Cure yourself from homosexuality!

[antlers]

I'll be brief--

If homosexuality has a genetic basis, that doesn't make it "normal".

If it lacks genetic basis, it doesn't make it abnormal (or a disorder).

The two questions have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Because a very few individuals, with lots of therapy and lots of motivation, have managed to change their sexual orientation (while many, many more have failed) says absolutely nothing about whether minority sexual orientation has a genetic predisposition, or is a disorder. You can similarly train a left-handed person to be right-handed--and people used to think this was the right thing to do.

If you name a culture from which there are extensive written records, I'll point out evidence that there was homosexuality. Attitudes towards and manifestations of homosexual orientation have varied widely, of course.

It's just plain stupid to say homosexuality is a genetic dead end; ants and bees and naked mole rats have done very well genetically although only a tiny percentage of them breed. The non-breeding individuals are essential to the genetic survival of the species. Humans also live in complex societies where the behavior of both breeding and non-breeding individuals affects survival outcomes for all.

My son plays with a boy who lives with his two moms; his two dads live not far away and see him often. He has eight very happy grandparents.

 

[Legion]

Because a very few individuals, with lots of therapy and lots of motivation, have managed to change their sexual orientation (while many, many more have failed) says absolutely nothing about whether minority sexual orientation has a genetic predisposition, or is a disorder. You can similarly train a left-handed person to be right-handed--and people used to think this was the right thing to do.

We are hardly talking about a few individuals. Furthermore we aren't talking about simply reprogramming. We are discussing extinction of the habit. If the extinction occurs then it would be rather difficult to argue a genetic disposition is forcing a certain behavior.

no one here is arguing homosexuality is a "disorder" or pathology. I am hoping you and others drop this matter entirely.

If you name a culture from which there are extensive written records, I'll point out evidence that there was homosexuality. Attitudes towards and manifestations of homosexual orientation have varied widely, of course.

This matter of the discussion is entirely irrelevant.

but, just to humor you, start with the hopwell indians, the hittites, and the akadians.

It's just plain stupid to say homosexuality is a genetic dead end; ants and bees and naked mole rats have done very well genetically although only a tiny percentage of them breed.

don't be absurd! Ants and bees capacity to turn out offspring is ludicrously higher then humans. A plainly ridiculous comparison.

Your comparison with naked mole rats is likewise perposterous.

Mole rat "queens" have the capacity to provide 5 litters of pups per year and can mate successively after every 80 days. The litters themselves can range from 12 - 27 pups.

So, when you state only a few mate you are completely mistrepresenting the impact this has on the population.

Furthermore this doesn't address the issue that homosexuality is not a progressive mating strategy. Thusly it is an evolutionary dead end.

If all the drones were homosexual the species would become extinct. End of story.

Ontop of all of this, if your perception of evolution is correct what difference does it make what orientation nonmating individuals are? It doesn't. Not even in the slightest. Your argument doesn't refute homosexuality being a failed mating strategy as it doesn't even address the issue of mating to begin with. Homosexual individuals genes (if genes are the primary cause) will not be transmitted.

The non-breeding individuals are essential to the genetic survival of the species. Humans also live in complex societies where the behavior of both breeding and non-breeding individuals affects survival outcomes for all.

this is an arbitrary argument. Again, it fails to address the issue that homosexuality, as a mating strategy is an evolutionary dead end. Sexual orientation within this evolutionary schema is irrelevant.

My son plays with a boy who lives with his two moms; his two dads live not far away and see him often. He has eight very happy grandparents.

great...

 

[Legion]

Whether or not you like chocolate is more in depth then a genetic code.

Well it could be argued that evolution has imbued us with an attraction to foods with a higher energy density. Besides, if you don't like chocolate you are, IMO, genetically F***ked up.

It could also be argued we have a propesenty towards self distruction...

 

[Druga Runda]

Poor comparison.

OCD and alchohalism is obviously harmful to such indervidual. Homosexuality is not.

Poor thinking on your part. Playing devil's advocate, How many people die of actual alchohalism intoxication? How many die of the secondary effects from it in car accidents, fights, et al?

Dare I post the proportional comparasons of Homosexuality and death rates against Heterosexuals? You just know Homosexulity, like Alchohalism, might be fun, but the residual effects are like a bastion for STD trasmission in the subculture.

Let me just re-quote one of you points :

A very weak case above as - I already have some and (may expand in our future) your "great joys of life" I'm :

- In Love with my parner/boyfirend of 5 years.
- We (as soon it is legal in the UK) will get Married (Civil Union to be accurate).
- We may adopt and bring-up childen in the future.

Actually, your list is just as week, we can go around and 'round and state that since you're suffering from the so called "varience" you really oon't understand the feelings and what it's like and what your missing.

That is the problem with your posts Vince, and why people find it offensive.

The fact that homosexuality might be all environment 100% and 0 biology is all well and good, but the next step you take is if it is environment>>> therefore it is curable>>> and let's say this might be true >>> than you propose that homosexuals on average in their subculture live worse than the others - now there we can agree on statistics, but in principle who cares, if they live a bit more in the dangerous line it's up to them, and last - you seem to propose that if someomne would be bothered to find a cure than this should be administrered>>>> which IMHO is a nonsense and potentialy dangerous as we are going back to medieval times in terms of personal choice.

As long as homosexuals or any other group of people don't harm anyone else no - cure - should not be given, there is nothing to repair.

Now from a biological - evolutionist stance - the 'fault' is there, but from practical, everyday stance there is nothing wrong, and I hope you agree.

So I am pretty certain Legion agrees on that last point. So i guess the discussion is not focused really, and people take offense on the last, and not on the first really, they are only jumping stages

IMHO, I'd see as much more likely that the 'gay' predisposition is environmental, as it makes more sense, however this is where I would stop, as finding a cure for a condition that makes no difference is unnecessary. The problem arises with the society and those who think such a cure would be necessary and therefore would administer it to others against their will. Now I think this is wrong, and I hope you will agree... and that would happen to countless young people coming from religious background... so overall i's good that there is no magic 'anti-gay' pill or gene, as if there was one I am sure many parents would be going after thair kids to undergo the treatment, when the treatment in fact a violation of someones personality, even though that is their child noone should have a right to 'cure' homosexuality. It's a personal choice of adults and that's all...

On the other hand behaviours as paedophilia or rape are clearly harmfull to individuals on whome they are practiced. I mean a gay rapist or criminal is a rapist or criminal, doesn't have to do anything with his sexual orientation.

And in the end if the parents would not force their kids on such treatments and if ther was not such 'disgust' in certain parts of the society, and gay kids were treated as everyone else the merits of treatments (if there was one) for those - independant adults- who thought that need one might be beneficial, but in current climate the bad certainly outweights the good for such possible 'cures'. Which we of course don't know whether they exist, still it would be interesting to follow a willing group of ex-gay just to see what are the results.

 

[antlers]

We are hardly talking about a few individuals. Furthermore we aren't talking about simply reprogramming. We are discussing extinction of the habit. If the extinction occurs then it would be rather difficult to argue a genetic disposition is forcing a certain behavior.

After searching a year and a half among the thousands of individuals who have undergone "reparative therapy", they found 234 individuals who have shown some change. That counts as a few to me. It seems like it's easier to train people out of left-handedness.

no one here is arguing homosexuality is a "disorder" or pathology. I am hoping you and others drop this matter entirely.

Some people are repeatedly comparing homosexuality to OCD or beatiality, so while you might not be doing, some people here are.

but, just to humor you, start with the hopwell indians, the hittites, and the akadians.

I think we have different ideas of what comprises "extensive written records", but to show what you can find quickly on Google there is this:

http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1b.html

According to one translation, section 36 then stated: "If a slave gives the bride-price to a free youth and takes him to dwell in his household as spouse, no-one shall [make him] surrender him." There has for generations been legitimate controversy over the correct reading of section 36. If the quoted reading were correct, a male slave with money (the brideprice) to pay for a male spouse could acquire one and could expect that the transaction would be enforceable at law. If a slave were allowed to do this, it went without saying that a free Hittite citizen could do the same.

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/botteropetschow.htm

§ 12. Therefore it is not at all surprising that they are found more than once linked with an army of courtesans of every type: harimtu, istaritu, kezertu, qadistu, sekertu, samhatu..., whose attachment to Ishtar and her cult is known and whose vocation as prostitutes has never been disputed by anyone. They are seen together, from the Old Akkadian period, on a tablet that enumerates five sekertu on the front and three kulu'u on the back [55]; in Era IV 52-55; in KAR 43//63, 3; as well as in the famous list of the me [56], in which kur-gar-ra (kurgarru) and sag-ur-sag (assinnu) are adjacent to nam-kar-ke (harimtu). This kind of conjunction should suffice to convince us that we are well and truly dealing with prostitutes here.

§ 13. But a few documents are even more explicit in this sense. In the tablet cited above (§ 5) of the Summa Alu, CT 39, 44f., the role of the assinnu (line 32) becomes only more clear when we read [57] that the individual who is the subject of the presage acquires "a strong desire to copulate with men (literally: to be the object of coitus by other men), like an assinnu"[58].

don't be absurd! Ants and bees capacity to turn out offspring is ludicrously higher then humans. A plainly ridiculous comparison.

The point that is being missed is that evolutionary biology allows the reinforcement of traits that don't contribute to the reproductive success of the individual, if they contribute to the success of others related to the individual. For all we know, homosexuality in primates developed as such a trait.

Furthermore this doesn't address the issue that homosexuality is not a progressive mating strategy. Thusly it is an evolutionary dead end.

Again, it's not a dead end if it contributes to the reproductive success of related individuals.

Ontop of all of this, if your perception of evolution is correct what difference does it make what orientation nonmating individuals are? It doesn't. Not even in the slightest. Your argument doesn't refute homosexuality being a failed mating strategy as it doesn't even address the issue of mating to begin with. Homosexual individuals genes (if genes are the primary cause) will not be transmitted.

You are showing a naive understanding of the way evolution works. Remember, evolution happens to populations and not individuals. Homosexuality specifically might have an adaptive effect on the social structure (surely you won't deny that sexual orientation affects social structure); social structure has been crucial to the reproductive success of human populations. It's difficult, of course, to say if this was the case in the distant past when the genetic basis of homosexuality may have been created. But it is certainly possible, as is demonstrated by a mathematical analysis of evolutionary biology.

 

[antlers]

Let me add that homosexual orientation does not in itself limit an individual's reproductive success. Homosexuals can have heterosexual sex, even if they aren't inclined that way. If social strictures are tight enough, they will. Similarly, if the culture demands that male homosexuals are made eunuchs (as is implied above about the Akkadians) it would severely limit their reproductive success, but not necessarily the adaptiveness of the population as a whole. In human evolution, the adaptiveness of homosexual orientation would arise almost entirely out of the effect it had on social organization.

 

[Legion]

After searching a year and a half among the thousands of individuals who have undergone "reparative therapy", they found 234 individuals who have shown some change. That counts as a few to me. It seems like it's easier to train people out of left-handedness.

only 234 who have made some change? I doubt that highly, especially when considering how completely flexible their definition of homosexual is. I have no doubt they'd fudge their results. They allowed Hamer, LeVay, and Bailey to do it.

The APA needs to come up with a proper definition of what a homosexual is and then determine how to test for it.

Also, the unwilling to change does not inherently reflect genetic influence.

Some people are repeatedly comparing homosexuality to OCD or beatiality, so while you might not be doing, some people here are.

What is being compared is the behavior. Homosexuality, is no different from any other orientation. Culture defines what is write and wrong within itself. Paedophilia, beastiality, necrofilia, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not inherently different.

I think we have different ideas of what comprises "extensive written records", but to show what you can find quickly on Google there is this:

Good job digging this information up. Too its irrelevant.

The point that is being missed is that evolutionary biology allows the reinforcement of traits that don't contribute to the reproductive success of the individual, if they contribute to the success of others related to the individual. For all we know, homosexuality in primates developed as such a trait.

This has nothing to do with the evolutionary aspect of homosexuality as a mating strategy.

Your reasoning is deliberately selective. There are plenty of noncomunal organism which rely on the a high percentage of mating individuals. Furthermore if the bulk of the species even with in communal organism were homosexual their numbers would be impacted negatively. Thusly, it is unavoidably an evolutionary dead end.

Furthermore it is irrelevant what orientation these individuals are in every comparison you made.

Mole rats especially. The bulk of nonmating individuals are females and females do fight to the death with one another in order to become the next "queen". So, the aspect of homosexuality has no benefit to their species and only serves as a detriment. If all females were lesbian the species would become extinct. Again, this is evident of a failed mating strategy.

Again, it's not a dead end if it contributes to the reproductive success of related individuals.

Again, it is a dead end if it doesn't reproduce. Again, your reasoning is selective. The only way the species could be productive is if their were balance between mating and nonmating individuals such that populations could be maintained or increased. If the number of homosexual individuals over took capable maters the species would likely die out. Homosexuality servers as a detriment to animals.

Your argument is also completely post hoc. You are refering to already known numbers of nonbreaders without analyzing the reasoning that the more incapable breeders you, combined with those whom will never mate, the survival of most species drastically declines.

You are showing a naive understanding of the way evolution works. Remember, evolution happens to populations and not individuals.

It is not naive in the slightest. What enables it to happen within societies are individuals contributing to the genetic development of the species.

It stands that if you have less mating individuals the less chances a species has to evolve and multiply.

Thusly, it is not naive to say that homosexuality contributes to the down fall of a species by futher negatively impacting their capacity to mate.

Homosexuality specifically might have an adaptive effect on the social structure (surely you won't deny that sexual orientation affects social structure); social structure has been crucial to the reproductive success of human populations.

You say might as if ANY evidence points to this. Unfortunately there are no heritability tests that substantiate homosexuality is genetic and can be passed on through genes.

Furthermore your review of species is horribly myopic. You choose only to refer to communal species who rely mainly on group conduct (while completely ignoring mating conflicts within the groups) in order to state that vast majority of individuals are expendable.

This is entirely naive and post hoc. You are only examing a situation which has already occured. Thusly you know which individuals who mated and those that did not. Again, its simple reasoning to deduce the possibilities of mating decline rapidly the more individuals you have in the scene who can not or will not mate. Coupled with those who will never mate the species chance of survival, likewise their chance of evolving decline rapidly as individuals with progressive genes will likely never mate.

Also no tests indicate the bulk of nonmating individuals are homosexual and it would safe to estimate that if their are homosexuals, they fall into a category of less then 10% of the species. Ergo the your supposed theory of benefit wts homosexualit is moot.

It's difficult, of course, to say if this was the case in the distant past when the genetic basis of homosexuality may have been created. But it is certainly possible, as is demonstrated by a mathematical analysis of evolutionary biology.

I would say its rather obvious this is not the case. There is no evidence of a mechanism which causes homosexuality within many species. The very suggestion there is comes from a complete distortion of the definition of homosexual behavior. I mentioned this before regarding lab rats.

It is certainly not possibly through mathmatical analyzsis of evolutionary biology at all. There are no proven mechanism within humans that cause homosexuality or any other sexual orientation. Also, the estimated number of homosexuals within a given populas does not correlate with a genetic cause. To argue homosexuality has a evolutionary root is completely arbitrary lacking in even the most foundational and basic reasoning. There is simply no way to prove it and thusly becomes a matter of scientists spinning whatever rhetoric they wish to justify their perception. Much is the same through evolutionary psychology.

 

[Legion]

Let me add that homosexual orientation does not in itself limit an individual's reproductive success. Homosexuals can have heterosexual sex, even if they aren't inclined that way.

Wrong. If homosexuality is a disposition which is fixed this could not happen. Also, your threory lacks any biological mechanisms for its support.

You are also fudging definitions of what a homosexual is.

 

[Tagrineth]

Let me add that homosexual orientation does not in itself limit an individual's reproductive success. Homosexuals can have heterosexual sex, even if they aren't inclined that way.

Wrong. If homosexuality is a disposition which is fixed this could not happen. Also, your threory lacks any biological mechanisms for its support.

You are also fudging definitions of what a homosexual is.

It certainly can be a disposition which is fixed. See, the thing about sexual orientation is, it isn't an absolute as far as mating practices go.

It's called sexual preference. You act as though heterosexual sex will cause grievous bodily harm, possibly death to a homosexual involved.

The fact of the matter is, society is intelligent, and if every single human on the entire planet was homosexual, there would certainly be breeding programmes in place and people having heterosexual sex specifically in the interest of having children.

Actually, one could argue that such a case would benefit today's world, considering how horrible our overpopulation problem is. If we could limit childbirth, that would be great.

 

[Legion]

certainly can be a disposition which is fixed. See, the thing about sexual orientation is, it isn't an absolute as far as mating practices go.

Wrong.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html#1

the APA recognizes a very lenient definition of what homosexuality is and can be. Its rather clear they do not view homosexuality as strict and fixed conditions.

I think you can begin to see why i view their supposed tests of treated homosexuals with a great deal of suspicion. This should be especially apparent when the APA makes comments suggesting thoughts can be indicative of sexual orientation.

It's called sexual preference. You act as though heterosexual sex will cause grievous bodily harm, possibly death to a homosexual involved.

I don't act like anything nor do i hold to the believe homosexuality is a fixed condition. However, if it is genetic, it would definately be fixed. This is unless of course you can explain some mechanism for why a gene would alter the state of orientation at whim (and i do mean without turning the evolutionary extrapolation).

Antler's arguing style, as you probably already know irritates me. It has no scientific foundation and is built solely of psuedo-science and evolutionary extrapolation rather then any proven mechanism for sexual orientation. The very nature of this arugmentative style is fruitless and an exercise in futility. It makes no difference how many times said arguments are disproven or how blatantly unsupported they are they will be rehashed and altered at whim to fit the needs of those spinning an agenda.

This is likewise why i despise evolutionary psychology which has done absolutely nothing to aid the progression of psychological fields.

The fact of the matter is, society is intelligent, and if every single human on the entire planet was homosexual, there would certainly be breeding programmes in place and people having heterosexual sex specifically in the interest of having children.

Don't be absolutely absurd. The only reason such institutions would exist is be we have the intelligence to realize the damage homosexuality would do to our species.

Actually, one could argue that such a case would benefit today's world, considering how horrible our overpopulation problem is. If we could limit childbirth, that would be great.

Don't be assinine. Less than 20% of the world's land mass is covered by humans. Over population is a nonissue devised of Utilitarianism and caused by population counts confined in small areas.

 

[Legion]

On the other hand behaviours as paedophilia or rape are clearly harmfull to individuals on whome they are practiced. I mean a gay rapist or criminal is a rapist or criminal, doesn't have to do anything with his sexual orientation.

Societies long before us practiced paedophilia by our standards. This very behavior was considered normal. There is no absolute by which to govern paedophilia is harmful outside of the bounds of western culture. Western culture is not an absolute by any means.

You continue to lump child molestors and paedophiliacs in the same category. If you wish to dicuss the psychological impact of said behaviors please understand the basics regarding the issue before you begin to address it.

 

[Tagrineth]

certainly can be a disposition which is fixed. See, the thing about sexual orientation is, it isn't an absolute as far as mating practices go.

Wrong.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html#1

the APA recognizes a very lenient definition of what homosexuality is and can be. Its rather clear they do not view homosexuality as strict and fixed conditions.

I said can, not is.

I don't act like anything nor do i hold to the believe homosexuality is a fixed condition. However, if it is genetic, it would definately be fixed. This is unless of course you can explain some mechanism for why a gene would alter the state of orientation at whim (and i do mean without turning the evolutionary extrapolation).

You seem to, considering you absolutely deny the possibility of a gay man and a lesbian woman getting together for the expressed purpose of conceiving a child. IT COULD HAPPEN.

Antler's arguing style, as you probably already know irritates me. It has no scientific foundation and is built solely of psuedo-science and evolutionary extrapolation rather then any proven mechanism for sexual orientation. The very nature of this arugmentative style is fruitless and an exercise in futility. It makes no difference how many times said arguments are disproven or how blatantly unsupported they are they will be rehashed and altered at whim to fit the needs of those spinning an agenda.

So please, use your science to explain why my friend Torque eats altoids like they're candy (he frigging eats them directly, pops one in his mouth, chews for a moment, then swallows) while I can only eat one or two in a few hours' time span?

Or use your science to explain why I enjoy playing Final Fantasy games, while others say they're the most boring contrived drivel ever created?

The fact of the matter is, society is intelligent, and if every single human on the entire planet was homosexual, there would certainly be breeding programmes in place and people having heterosexual sex specifically in the interest of having children.

Don't be absolutely absurd. The only reason such institutions would exist is be we have the intelligence to realize the damage homosexuality would do to our species.

Actually, one could argue that such a case would benefit today's world, considering how horrible our overpopulation problem is. If we could limit childbirth, that would be great.

Don't be assinine. Less than 20% of the world's land mass is covered by humans. Over population is a nonissue devised of Utilitarianism and caused by population counts confined in small areas.

How much of the world's landmass is actually habitable, within reason? I mean, vast expanses of desert (Sahara, Gobi) and ice (Alaska, Greenland, Antarctica) aren't all that easy to live in. Did you know that you get a check from the US government every year just for living in Alaska?

 

[Sage]

if homosexuality is a dissease that needs to be cured then so is heterosexuality

face it- we are emotional creatures. we bond with other humans. we are unique in that sex is an expression of love and emotional bond. sexual feelings towards people is natural, limiting by gender/race/ethnicity is a self-perpetuating unnatural behaviour that is imposed on us by society.

The only real problems are people who refuse to allow themselves to deal with feelings towards other people, and people who fail to form an emotional bond during sex ("sex addicts" even though they may not do it often)

 

[Legion]

I said can, not is.

Where is the "smacking head against wall" smiley.

Do you understand that what i have suggested indicates a choice on behalf of the individual?

You seem to, considering you absolutely deny the possibility of a gay man and a lesbian woman getting together for the expressed purpose of conceiving a child. IT COULD HAPPEN.

Again where is that damn smiley...

You keep choosing to interject intelligence into the matter and working with your own personal definition of homosexuality. This part of the point i am trying to make. Sexual orientation is not a set number of conditions which can be explained, in humans, by genetic code. If you choose to work with a strict definitions, which the gay lobby does, then you rule out any possibility of flexibility with relationships. Not even the APA, who is widely affected by the gay lobby and their agenda, persues this definition.

Tag define "homosexual" for me.

here is dictionary.com's defintion

ho·mo·sex·u·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l, -m-)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

Notice how completely vague and reflexive the definition is.

The same is NOT SO with other ANIMALS. They lack the very mechanism for what you are suggesting here.

So please, use your science to explain why my friend Torque eats altoids like they're candy (he frigging eats them directly, pops one in his mouth, chews for a moment, then swallows) while I can only eat one or two in a few hours' time span?

What in the name of God does this have to do with what i stated? There could be hundreds of reasons why what you have stated is so. However, without being able to analyze your friend Torque and yourself I can not answer your question by any means other than pulling shit out of my ass - much like i accuse the evolutionary psychologists/biologists of doing with regards to homosexuality and its evolutionary benefit! They have no means by which to prove their statements, they are just reaching up their ass for an explanation to suit their agenda. Their statements are 100% unproven and arbitrary and based purely on reason and extrapolation rather than ANY scientific evidence.

Or use your science to explain why I enjoy playing Final Fantasy games, while others say they're the most boring contrived drivel ever created?

No, i can not do that, nor has my position been to proffer an evolutionary psychological standpoint.

How much of the world's landmass is actually habitable,

IIRC over 75%. This will change with time and our capacity to cultivate the land.

within reason? I mean, vast expanses of desert (Sahara, Gobi) and ice (Alaska, Greenland, Antarctica) aren't all that easy to live in. Did you know that you get a check from the US government every year just for living in Alaska?

Yes within reason. Havenn't you noticed the bulk of the USA is unihabitted?

 

[Legion]

if homosexuality is a dissease that needs to be cured then so is heterosexuality

face it- we are emotional creatures. we bond with other humans. we are unique in that sex is an expression of love and emotional bond. sexual feelings towards people is natural, limiting by gender/race/ethnicity is a self-perpetuating unnatural behaviour that is imposed on us by society.

Just out of curiosity how do you reason one is "unnatural" and the other is natural?

The only real problems are people who refuse to allow themselves to deal with feelings towards other people, and people who fail to form an emotional bond during sex ("sex addicts" even though they may not do it often)

No, i'd say the real problem is acting on feelings rather than reasons.

 

[CapsLock]

Googling "homosexual genetic tendency" produces a great deal of religious related responses, however of all the strictly scientific based responses that I have checked so far, all of them have said that there is a genetic cause, if only partially, to homosexuality. For instance this one is good:

http://biology.unm.edu/cadavid/genetics/notes/QTL_genetics.htm

In it studies are cited (without reference unfortuneately) that seem conclusive (enough) to me. In regards to twins I'll post the relevant section:

Several studies of twins have suggested that homosexuality is partly genetic.

In MZ twins, if one brother was gay then 57% of the time the other brother was also gay.

In DZ twins, if one brother was gay then only 24% of the time was the other brother gay.

In MZ twins, if one sister was a lesbian, 50% of the time the other twin sister was also a lesbian.

In DZ twins, if one sister was a lesbian, only 16% of the time the other sister was a lesbian.

Other studies confirm that male homosexuality is clustered in family lines with brothers, uncles, and male cousins who are gay more frequently than that found in the general population.

Most of these gay males are related through maternal lines suggesting that genes influencing sexual orientation are located on the X chromosome.

X chromosome inheritance has been confirmed by examining DNA VNTRs spaced along the X chromosome within band Xq28.

A total of 33 out of 40 pairs of gay brothers had exactly the same alleles of five nearby VNTR markers dispersed over 4 million base pairs, suggesting one or more genes may influence homosexuality.

Additional studies have also shown that heterosexual brothers of gay men tend not to possess the same Xq28 sequences.

There were also a number of explanations why homosexuality could have developed as a means of establishing social order and improved survivability of the population, not that this is necessary to be true for homosexuality to be a logical or acceptable practice for any given individual.

The argument that reproduction is necessary for the success of the individuals existence and possible worth to society or to his or her self, is ridiculous. An overly mechanistic definition of life necessarily reduces life to a mere mechanism and not "life" at all.

Caps

 

[Sage]

Just out of curiosity how do you reason one is "unnatural" and the other is natural?

behaviour that has to be learned is unnatural, behaviour that occurs without it being taught is natural.

 

[Legion]

Googling "homosexual genetic tendency" produces a great deal of religious related responses, however of all the strictly scientific based responses that I have checked so far, all of them have said that there is a genetic cause, if only partially, to homosexuality. For instance this one is good:

http://biology.unm.edu/cadavid/genetics/notes/QTL_genetics.htm

I would say it is a clearly flawed example.

WHich fails to explain as did Bailey and Pillard, why identical twins in their own tests only had a 50% rate of both being homosexual. This makes literaly no sense on a genetic level and would only serve to be convincing to some one who has little understanding on how genetics would play a role.

For one identical twins are 100% genetically identical. Ergo if homosexuality has a genetic influence or disposition both brothers or sisters should be homosexual. Yet, they there was only a 50% ratio. Likewise other tests using twins by other groups have shown complete inconsistency in their results. Bailey and Pillard's test results fell way bellow their expected results but still presented their information on the grounds to deceive people. they never tested the effect of enviroment on said inviduals.

Your webpage is a complete sham and a horrible resource

Most of these gay males are related through maternal lines suggesting that genes influencing sexual orientation are located on the X chromosome.



X chromosome inheritance has been confirmed by examining DNA VNTRs spaced along the X chromosome within band Xq28.

This is an absolute lie. Dean Hamer attempted to prove the Xq28 band influenced orientation but could not. His research has never been substatianted to this day:

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/limitations.html#hamerincons

Inconsistency

"Replication in science is everything, the primary quality-control mechanism on science's intellectual assembly line" (Burr 42). Holding to this, a number of studies have been falsely hailed due to the inability of other researches to obtain the same results using the same methods. The most obvious of these is the Hamer study. In addition to criticisms on his methodology, the results of Dr. Hamer's study can mysteriously not be reproduced by other scientists. In February 1995, George Ebers and his colleagues at the University of Western Ontario followed Dr. Hamer's methodology and "found no evidence of linkage of sexual orientation to Xq28." In June 1998, Alan Sanders of the University of Chicago announced at an American Psychiatric Association meeting that he also failed to come up with the same data as Dr. Hamer did in 1993 (Sardar). In 1995, Dr. Hamer himself conducted a second study, "repeating the same format of [his] widely debated 1993 study," to confirm the results of the first study (Suplee). "This [1995] report was greeted as though it were independent confirmation of Hamer's earlier work, when in reality it was his own reiteration of his earlier claims" (Ordover 128). Moreover, Dr. Hamer originally claimed that he noticed a maternal pattern that motivated him to use markers on the X-chromosome. However, statistical interpretation of Hamer's data shows no significant difference (thus accepting the null hypothesis that there is no maternal effect) (McGuire 133).

Bailey himself testifies for the need of reproduction of results; the McFadden and Pasanen study on the cochleas of lesbians "needs to be replicated before I'd [Bailey] stake much on it" ("A Marker for Female Sexuality?").

Your article also states this:

Several studies of twins have suggested that homosexuality is partly genetic.

WHy do you think it doesn't name names them or explain from where the author gather his figures?

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic basis for homosexuality

As you can see the test lack consistant or correlation. If the matter were driven by genetics how could you have a 0% consistancy within the test :? ?

Male Female
Hershberger, 1997 0% 48%
Bailey et al., 2000 40% 0%
Kendler et al., 2000 28-65% (male & female combined)
Kirk et al., 2000 30% 50-60%

Then here is the review of the Bailey and Pillard's twins tests:

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/limitations.html#hamerincons

Bailey and Pillard's 1991 study is extremely biased and unreliable. The lack of randomness as well as the cooperation of only some of the family members makes the sample and thus the conclusions relevant only to a small group, as opposed to the homosexual population as a whole. Bailey and Pillard recruited subjects through homophile publications in the Mid- and Southwest. They interpreted the data they came up with-- specifically the similar concordance between adopted brothers and DZ twins-- in an effort to show the genetic basis of sexual orientation. "The fact that biological brothers and adopted brothers show the same incidence of homosexuality strongly suggests that it is entirely environmental in origin,...[but] Bailey and Pillard downplay this comparison" (McGuire 139).

the Rebuttle cont:

Sample Size

A large sample size is absolutely necessary to draw reasonably accurate generalizations from collected data. This is often very difficult when the characteristic being studied is "taboo behavior" (McGuire 118). Family studies involving parent-offspring relationships are practically impossible to complete, for "many homosexuals do not have children [and] those who do are hard to recruit" (129). Twin studies, particularly with Eckert's work, are very limited by the number of subjects participating. In his research, only six pairs of twins were studied. For a twin study, one would need thousands of pairs of twins for the sample size to be considered acceptable (121).

The same requirements fall upon researchers Heston and Shields who studied twelve male twin pairs, of which he found a 40% MZ concordance and 14.3% DZ concordance. As for Buhrich, Bailey, and Martin, analysis using a t-test was not only an inappropriate test considering the parameters of the study; the conclusions they drew were shadowed with doubt because they too had a small sample size (137-38). Even LeVay's work on INAH-3 is criticized for having an unacceptably limited sample size.

Another rebuttle:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm

The year 1995 marked beginning of the end of optimism for chromosome Xq28 as an indicator of male homosexuality. In this year Scientific American printed an article that mentioned the doubts in the scientific community over the genetics of homosexuality. LeVay’s findings, the article reports, “have yet to be fully replicated by another researcher†(Horgan, 1995). Also, one study contradicted Hamer’s results and Scientific American reported that he had “been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity,†which was basically a result of his excluding “pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his finding†(Horgan, 1995). This news report came in the November edition of the magazine, which was essentially presenting a retraction for the article the two scientists coauthored in 1994. Unfortunately for these two researchers, more bad news was to follow.

Science also reported that the study by Hamer was being questioned. A study by George Ebers and George Rice in 1995 indicated that “there is no reason to focus linkage studies on the X chromosome†and that there is “no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son†(Marshall, 1995). Although these researchers agreed with the possibility that homosexuality is inherited, they found no clear evidence to justify Hamer’s claims.

Finally, in 1999, George Rice and George Ebers published their data. In the April edition of Science, the scientists show that their results, “do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality†(Rice et al., 1999 and Wickelgren, 1999). They found that the gay brothers looked at by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. This officially sounded the death-knell for the optimism held by Hamer et al. and others looking in this region for the gene leading to homosexuality.

When the 1993 Science article was written, a precursory “Research News†article was written by Robert Pool in the same magazine to report the findings of the Hamer group. In this article, Pool writes, “The field of behavioral genetics is littered with apparent discoveries that were later called into question or retracted†(Pool, 1993). A statement could not be more prophetic.

Recently, no new news has been published about the “gay gene†that caused such a hubbub in 1992 and 1993. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. provides an excellent website discussing the problems of hasty publishing and over-simplification in connection with the gay gene. Also, the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) has a nice summary of the research on the gay gene. Other than this, the discussion of a gay gene, especially occuring in chromosome region Xq28, has ceased. This by no means implies that the discussion will not resume at some point in the near future, but no progress has been made recently. Unfortunately, even though the homosexual gene research was hyped by the media, the region of the X chromosome yields no functional proteins that relate to this study.

ouch. To bad it wasn't carier ending...

It appears at this time your webpage is proffering myths and deliberately avoiding presenting actual research to avoid being criticized. In short they have knowly lied wts to the impact of the Xq28 band.

Notice there is no mathmatical basis discussed within your webpage. It tells you how they determine various behaviors may have genetic ties but then fails to apply the same math to figures applied by tests.


I would like to add, as you can see within the material i have presented, the bulk of arguments against homosexual genetic predisposition are not religious in nature. Infact there have been fierce critizcisms of these supposed twin tests (many of which were clearly fabricated).

In it studies are cited (without reference unfortuneately) that seem conclusive (enough) to me. In regards to twins I'll post the relevant section:

Interesting they leave out supposed tests yet you assume it is convincing without even a basis to conclude anything.

There were also a number of explanations why homosexuality could have developed as a means of establishing social order and improved survivability of the population, not that this is necessary to be true for homosexuality to be a logical or acceptable practice for any given individual.

A number of arbitrary explanations which reside on evolutionary extrapolation. Considering the clear lack of reputability of this webpage and its complete lack of intellectual integrity i see no reason to further address its disproven misinformation.

Also if you want to discuss religious bias lets discuss homosexual bias:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm

The scientific findings began in 1991 when Simon LeVay, working at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, found subtle differences in the post-mortem brains of heterosexual and homosexual young men. (The majority of homosexual men also happened to have died from AIDS.) The cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 in the hypothalamus were reduced in size in homosexual men, much to the same degree that the same group of neurons is reduced in women. This region of the hypothalamus is also commonly thought of as participating in “the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior†(LeVay, 1991). LeVay, it should be noted, had strong personal reasons to pursue research in this area. A homosexual himself, he lost his partner of 21 years to AIDS. As was reported in a Newsweek cover-story in 1992, he felt that “. . . if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether†(Gelman et al., 1992). It may also be said that he was not working without the sense of scope of his project: “It’s important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.†Whether this personal interest affected his scientific practice is still left to be determined.

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/limitations.html#hamerincons

LeVay's study did not even reliably identify the sexual orientations of the subjects. The sixteen men and the six women included were "presumed heterosexual" (Ordover 128).

 

[Legion]

Just out of curiosity how do you reason one is "unnatural" and the other is natural?

behaviour that has to be learned is unnatural, behaviour that occurs without it being taught is natural.

Really? So are sexual positions natural or unnatural? What about other sexual behaviors? What about love?

 

[Sage]

Really? So are sexual positions natural or unnatural? What about other sexual behaviors? What about love?

I'm sorry I don't see why you're laughing. Sexual possitions are discovered naturally and don't have to be taught. Of course, some ARE really wacky and I doubt many people would ever discover them without direction. As for love, are you trying to say that love has to be taught?