<p>Haha, religious people.</p>
<p>
lol
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha</p>
<p>Some of the comments in this thread make one of the best arguments for ‘nature’ over ‘nurture’… with such homophobic and ignorant people about, why would anyone choose to be gay?</p>
<p>
Oh, the joys of being at a top college. I don’t have to be around people who think this way and can’t even support their claims. Ugh.</p>
<p>Anyway, straight people can have sex with members of the same sex all they want but that isn’t going to change their INNER SEXUAL PREFERENCE for the opposite sex. A straight guy could have sex with the hottest man in the world and still not be attracted primarily to men. If you’re a guy, do you think that if you have sex with Brad Pitt (or someone ridiculously good-looking), you will turn gay? /rolls eyes</p>
<p>
Umm, that’s all you’re going to say? Where’s your support? You’re basically admitting you have none.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>where is the support.? shame on you for saying that
tsk tsk</p>
<p>
Gay men could get married to women because of social pressures they feel and even become sufficiently aroused about sex in general to create children but this DOESN’T CHANGE THE FACT THAT, like I said before, THEIR INNER SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS STILL FOR MEN. No wonder a lot of them cheat on their wives to have sex with men later on (i.e. Ted Haggard). The sexual desire for men is STILL THERE.</p>
<p>
Incorrect. Identical twins don’t have to be both homosexual for homosexuality to have a genetic basis. </p>
<p>According to the New York Times, “if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, one would expect identical twins to share sexual orientation more than fraternal twins, and that is indeed the case. An identical twin of a gay person is about twice as likely to be gay as a fraternal twin would be.”</p>
<p>Another one of the many studies described in the NY Times that show a genetic link to homosexuality:
*“Men typically have a ring finger that is longer than the index finger, while in women the two are about the same length. However, two studies have suggested that lesbians have finger-length ratios that are more like those of men than of women.”</p>
<p>"Studies suggest that ring-finger length has to do with the level of androgens in the womb, and that may help explain another puzzle of homosexuality: a male is more likely to be gay if he has older brothers. It doesn’t matter if he has older sisters, but for each older brother he is about 33 percent more likely to be gay. Some scientists speculate that a woman’s body adjusts the androgen level in her womb as she has more sons, and that the androgens interact with genes to produce homosexuality."*
[Gay</a> At Birth? - New York Times](<a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7D91231F936A15753C1A9659C8B63]Gay”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7D91231F936A15753C1A9659C8B63)</p>
<p>
Should be banned by the government? You’re basically suggesting a theocracy, which should never happen in a free country like America.</p>
<p>
Desire to be different? Why do you think there are so many closet cases if these gay people wanted to make their homosexuality known? Have you been living under a rock? Sure, people participate in the pride parade, but their doing so is to celebrate the fact that they overcame social pressures fueled by people like you and actually managed not to kill themselves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you really this immature to put words that I never said into my mouth? I ignored that comment the first time because people who’ve read this thread know you made it up anyway.</p>
<p>dude
get over your it</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm…no-one cares about the minority right? That’s the exact kind of BS, whites could use with blacks in the eighteenth century. They’re are the effing minority, who the hell cares about them? Aren’t homosexuals a minority? Yea, who should care about them right? No-one gives an isht right? Dud, what are you talking about???</p>
<p>IDK ,if women started giving birth to only homosexual people…how soon would we die out? How would every be happy? Dude…coe on…make some sense por favor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm…I just posted for the convenience of everyone here, so they wouldn’t have to continually press links. Bombard you with a site? I think I posted it once, then I posted it again. Bombardment huh? sorry. Ummm…no one said you couldn’t post articles from liberal sites. What are you getting at. As long as their’s proof and support and not just pure BS, then I’m cool with it. I think you keep looking past the fact that ALMOST EVERY SINGLE thing I posted was supported by research and some kind of evidence. So if that’s what the liberal articles are about, by all means post them!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I mean by choice, is that I believe that homosexuality is not determined prior to birth. With the contribution of many different environmental, familial, and possibly biological factors, they choose to be homosexual. The biological factors that I’m speaking of and that were referred to earlier are just a correlation between homosexuality and their bodies. The fact that homos have bigger pen!ses may have a correlation, but that does not any under circumstances prove causation, which was what I am getting at. I mean I believe it’s possible that the different brain differences that Aristotle referred me to are very possible, since I don’t believe that homosexuals think the same way as heterosexuals, or else we would be exactly alike.</p>
<p>That’s my opinion. Happy?</p>
<p>And overwhelming evidence? YES, overwhelming. When it was first proven accepted that homosexuals were caused because of genetics, the study was quickly disproved by a couple scientists. The disprovement was agreed upon by the scientific society. Since then there has been a lot of biased research trying to find a way to say that homosexuality is caused by a person’s genes. They have not come up with any solid proof at all. They have found many correlation and such, but have no come up with any scientifically approved proof that shows their correlation is causation. They are still researching and I am sure everyone in the world will hear about it, when they actually do find proof, just like how the false claim by kinsey in the early 90s was world wide news, before it was taken down. do you understand what I mean by overwhelming evidence now?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Supporting my opinion with reason and SOMETIMES facts? Are you serious? Just because it is your opinion that gays do not get to choose their sexual orientation, does not mean that it’s true. You want REASON, rather than facts? Are you serious? Then homophobic people have a perfect reason to come on to this thread bash the fact that homosexuals are a thread to society and all that BS, and then have their proof be the bible. you want that? Go ahead and take it. I posted proof and facts for what i believe. You can do the same. Opinion does not ever matter if it’s not supported by any facts. that’s what most people tell everyone religious. Because religion says this, does not mean evolution is correct, because religion says this, does not mean homosexuality is a choice. Opinion only matters to the one holding it. facts are what matter to the rest of society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dude, that’s the only thing I have been saying from the beginning of this thread and you agree with me. That’s all I wanted to hear. that is the ONLY thing I was telling everyone. Thank you for making tat clear. Now why were you arguing with me this entire time if you agree?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm.wanted to know who was even massacred more? Want to know a bigger group of people forced into concentration camps? the Jews. And being Jewish is by Pure choice. It’s not like you were born a a Jew and that it was because of genetics that yo are Jewish. You know what? They still said they were jewish even after how many millions of them were killed. Dude, just because homosexuals were massacred by Hitler, does not mean they did not choose to be homosexuals. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are biased. How in the world do people say “why would anyone choose to be gay/” Ummm…I don’t know? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE SAME SEX. Are you people going to keep saying why in the world would they want to be homosexuals? Are you really serious? They choose to be gay because they like the same sex. I mean isn’t that what homosexuality is? WOW…that’s like saying why were you a jew during Hitler’s time…ummm…IDK maybe because they believed in Judaism. people aren’t so stupid as to just disprove what they believe because a stupid group of people don’t believe in them. I would like to say I had some decent evidence as well…but I’m guessing your like everyone else and just looked at 3 things and disproved the rest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ummmmmm…uhhh?</p>
<p>And you know how to PROVE their inner feeling correct? Like those aren’t just claims as well…WOW…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Am I correct or incorrect in saying that identical twins have 100% the same genetics? I mean there might be an insanely tiny minority that’s like 99.(% but it’s a well known fact of life that Identical twins have the same damn genes.</p>
<p>“In a recent Australian study of more than 14,000 identical twins by Bailey, Martin and the University of Queensland, it was found that 38 percent of identical male twins were gay and 30 percent of identical female twins lesbian. Identical twins means identical genes - if homosexuality truly is genetically caused, then the number of identical twins that are both homosexual should be at 100 percent. Even if some people were stifling their homosexuality, the results should still put them very close to 100 percent. There are other studies that replicate the same results - the percent of identical twins that are both homosexual is usually much less than 50 percent. Or at close to 50%, but rarely above that”</p>
<p>I would like to see any other study that uses 14,000 people that proves that it’s genetic. You want to know how many people Kinsey used when he found out his theory? Yea…like 200</p>
<p>And in the scientific world, evidence from 14,000 > 200.</p>
<p>Duckedtape…sanjenferrer is Gay…I seriously doubt he would say that.</p>
<p>And that religious stuff posted earlier? I appreciate the help, but that has no basis here, so no-one should even care about what he wrote.</p>
<p>no problem sheed</p>
<p>no problem with out with what? :)</p>
<p>You are born a homosexual, unless your environment is like that of Sparta.</p>
<p>/end thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sheed,
I expect something better from you. You still haven’t quite articulated the word “choose”. None of my gay/lesbian friends would tell me they “choose” to be attracted to people of the same sex because it’s a trendy thing to do. 
Try it again?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. Hey man, we’ve already been here. From post #40:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Plain and simple. Homosexuality’s an abomination, just like eating shellfish, cursing one’s parents, shaving, eating pork, sleeping with a woman on her period, wearing clothes of mixed fibers, and sowing two different crops in the same field. They’re all in the same moral category. Either be consistent or stop calling homosexuality an abomination.</p>
<p>The science has already been presented in posts #40, #46, #51, #67, #76, #81, #86, and #147. There is little left in thread but name-calling and appeals to the Bible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sheed, that’s not the point. I’m not saying that pen1s size causes homosexuality. The fact that homosexuals possess differences in an immutable natural (pre-natal) characteristic and the others presented elsewhere proves that there is something biologically different between heterosexuals and homosexuals. This biological difference cannot be due to the environment.</p>
<p>Hokay, so I told myself I’d stay away from this thread and do my homework instead. But after another peek , I decided to rejoin the madness.</p>
<p>Let’s start with my views:
I think homosexuality is biological.
I am a Christian. I go to church on Sundays. I read the Bible.<br>
OMG–does that make me a sinner? Not anymore than you, if you’re wearing leather shoes and a cotton shirt, or had fish for dinner this week, or your mom’s garden has asparagus RIGHT NEXT TO the tomatoes.<br>
I think the last few pages of this argument have been spammed a bit by those who haven’t actually read through all the posts. So I’m going to create a lovely list of arguments and counter-arguments. And yeah, I believe homosexuality is biological, so that’s what my arguments will summarize.</p>
<p>Also, there seem to be two types of “Gay is a choice” arguments–religious belief and, well, Sheed. I’ll try and get at both. (Sorry in advance for the novel!)</p>
<p>Misconception 1) Homosexuality is a sin.
Watch that West Wing episode posted on here a while ago. Or just the paragraph I wrote above. I highly doubt God thinks wearing two fabrics at once is a sin, but the people of ancient Babylonia did. The Bible is a fairly good glimpse into the culture of Jesus’ time and shortly thereafter, but that doesn’t mean it’s God’s word. Because if it was, we’d all be pretty screwed. There’s more to the Bible than we see, anyway. The Dead Sea Scrolls were on exhibit at a local museum a year or two ago near me, and theologians agree that there are lost gospels. Why would these gospels not be included? Because religion and government were inextricable in Jesus’ time and for a long time following. Condemning certain acts as sinful was a he.ll (whoops, bad choice of word) of a lot easier than merely making them unlawful. </p>
<p>2) Homosexuality is the result of attention-seeking rebels.
Sheed shot down my anecdotal evidence, as did a few others. But let me use some evidence from ancient Babylonia, where the idea of homosexuality being sinful arose (since, in Roman times, it was perfectly acceptable. In fact, the “perfect relationship” was considered to be two males, one older and one younger.). Sinners were stoned back then. And yet, there were still homosexuals. There was no “We love y’all” mentality that America projects (although that’s obviously not the case, which this thread so perfectly encapsulates). But people still committed homosexual acts. But I guess having rocks hurled at your head was totally “cool” and “rebellious.”</p>
<p>3) If homosexuality is genetic, why are there instances of twins where one is gay and one is straight?
According to research that others have graciously posted, homosexuality is not solely isolated on a gene or solely based on hormones in a mother’s womb. It’s a combination. And as my advanced knowledge of Biology shares with me (haha I’m a high school freshman, that was totally a joke. But I was on Science Olympiad.), identical twins are not IDENTICAL. What pair of twins thinks exactly the same, has the exact same pattern of innate characteristics? None. In some cases, it’s eye color or natural intelligence or whether Sheila and Nicole are attracted to jocks or to bookworms. In other instances, it’s the sexuality that expresses itself differently. But as other posters have said, it’s more likely for twins to both be gay than for another combination of siblings to be the same.
Also, in regards to the correlation/causation argument, my PhD in Bio 
tells me that genes interact based on how close to one another they are on the chromosomal homologs. The fact that “manly” finger lengths is expressed more frequently in lesbians than in straight women indicates that there is a genetic location for each characteristic.</p>
<p>3) Homosexuality is a choice, just like being a Jew in the Holocaust.
Hitler pinpointed Jews based on their genealogy, not on whether or not they were practicing Judaism. He used lists from synagogues to pinpoint those of Jewish heritage. In Anne Frank, the family that roomed with them did not practice their religion extensively but nonetheless were on Hitler’s “list.” Hitler’s idea of Judaism was that it was racial, which makes it innate and unchangeable.</p>
<p>4) What about people who change their sexuality?
What about the girl who dated a football star, then a bookworm, then another jock? It’s about experimentation to find what “clicks.” It’s difficult to decipher one’s feelings in a world where there are so many expectations. My gay aunt (yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but it’s perfectly valid, Sheed, unless you have statistical evidence to prove this contrary) had plenty of boyfriends before acknowledging her sexuality. I know people who had strong feelings for one member of the opposite sex but as a whole, felt a connection to the opposite sex. And for those in households that condemn homosexuality, it’s a choice: be loved by your family, or acknowledge love those you’re naturally attracted to.
See, what IS a choice is acknowledging sexuality. What’s not a choice is innately containing a certain sexuality. My gay aunt “decided” to be gay the same day I “decided” to be straight.</p>
<p>5) God made a man and a woman (rssll5)/ Gay families are incapable parents.
I wrote this earlier, but God also made barren women and infertile men. He also made divorce(e)s and single parents. Not being society’s ideal nuclear family (aka the Brady Bunch haha) does not condemn a family to incapability. Like I said earlier, Sheed, the same statistics of children experiencing psychological problems was probably true for those of interracial families in the Civil Rights era. That doesn’t make those psychological problems the families’ problem, but rather the problem of societal norms and restrictions, which are largely the result of our society being based on Christian principles.</p>
<p>"</p>
<p>And overwhelming evidence? YES, overwhelming. When it was first proven accepted that homosexuals were caused because of genetics, the study was quickly disproved by a couple scientists. The disprovement was agreed upon by the scientific society. Since then there has been a lot of biased research trying to find a way to say that homosexuality is caused by a person’s genes. They have not come up with any solid proof at all. They have found many correlation and such, but have no come up with any scientifically approved proof that shows their correlation is causation. They are still researching and I am sure everyone in the world will hear about it, when they actually do find proof, just like how the false claim by kinsey in the early 90s was world wide news, before it was taken down. do you understand what I mean by overwhelming evidence now?
"</p>
<p>Um. Really? So all pro-biological arguments are biased? And the studies you posted are perfect rebuttals to such biased arguments?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to pedantically point out a few misconceptions here (though I agree with your general point). There’s nothing wrong with wearing leather shoes and a cotton shirt together. The commandment applies to fibers mixed within a single garment; e.g., a shirt 50% linen and 50% woolen would be forbidden. There’s nothing wrong with “fish,” but there is something wrong with non-scaly fish (monkfish) and shellfish (crab, lobster). But your last example is perfectly apposite.</p>
<p>By the way, as a (formerly religious) Jew myself, religious Jews actually do adhere to most of the biblical commandments Christians have long since forgotten ([url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaatnez]shatnez[/url”>Shatnez - Wikipedia]shatnez[/url</a>] among them, as strange as it sounds). But even they are not perfect, and have devised intricate rationalizations as to why stoning people to death is forbidden (they have to do with the fact that Israel is no longer the “Holy Land,” but in my opinion this is a cop-out). At least they deal with the bothersome issue that the Bible prescribes death or lashes or exile for a lot of commonplace things, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not at all. It just came out that way, my bad. There are obviously biases all around. My fault, man.</p>
<p>Anyways, that was an amazing post by glasses. That was a fairly accurate post of a few of the things we have been arguing about. Thanks for posting that. Even though I still disagree with your end result .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but are you saying that identical twins don’t have a 100% match of genes? (aside from anomalies) </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050709/fob1.asp[/url]”>http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050709/fob1.asp</a> (That’s from science news…I hope that’s a fine source for you guys). It says the reason for differences between these twins are caused from the Environment! yes, Environment! The study has nothing to do with homosexuals at all, just genes of anyone in general.</p>
<p>This site is from the psychology department of the University of Minnesota: <a href=“Home | Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research”>Home | Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research;
<p>And it says :
</p>
<p>This site i from the tech…a respectable site i believe: <a href=“http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=142[/url]”>http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=142</a></p>
<p>It also brings up that nurture differentiates between identical twins.</p>
<p>Okay this is from medicine net: <a href=“http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53949[/url]”>http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53949</a></p>
<p>It says here that “identical twins are called monozygotic which do share the same genes and chromosomes.”</p>
<p>sciencedaily: <a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0711-identical_twins_identical_problems.htm[/url]”>http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0711-identical_twins_identical_problems.htm</a></p>
<p>they say that "They look the same … sound the same … and share the same genetic code. "</p>
<p>wikipedia: <a href=“Twin - Wikipedia”>Twin - Wikipedia;
<p>yea…I know not reliable but whatever…</p>
<p>So the majority are basically saying that identical twins have the exact same genes, but that the environment they live in is what makes them different. Which is how it comes to play with why homosexuality is a choice. Let us just say that 50% of the time twins are both homosexual. That’s like how some of the people on this site say that 50% genetics and 50% environment determines who you are and what you become. 50% environment! There’ that 50% of homosexuals with twins…I don’t even know if that makes any sense at all…sorry…</p>
<p>O yea…and what about old Spitzer!</p>
<pre><code>"In a subsequent study where he investigated the claims of former homosexuals, Dr Spitzer concluded there was credible evidence that change was possible and that the homosexuality trait was not fixed. In an interview, he had said that those who denied change was possible “have not been honest and (have not) taken the time to do the research”.
A disservice is done to the public by not disclosing the real state of affairs * good corporate governance calls for accuracy and transparency in media reporting so that it can better serve the people of Singapore.
</code></pre>
<p>Robert Spitzer was instrumental in 1973 in convincing the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to drop the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness.</p>
<p>That proves that he isn’t a homophobic psycho or anything like that he IS THE MAIN DOCTOR THAT TOOK HOMOSEXUALITY OUT OF MENTAL ILLNESS!
And while many disagree with him and don’t accept his research, it is correct that no-on else has done the research to scientifically disprove what he has done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s their choice to be gay: MEANING, that they are sexually attracted to the same sex more than the opposite sex. That’s all their choice is. they like one gender more than the other. Just like I choose to be sexually attracted to women instead of men, they do the same. I am attracted to women, they are attracted to men, simple as that!</p>
<p>Uhh…I definitely believe that it’s biological.</p>
<p>Please find me a gay person who loves being harassed for being gay. Please, do that.</p>
<p>I am attracted to both sexes, and I could choose to stop saying that I am, but I could not choose to stop being attracted to both.</p>