Homosexuality: Chosen or Genetic?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
To which question are you referring? I don't see any question marks in his post.

I guess it was not a question, but his "goal to open Urizen's mind."

Originally posted by Nellinator
On another note I reread the link Adam gave concerning the genetic origin of homosexuality and read the classical four gene markers at position Xq28 of the X chromosome. This is outdated and false information. More recent studies have shown this.

Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28., By: Rice, George, Anderson, Carol, Risch, Neil, Ebers, George, Science, 00368075, 04/23/99, Vol. 284, Issue 5414

keeping in mind of course that ONE study does not provide fact either way.

If homosexuality is indeed gentic, it is likely not as simple as a single Medelian type gene.

Originally posted by Nellinator
On another note I reread the link Adam gave concerning the genetic origin of homosexuality and read the classical four gene markers at position Xq28 of the X chromosome. This is outdated and false information. More recent studies have shown this.

Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28., By: Rice, George, Anderson, Carol, Risch, Neil, Ebers, George, Science, 00368075, 04/23/99, Vol. 284, Issue 5414

Well, then surely you have a subscription to the magazine. Feel free to post it. This will be easier if you have an on-line subscription. That way you can copy and paste.

Originally posted by Alliance
keeping in mind of course that ONE study does not provide fact either way.

If homosexuality is indeed gentic, it is likely not as simple as a single Medelian type gene.

Originally posted by Alliance
If homosexuality is indeed gentic, it is likely not as simple as a single Medelian type gene.

As I pointed out in several posts in this very thread.

Im also a scientist. Research databases are my life 😂

My opinon is, like so many other things, homosexuality is neither one or the other. Which of couse people love definite answers, which science is incapable of givng...and the irony of the world continues.

The moral implications of a genetic link are ungraciously disturbing, as are the consequences of a behavioral link. Put them together, and you have one big disaster, which is why I feel that my position of [its just both, accept it] ignornce is a good choice. 🙂

..or at least, a headache saving cop-out.

[Edit.]

Originally posted by Nellinator
sorry.

Yes, I'm sure you are.

[Edit.]

If you give the info I can find it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yes, I'm sure you are.

Originally posted by Alliance
Im also a scientist. Research databases are my life 😂

Originally posted by Nellinator
Sexual orientation was confirmed for all subjects at the time of blood sampling by the direct questioning of a gay interviewer. The index subject read gay magazines and volunteered that he was gay, and this observation was corroborated by interviewing the gay brother. We believe that the rate of false positives, as in Hamer's study, was low ( 6).

This in itself is suspect. Thats why I work subcellular. None of this creepy human stuff gets into my equations.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That is a good stance to take. It bothers me when people on forums think they know the truth of these matters based on media articles, not real science. Really unless someone can back their claims with journal evidence I tend to discredit them.

I often read "fact", but then forget where I read it. Citing everything gets annoying for a movie forum.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Except you, apparently.

Humm...so you might say the experience "taught" you something. So, if you believe that homosexuality is "learned", then what experiences *taught* me to be gay? Maybe you'll go the Sithsabre route and accuse my father of molesting me in my crib when I was a baby. Or maybe my mother popped gay porn into the VCR to keep me occupied as a child. Maybe my brother used to make me jerk him off at night. Maybe my grandparents made me dress up as a little girl because they secretly wanted a grand daughter. What kind of experience falls into the realm of influencing someones sexuality? You have all teh answers, why can't you have one to this one?

You obviously do not have a clue as to the split in psychology between behavior analysis (and, for Urizen, my statements to cognition were in reference to the APA statement I used to demonstrate the APA position on determining factors of sexual orientation) and the mentalist schools of thought, this seems to give you a false view of psychology as a whole.

The homosexuality as a sin quote is from a religious discussion. I am a religious individual, and do believe homosexual behaviors are sins, regardless of why an individual is homosexual. My views on the genetics vs. learning debate is in no manner impacted by the belief that homosexual behaviors are sins. The two topics are not related.

I will no longer participate in this discussion as even the direct and simple statement from the APA that I presented was both interpretted and emphasized incorrectly, not to mention the lack of courtesy I have been shown in this thread.

Originally posted by Alliance
This in itself is suspect. Thats why I work subcellular. None of this creepy human stuff gets into my equations.

I often read "fact", but then forget where I read it. Citing everything gets annoying for a movie forum.

I agree, but there is a difference between people you know can back up their claims and those that argue off pure conjecture. Of course the masses always seem to fall for conjecturists because are more persistent and rude.

Originally posted by Regret
Why do I need to have the answer? Why would I respond to you further? You have insulted me, refused to acknowledge the inconclusive nature of the summation of research on the subject, insulted me on a professional level, and not once made a statement that showed even a glimmer of understanding of the concepts I have presented.

You obviously do not have a clue as to the split in psychology between behavior analysis (and, for Urizen, my statements to cognition were in reference to the APA statement I used to demonstrate the APA position on determining factors of sexual orientation) and the mentalist schools of thought, this seems to give you a false view of psychology as a whole.

The homosexuality as a sin quote is from a religious discussion. I am a religious individual, and do believe homosexual behaviors are sins, regardless of why an individual is homosexual. My views on the genetics vs. learning debate is in no manner impacted by the belief that homosexual behaviors are sins. The two topics are not related.

I will no longer participate in this discussion as even the direct and simple statement from the APA that I presented was both interpretted and emphasized incorrectly, not to mention the lack of courtesy I have been shown in this thread.

Its very easy to form conjecture...everyone can do it. Its why science, unfortuantely, cannot and should not be discussed publically. Its not up for public debate, its up for intellectual debate....

...but everyone feels its their right to participate, even if they are not qualified to do so.

I, personally, don't understand psychology. I'm actually rather biased against it because I was raised to interpret science in very strict natural terms. Psychology almost seems like an archaic "science" and I don't often see much benefit to it, but I will admit I don't try to.

That's why I am always hesitant to post scientific articles. On that note, almost no one is qualified to select from the poll.

Behavior analysis is quite empirical if you look at it at face value, but when we try to explain why people (or animals) act in a certain way it can become influenced by bias and personal conviction. This is what the pure scientists like yourself cringe at. However, I believe that when we understand why people think the way they do, we are a step closer to peace.

Psychotherapy (my field) has its obvious benefits, but I think it is overly dominated by humanist views that deny the darker tendencies of man and therefore do not fix them. Of course, psychotherapy is inevitably influenced by bias.

The think that destroys my confidence in it is the lack of mechanism....which ironically like Gravity, but gravity is a lot simpler than human behavior.

I also feel that sometimes empericism is forced when numbers don't really describe whats going on. How can you measure an inexact variable?

Like your psycho-who-biddy-who cannot explain why my brain has suddenly decided within the bast week or so to spell behavior the English way.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Ironic now. 😆

No. Suprisingly, it is not.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Most people do not understand psychology as a science or psychologists in general. It's almost better to accept that they will never understand and stop worrying about it.

Oh yes, which is why you still open your mouth? When will you stop worrying about the cause, and accept the reality of the situation?

Originally posted by Regret
Why do I need to have the answer?

Because you feel the need to act as though you do. If you'd like to respond to teh rest of my post, I'll address that too.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its why science, unfortuantely, cannot and should not be discussed publically. Its not up for public debate, its up for intellectual debate....

that sounds like you're bowing out.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That's why I am always hesitant to post scientific articles. On that note, almost no one is qualified to select from the poll.

Well, aren't you full of yourself?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Psychotherapy (my field) has its obvious benefits, but I think it is overly dominated by humanist views that deny the darker tendencies of man and therefore do not fix them. Of course, psychotherapy is inevitably influenced by bias.

You're a psychotherapist? That's GREAT! How wonderful is it to find out you've been debating the bible with a psychotherapist AND and member of the APA?...neither of which are willing to divorce their position on homosexuality from their blatant religious bias? I tell you, we here at KMC are BLESSED to post in the presence of so many members of the higher fields of learning.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
that sounds like you're bowing out.

I'm not bowing out, I'm just infinately skeptical, despite the noble aspirations of science to reamin unbaised. And since I am NOT going to put in the effort to read the lit this instant, I'm not going to make comments beyond what I already have a fairly factual grip on.

Proteins don't have sexualities.

May I also point out, that non-scientists often don't grasp the nuances of science and often don't understand how to properly treat research. Hence why it should not be a public discussion.

Originally posted by Nellinator
On another note I reread the link Adam gave concerning the genetic origin of homosexuality and read the classical four gene markers at position Xq28 of the X chromosome. This is outdated and false information. More recent studies have shown this.

Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28., By: Rice, George, Anderson, Carol, Risch, Neil, Ebers, George, Science, 00368075, 04/23/99, Vol. 284, Issue 5414

[list=1][*]The methodology of the study "Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28" has been criticized with regards to the selection of subjects.

[*]According to the researchers at the University of Western Ontario who conducted the study in question, ". . . our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation," however, "these results do not preclude the possibility of detectable gene effects elsewhere in the genome."

This is consistent with subsequent studies by:

[list][*]Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua—Italy, who found that there is no single "gay gene" but rather several genes responsible for sexual orientation. She identified that genetic components are indeed linked to the X chromosome and that there are other components likely to be on other chromosomes as well.

[*]Brian Mutanksi of the University of Illinois at Chicago in conjunction with Pennsylvania State University, the University of California—Los Angeles, the University of California—San Diego, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation, who combed the entire human genome for genetic determinants of male sexual orientation, identifying them in stretches of DNA on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10.[/list][/list]