This is one of those things, like intelligence, that stem from a mixture of things. Not everything is controlled simply by DNA. Enviroment is a huge part in it. I'd say it's about 50/50 genes and enviroment. Point proven by Syren and PandoraMomo. One had a very accepting household, and the other didn't, yet they are both bisexual. The only logical conclusion is that it is not genetic OR chosen, but a mixture of both. In an accepting household, the deciding factor would of course be enviroment, but in the other case, where the enviroment is not accepting, the deciding factor would have to be that it's genetic.
Someone give me a reason that it can't be both....oh, that's right...you can't. I will now laugh while you try and prove me wrong. 😆
Yeah.
Oi vey... I have a random question for the religious people who are anit-homosexuality...
Ever since the christian or catholic church formed, it has been known that there are gay priests. Hell, it was also common practice in the early days of the church for clergy men to have their "boys". Any explination???
Originally posted by PandoraMomo
Yeah.
Oi vey... I have a random question for the religious people who are anit-homosexuality...Ever since the christian or catholic church formed, it has been known that there are gay priests. Hell, it was also common practice in the early days of the church for clergy men to have their "boys". Any explination???
Are you saying that is it well known that there is GAY priest?? or priest that are GAY?? there is a difference there, you can be gay and still in the closet about it, or are you saying there is priest who profess to be Gay and are STILL A Priest?
IT is well known that many priest have had their way with Boys, that doesn't mean it's right, does it? There's been many preachers, that have done sexually acts w/the opposite sex, does that mean it's ok? NOOO it doesn't, they were wrong, just as Preist are wrong that commit that act. Just because someone is in a higher authority, doesn't mean they fall into a different catagory, wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who does it.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Someone give me a reason that it can't be both....oh, that's right...you can't. I will now laugh while you try and prove me wrong. 😆
It's purely environmental.
Originally posted by Fiery Eyes
Are you saying that is it well known that there is GAY priest?? or priest that are GAY?? there is a difference there, you can be gay and still in the closet about it, or are you saying there is priest who profess to be Gay and are STILL A Priest?
IT is well known that many priest have had their way with Boys, that doesn't mean it's right, does it? There's been many preachers, that have done sexually acts w/the opposite sex, does that mean it's ok? NOOO it doesn't, they were wrong, just as Preist are wrong that commit that act. Just because someone is in a higher authority, doesn't mean they fall into a different catagory, wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who does it.
King Henry VIII's inspectors found around ten (I remember seven of them, and there may be more, or there might not) really corrupt monasteries in the middle ages. I cannot remember any practising homosexuality, though one abbot had a harem.
Originally posted by Evy_O
I can give you a reason: they haven't found a gene that controls sexual orientation. The X and Y chromosoms define the sex of the person, and you could have a genetic disorder of having XXY or XO (instead of XX-female and XY-male) but that has NOTHING to do with the sexual preferance. It has to do with reproduction, appearance etc but not that. And to say homosexuality is genetic, you gotta find a gene that defines it: there is none.It's purely environmental.
Have they mapped out the genome in full, with definitions? I doubt it, and it might well be much more subtle than a single gene. Possibly very subtle imbalances in the chemical makeup of your brain, caused by a host of genes. I suspect this, because you get homosexual dolphins, and animals act primarily on instinct. Dolphins are a little better at thinking than most, but they probably don't have the brainpower of a human two-year old. This suggests, a gene. And to say homosexuality is social, you gotta find a social cause for it: there is no conclusive evidence according to Microsoft Encarta.
Originally posted by Evy_O
I can give you a reason: they haven't found a gene that controls sexual orientation. The X and Y chromosoms define the sex of the person, and you could have a genetic disorder of having XXY or XO (instead of XX-female and XY-male) but that has NOTHING to do with the sexual preferance. It has to do with reproduction, appearance etc but not that. And to say homosexuality is genetic, you gotta find a gene that defines it: there is none.It's purely environmental.
You must have missed this...
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[b]In 1991, Simon LeVey, neuroanatomist for the Salk Institue, found that the INAH3 structure of the hypothalamus in homosexual men is twice as small as those of heterosexual men, more closely resembling those of heterosexual women.Seven years later, findings published in the March edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by researchers at the University of Texas - Austin report that the cochlea structure in homosexual women more closely resembles that of heterosexual men.
In both studies, the difference in the structures of homosexuals is attributed to hormone exposure in the womb, evidence that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.
A fingerprint study by J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada found that a significant percentage of homosexuals have excess ridges on their left hand digits compared to their right hand digits, a characteristic that was not shared by heterosexuals.
This study shows a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth as fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.
A study by Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University found that if one sibling is homosexual the likelihood of an identical twin also being homosexual is 52%, the likelihood of a fraternal twin being homosexual is 22%, and the likelihood of a genetic or non-genetic sibling being homosexual is 10%.
They also found that in most instances in which identical twins are separated at birth and one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual.
This study shows that sexuality has a genetic component and is not determined by life experiences.
Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute examined the DNA of 40 homosexuals and found that ALL shared a genetic marker in the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.
More recently, Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua - Italy found that there is no single "gay gene" but rather several genes responsible for sexual orientation. He 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.[b]
There is no SINGLE gene.
Originally posted by Fiery Eyes
Are you saying that is it well known that there is GAY priest?? or priest that are GAY?? there is a difference there, you can be gay and still in the closet about it, or are you saying there is priest who profess to be Gay and are STILL A Priest?
IT is well known that many priest have had their way with Boys, that doesn't mean it's right, does it? There's been many preachers, that have done sexually acts w/the opposite sex, does that mean it's ok? NOOO it doesn't, they were wrong, just as Preist are wrong that commit that act. Just because someone is in a higher authority, doesn't mean they fall into a different catagory, wrong is wrong and right is right, no matter who does it.
I don't think it is fair to compare priests molesting little boys to two adults in a mutual relationship. Also, if a priest is gay but stays in the closet about it and never acts on it, doesn't that prove that homosexuality is not chosen? Why would a man who supposedly preaches the word of God choose to be attracted to men, but never tell anybody and never act on it. What does he get out of that? Wouldn't he choose to be a heterosexual and save himself from all that drama?
Plus, if you are going to go by the bible, which I know you do, then even being a closet homosexual is a sin. Because in my bible study my teacher said that Jesus Christ preached that even thinking about sinning is as bad as committing an actual sin. So if you contemplate stealing something but never go through with it, that is just as bad as stealing it. So by that logic, if you are attracted to the same sex but never act on it, you are a sinner.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Plus, if you are going to go by the bible, which I know you do, then even being a closet homosexual is a sin. Because in my bible study my teacher said that Jesus Christ preached that even thinking about sinning is as bad as committing an actual sin. So if you contemplate stealing something but never go through with it, that is just as bad as stealing it. So by that logic, if you are attracted to the same sex but never act on it, you are a sinner.
and on the general idea..
i think it is not genetic, it is caused by few things, maybe trauma in early childhood, or parents (only one of them eg.), or older brother... or some other things this way.
Originally posted by Clovie
and on the general idea..
i think it is not genetic, it is caused by few things, maybe trauma in early childhood, or parents (only one of them eg.), or older brother... or some other things this way.
Oh please Clovie, do you really believe this? Yes, because the reason I am bisexual is exactly the same as the reason I self harmed for four years[/sarcasm]
And why older brother hun? Females are more than capable of being gay too, although it seems this is much more widely accepted and though I'm not complaining on that score I do find it a little fickle.