lol, the burden of evidence is currently on the genetic side. There is ample evidence stating that behaviors are learned, there is no absolute evidence for any behaviors being genetic. Homosexuality is only another behavior, not some grand behavior that defies the explanations of how other behaviors are learned.

Wrong.

First, "Homosexuality is learned," is a positive claim. Therefore, you are just as obligated to substantiate that "homosexuality is learned," as one who claims that homosexuality is innate.

Second, there is "ample evidence that behaviors are learned," but no evidence that "homosexuality is a behavior." Therefore, the argument "Homosexuality is a behavior and there is no evidence that behaviors are genetic, therefore homosexuality is not genetic," is not sound.

Originally posted by Regret
Levey's research is not conclusive, it could be a result of living a homosexual life and not a result of genetics. The brain's physiology alters with behavior as well as due to genetics.

A sibling's behavior will impact the behavior of the other sibling, particularly in twins.

The gene claim is not conclusive as a proper genetic examination is currently not possible. The study would need to include a large number of heterosexual males to prove that such a gene does in fact result in homosexual behaviors. The gene claims presented are controversial assumptions that do not reflect the scientific community at large and are considered inconclusive at this time.

If homosexuality does not have a biological substrate, then how do you explain the fact that homosexuals are biologically different from heterosexuals, i.e. the brain structure, inner-ear, and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals, and that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals, i.e. homosexuals share a genetic marker and stretches of DNA that are not shared by heterosexuals?

They must have learned that too. 🙄

Originally posted by Regret
You terribly oversimplify the issue. Two dogs mate = giraffe, same type of oversimplification, evolution must be false.

I have not oversimplified anything. This is your argument:

Originally posted by Regret
Perhaps the choice of foods you ate the morning you played with the first female child in your early years that resulted in a horrible experience with a girl. There are infinite possible choices that would eventually lead to homosexual behaviors.

Can we just get back to "f@gs will burn"? I found that to be more entertaining.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Did I ever say that was my goal ?

👆

It always amazes me when a Conservative Christian is layed back and loose, while a Gay Liberal is uptight and overtly serious. I guess I should stop stereotyping then....

define conservative christian.

Oh Please

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have not oversimplified anything. This is your argument:

You're equating homosexuality with an upset stomach?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If homosexuality does not have a biological substrate, then how do you explain the fact that homosexuals are biologically different from heterosexuals, i.e. the brain structure, inner-ear, and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals, and that homosexuals are genetically different from heterosexuals, i.e. homosexuals share a genetic marker and stretches of DNA that are not shared by heterosexuals?

They must have learned that too. 🙄

Originally posted by Alliance
You're equating homosexuality with an upset stomach?

See, it seems to me that you're blatantly implying that men "become" homosexual because they have negative experiences with women.

That would obviously be wrong.

Originally posted by Regret
That is only an example of one of a long series of behaviors that could have aided in the shaping of homosexual behaviors. It is the equivalent to the bacteria evolving into a slightly more complex bacteria in the series of events leading to the bacteria evolving into man as he exists today. It is not the summation of the shaping, it is a possible event in a chain of behaviors consisting of an enormous number events that could shape homosexual behaviors.

Again, homosexuality is “an enduring emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to members of the same sex,” not a behavior. Therefore, your entire argument is not sound.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wrong.

First, "Homosexuality is learned," is a positive claim. Therefore, you are just as obligated to substantiate that "homosexuality is learned," as one who claims that homosexuality is innate.

Second, there is "ample evidence that behaviors are learned," but no evidence that "homosexuality is a behavior." Therefore, the argument "Homosexuality is a behavior and there is no evidence that behaviors are genetic, therefore homosexuality is not genetic," is not sound.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, homosexuality is “an enduring emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to members of the same sex,” not a behavior. Therefore, your entire argument is not sound.

Originally posted by Regret
None of these have shown to be conclusive. Brain structure alters constantly throughout life, homosexual behaviors could lead to changes. They are possibly due to genetics, but it is just as probable that behavior altered the structure. The genetic marker argument is also in question due to the sample size and selection methods of the population used in the studies.

Current science [b]is still inconclusive on the subject, if science ever conclusively takes a stance on the issue, the world will know it. Such a find would result in huge media coverage, not to mention the religious anti-science campaign, religions would be producing the same level of propaganda as they do with evolution. [/B]

I love the way that you selectively ignore studies that you cannot argue. How do you explain the fact that the inner-ear structure and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals? Did homosexual behavior alter the structure of those as well? Remember, fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.