Homosexuality - Is It Right?

[blazedaces]

Pluvia, I don't care what your friend has to say on the subject. What makes his word any better then mine? Anecdotal evidence has no place in a serious debate.

Check out this source I dug up from an old debate on homosexuals raising kids (that I posted back then):

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL1W0903.pdf

VII. Can Homosexuals Change?
If it can be shown that practicing lifetime homosexuals do change their sexual orientation,
this is a devastating blow to the homosexual movement. This is what research reveals:

• Schwartz and Masters (of the 1984 Masters and Johnson’s Institute Report) revealed
a 79.9% success rate of homosexuals changing their sexual orientation to
heterosexuality. Their five-year follow-up rate was an impressive 71.6%.3
• Dr. van den Aardweg (1986) reported a 65% success rate.4
• Joe Dallas, President of Exodus International, noted the following:

The fact remains that there are many people who are homosexual and are dissatisfied
with their orientation and for those people who want to change, help is available. Now, that is
not just one man’s opinion here. We know that from the writings of Masters and Johnson,
Charles Socarides, Irving Bieber, Dr. Elizabeth Moberly, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. Dr. Lawrence
Hatterer, just to name a few.5

• Dr. Nicolosi stated:
I have worked with about 175 men to date and I can say in terms of claims of cure that
when the men stay with me, in a matter of months they begin to experience change in their
life.6

Thus:
About half as many people are ex-gays as [are] possessed by the homosexual habit.
Many exhomosexuals are involved in Homosexuals Anonymous or the host of other
programs that work to cure homosexuality. Just like Alcoholics Anonymous, not everyone
who attends these programs is cured. As with alcoholism, it is essential that once stopped
the habit never be fed, and there are those who regress. Abandoning homosexual habits,
like quitting drinking, can be done and is done by tens of thousands each year. Breaking
homosexual habits without the assistance of religious involvement is more problematic, but
even conventional psychotherapy claims about a 30% cure rate.7

If many different researchers over the years have seen thousands of homosexuals
change to heterosexuality and if this has been personally attested to by the homosexuals
themselves and their spouses, on what basis can any individual claim that homosexuals
can never change?

According to the Guttmacher Institute no more than 6% of adults had any same sex
experiences. In addition, less than 1% of adults were exclusively homosexual. What this
means is that 5% of adults with previous same sex experiences were no longer homosexual.
Isn’t it significant that 5% of those who have tried homosexuality are now ex-homosexuals?
In other words, this means there are actually more ex-homosexuals than there
are homosexuals.

In the 1983 Family Research Institute survey of 4,340 adults:
• 82% of those currently lesbian and 66% of those currently gay said that they had
been in love with someone of the opposite sex,
• 67% of lesbians and 54% of gays reported current sexual attractions to the opposite
sex,
• 85% of lesbians and 54% of gays, as adults, had sexual relations with someone of
the opposite sex.

It would thus seem there are more people who have tried and left homosexuality than
those who remain homosexuals.8

Irving Bieber asserts, “We have followed some patients for as long as 10 years who
have remained exclusively heterosexual.”9 Describing two books he has edited, Fantasy,
Reality and the Creative Arts and The Homosexualities in the Therapeutic Process, Dr.
Socarides observes, “These two books contain the work of over 30 psychoanalysis—
eminent teachers and psychoanalysis and medical men throughout this country—and they
all attest to the fact that homosexuality is a psychopathological condition that can be altered
if someone knows how to alter it.”10

Actual evidence, with reliable numbers CLEARLY showing that AT LEAST an environmental influence exists.

-blazed

Edit: The link has been fixed, my bad...

 

[SuperBowser]

Seriously you should check your sources. I can almost guarantee the study is from some weird christian group (the link didn't work so I can't check) and half the article used the Family Research Institute. Read their main page and you'll see why they are useless for citing

 

[Pluvia's other account]

The link never worked.

 

[cman]

According to the Guttmacher Institute no more than 6% of adults had any same sex
experiences. In addition, less than 1% of adults were exclusively homosexual. What this
means is that 5% of adults with previous same sex experiences were no longer homosexual.
Isn’t it significant that 5% of those who have tried homosexuality are now ex-homosexuals?
In other words, this means there are actually more ex-homosexuals than there
are homosexuals.

In the 1983 Family Research Institute survey of 4,340 adults:

I'm very inclined to ignore your argument altogther for two reasons:

1) The Guttmacher Institute assumes that the 5% of people who have not been exclusively homosexual were originally gay then became straight. This is so obviously false because many people are bi-sexual. Either they worded the explaination terribly, made an illogical conclusion, or deliberately lied. In all cases, that makes this institute, and any statistics produced by it, a questionable source.

2) The FRI is so rediculously biased that it should never be included if you want your argument to hold weight.

These were the only two that i looked closely at, and saw problems with both, so be more careful to choose reputable and well-known sources when citing next time.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I don't see how someone who has tried a homosexual act and never liked it, are known as ex-homosexuals. Why did they jump to that conclusion? They're probably just heterosexuals who have tried a gay act and not liked it.

EDIT:

Also I'm reading this Family Research Institute site, and they're extremely biased.

 

[AltF4]

His link was cut off with a "..."

I dug around in that place's website structure and found the full link for you:


http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL1W0903.pdf

EDIT: ****, it still cuts off the middle of the link when I post it.

Here is the whole thing piece by piece:

http://www.ankerberg.com/
Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life
SL1W0903.pdf

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Right, after reading through that last page, I realised, what does any of this have to do with the point of this topic?

 

[blazedaces]

My bad guys, the link has been fixed.

Oh and by the way, you're all still assuming that homosexuality and heterosexuality is genetically based. If you STOP assuming that for one second you'd see that what was said made sense written by the institution. If you define homosexuality as simply being able to enjoy sex with a same-sex partner then all those people "tried" homosexuality and then after some time decided against it.

I know I had posted another link in that thread with a much more robust source that seemed more reliable than this one.

Still, I don't think you can ignore everything said in that source. You can't possibly deny that the environment can't influence your sexual orientation at all.

-blazed

 

[Pluvia's other account]

EDIT:

Actually, scratch that.

 

[SuperBowser]

Your definition of homsexuality is wrong. Not debatable.

I mentioned environment already. It may be involved in establishing your orientation but that is all. The same way environment can play a role in hundreds of conditions. But it is nothing to do with changing orientation, which is what we are discussing. The word choice is very misleading the way you are using it.

The study you gave is useless. If this were any other medical condition it would be discarded without a second thought. Why should it have any credibility here?

edit: yeah, i guess this is off topic, so i'll stop........

 

[cman]

My bad guys, the link has been fixed.

Oh and by the way, you're all still assuming that homosexuality and heterosexuality is genetically based. If you STOP assuming that for one second you'd see that what was said made sense written by the institution. If you define homosexuality as simply being able to enjoy sex with a same-sex partner then all those people "tried" homosexuality and then after some time decided against it.

I know I had posted another link in that thread with a much more robust source that seemed more reliable than this one.

Still, I don't think you can ignore everything said in that source. You can't possibly deny that the environment can't influence your sexual orientation at all.

-blazed

You are making the exact same mistake that the institution did. It does not specify that those 5% had a homosexual encounter first, then switched to hetero. There are several other possible scenarios. They might have tried hetero first, then switched to exclusively gay. There also might have been hetero and homo relationships mixed in because that person is bisexual.

"According to the Guttmacher Institute no more than 6% of adults had any same sex
experiences. In addition, less than 1% of adults were exclusively homosexual."

Note that it does not specify the order or frequency of the relationships of those 5% who had both types of relationships.

Also note that I am not in any way assuming anything at all. You don't even know what my stance is on the issue, for I am merely pointing out faults in their argument, while making none of my own. Stop trying to prop up a bad argument with the trite expression "You are looking at it wrong."

And yes, bad sources mean i can, in fact, completely ignore everything they had to say.

 

[blazedaces]

You are making the exact same mistake that the institution did. It does not specify that those 5% had a homosexual encounter first, then switched to hetero. There are several other possible scenarios. They might have tried hetero first, then switched to exclusively gay. There also might have been hetero and homo relationships mixed in because that person is bisexual.

"According to the Guttmacher Institute no more than 6% of adults had any same sex
experiences. In addition, less than 1% of adults were exclusively homosexual."

Note that it does not specify the order or frequency of the relationships of those 5% who had both types of relationships.

This again has everything to do with how the institution or the source define homosexuality. If it is simply defined as someone who enjoys sex with a same-sex partner the statement isn't reporting anything incorrectly.

Also note that I am not in any way assuming anything at all. You don't even know what my stance is on the issue, for I am merely pointing out faults in their argument, while making none of my own. Stop trying to prop up a bad argument with the trite expression "You are looking at it wrong."

I didn't say your name. I referred to anyone arguing against the article.

And yes, bad sources mean i can, in fact, completely ignore everything they had to say.

You need to prove the source is faulty first, and it's certainly possible it is.

This is the only other source I posted in the last thread: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html

I apologize that it's from the family research institute, if that is too biased a source. It's still putting actual percentages and referencing actual studies on the subject.

Even if you disagree with my sources the burden of proof is still on any of you to prove that there's any genetic influence on sexual preference.

If there is none, that means the only influence is environmental. I already gave a simple example where one could make the choice to become homosexual. I never said it was something that could be done overnight. The change is gradual and complicated, but it's possible. That's my point.

Again, I ask, why is preference of food, favorite color, sexual fetishes, etc. any different from preference of what gender one enjoys having sex with?

-blazed

Edit:

Your definition of homsexuality is wrong. Not debatable.

Wtf bowser? A definition can't be wrong. That doesn't even make sense. I can define anything in any way I please. The better question is how is homosexuality defined by most standards: "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex" (from dictionary.com).

 

[cman]

This again has everything to do with how the institution or the source define homosexuality. If it is simply defined as someone who enjoys sex with a same-sex partner the statement isn't reporting anything incorrectly.

No, its still a logical fallacy no matter how you define it.

Let me put this as simply as possible.

Info they have: 5% of adults have had a homosexual and heterosexual relationship.

Conclusion drawn: Therefore of the 6% that tried homosexuality, 83% then switched back to heterosexuality.

While this is a possible conclusion, there are other possible conclusions which fit the data.

Possible situations:
-Some had straight sex first, then stayed gay.
-Some have gay and straight sex still (aka bi-sexual).
-Some had gay sex, then stayed straight.

You can't just pick one.

 

[SuperBowser]

I checked the front page of the topic and realised this is for all gay discussions...

The definition of homosexuality you are using is poor and has no basis for a scientific study -_- If I kiss a guy for a dare do I become gay?! I'm pretty sure in psychiatry only desire is used. If you want to use the other definition of course anyone can become gay any time they like. The discussion would end here. (And no, you can't just define things how you like because then I could no longer speak meaningful english with you.)

I think cman gave you more than enough proof your source is useless. The fact he found so many holes just at face value speaks volumes about the study. They didn't even get the initial premise of defining homosexuality right. Normally you need to read the methodology section before you find faults.

You are mixing terms up and it was confusing me earlier. What you are suggesting is nothing to do with environment. You are talking about behavioural modification. It is currently accepted scientific fact that behavioural modification cannot change sexuality. Some things are hard wired into our brains. All evidence points to sexuality (link below) being as such and the burden of proof is on you if you think otherwise.

If you want proof that genetics plays a role (you don't have to look very hard) here's one source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm. It has a good explanation and contains links to seven different studies.

Here's a robust source that answers most of discussion (The American Psychology Association): http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31

EDIT: A few quotes:

''What Is Sexual Orientation?
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).''

''Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.''

''Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's
opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias.''

 

[arrowhead]

The definition of homosexuality you are using is poor and has no basis for a scientific study -_- If I kiss a guy for a dare do I become gay?! I'm pretty sure in psychiatry only desire is used. If you want to use the other definition of course anyone can become gay any time they like. The discussion would end here. (And no, you can't just define things how you like because then I could no longer speak meaningful english with you.)

you forgot the "enjoy" part of his definition

You are mixing terms up and it was confusing me earlier. What you are suggesting is nothing to do with environment. You are talking about behavioural modification. It is currently accepted scientific fact that behavioural modification cannot change sexuality. Some things are hard wired into our brains. All evidence points to sexuality (link below) being as such and the burden of proof is on you if you think otherwise.

behavioral modification IS environmentally influenced...

If you want proof that genetics plays a role (you don't have to look very hard) here's one source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm. It has a good explanation and contains links to seven different studies.

Here's a robust source that answers most of discussion (The American Psychology Association): http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31

sorry, short on time so i didn't read the sources

 

[Pluvia's other account]

sorry, short on time so i didn't read the sources

Just read what he said below then.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, your "hypothetical situation" does not work. It's essentially the same instance in prison when inmates, who are straight, have sex with other men because a. they have urges, and b. that's all they can get at the time.

Sex does not dictate orientation. A completely straight man can have and enjoy sex with another completely straight man and both remain straight. Now, others may think differently, but it's a fact. Sex is a fairly enjoyable experience, so as long as the proper organs are stimulated, pleasure will be derived, regardless of gender or attraction to the person.

 

[arrowhead]

how do you define homosexuality, crimson?

 

[Pluvia's other account]

how do you define homosexuality, crimson?

I think he defines it as being sexually attracted to the same sex.

 

[arrowhead]

I think he defines it as being sexually attracted to the same sex.

by that you mean if a guy has sex with another guy without hitting the "proper organs" and still likes it, he's gay; otherwise, he's straight? sounds reasonable.

superbowser's first source: some of the studies seem like they support sexual orientation being genetically influenced to a degree., but i might be ignorant of some errors and stuff. the identical twins study was not so good. the environment of the twins in the womb is virtually the same, which is supposed to be the independent variable in this case. but both variables are basically controls. nothing is really tested.

 

[Crimson King]

No. It's quite possible to have sex with a person you are not attracted to. Millions of American married couples do it daily.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

by that you mean if a guy has sex with another guy without hitting the "proper organs" and still likes it, he's gay; otherwise, he's straight? sounds reasonable.

It's hard to tell if you're being serious or sarcastic here.

What I meant is being sexually attracted to the same sex. You can have sex with the same sex, but not be sexually attracted to them, therefore you would be straight. You don't have to be attracted to someone to have sex with them.

 

[arrowhead]

No. It's quite possible to have sex with a person you are not attracted to. Millions of American married couples do it daily.

i never said anything against this

It's hard to tell if you're being serious or sarcastic here.

no i was serious

 

[SuperBowser]

superbowser's first source: some of the studies seem like they support sexual orientation being genetically influenced to a degree., but i might be ignorant of some errors and stuff. the identical twins study was not so good. the environment of the twins in the womb is virtually the same, which is supposed to be the independent variable in this case. but both variables are basically controls. nothing is really tested.

Yes, but it shows that genetics does play a part. No one ever suggested that it is 100% one way or the other - you'd be stupid to do that. The monozygotic twin study is more than enough for for what I wanted to prove. Most (natural) conditions of the human mind have an environmental and genetic part. A nice example is personality.

I'll say it for the third time - environment in the sense it is being used here is irrelevant to what blazedaces is suggesting. Just because something is an environmental factor doesn't mean you have a choice (which seems to be the main argument). Radon radiation is something I can't do anything about but I have an increased risk for cancer in some areas of England because of it. You are suggesting behavioural modification. This is not environmental or genetic. It has its own name. Look it up. Call a duck a duck. If you interchange terms all the time, the discussion is pointless. APA uses the terms I stated from the beginning, so I'm not imposing unreasonable rules here.

Personally, I feel the term you are using for homosexuality is outdated and only really propagated by people who don't understand/bible thumpers anymore. I've been using orientation for a lot of my posts because of this as well. It was the old definition of homosexuality when people still assumed it was a deviant behaviour that could be corrected (there's plenty to read about if you want...). In the past few decades, it's become widely accepted that homosexuality is not just a behavioural trait (if it was, these conversion therapies would work); it is much deeper than that.

Another problem with your definition - what happens with teenagers that haven't had sex? Are they asexual, but magically change after sex? I knew what orientation I was long before I went out with someone and I also know it's not something I can change.

EDIT: forgot the main reason I brought up the genetic studies! The fact that a genetic factor exists makes implies there is an irreversible change to the brain. No amount of behavioural modification will change this if this is the case.

 

[arrowhead]

Yes, but it shows that genetics does play a part. No one ever suggested that it is 100% one way or the other - you'd be stupid to do that. The monozygotic twin study is more than enough for for what I wanted to prove. Most (natural) conditions of the human mind have an environmental and genetic part. A nice example is personality.

how does it show genetics plays a part? both the genes and the environment were controls, so the effects could have been genetic, environment, or both. we wouldn't know.

I'll say it for the third time - environment in the sense it is being used here is irrelevant to what blazedaces is suggesting. Just because something is an environmental factor doesn't mean you have a choice (which seems to be the main argument).

no, we aren't arguing whether or not it's a conscious choice (i don't think it is anyways). we're arguing that it's environmentally influenced

Another problem with your definition - what happens with teenagers that haven't had sex? Are they asexual, but magically change after sex? I knew what orientation I was long before I went out with someone and I also know it's not something I can change.

i'll assume you're talking about the definition i came up with when trying to understand crimson's view. i never said the orientation is chosen at the time of sex, but that the reaction to the sex is an observation you can use to determine the orientation of the person.

EDIT: forgot the main reason I brought up the genetic studies! The fact that a genetic factor exists makes implies there is an irreversible change to the brain. No amount of behavioural modification will change this if this is the case.

it's not a fact yet, but i'm starting to agree that genetics do have some influence. but you're under the misconception that a trait irreversible only if it's genetic.

 

[SuperBowser]

how does it show genetics plays a part? both the genes and the environment were controls, so the effects could have been genetic, environment, or both. we wouldn't know.

What are you talking about? The sources I've given are pretty clear. If you can't be bothered to read what I've given (second time - monozygotic twin studies show a clear genetic component) I can't be bothered to discuss any more with you. If you don't understand the study and its results... that's not my fault.

I've explained enough times what an environmental factor is and why it is nothing to do with changing orientation. Stop ignoring it.

The genetic component to homosexuality is a fact. Whether or not you read it in this forum doesn't change that.

You haven't refuted anything by the APA either. imo the discussions ends here unless you you do so (did you even read it?).

 

[RDK]

People are honestly arguing that sexual orientation isn't genetic?

 

[arrowhead]

What are you talking about? The sources I've given are pretty clear. If you can't be bothered to read what I've given (second time - monozygotic twin studies show a clear genetic component) I can't be bothered to discuss any more with you. If you don't understand the study and its results... that's not my fault.

why dont you actually read what i wrote instead of just saying "youre wrong". heres what the article had to say about the stidy on twins: "Another problem is that identical twins share the same environment... for the 9 months prior to birth. Thus, if there is a environmental factor which determines sexual orientation, it might work on the fetus before birth."

the study would be much more convincing if the zygotes were separated into different wombs.

I've explained enough times what an environmental factor is and why it is nothing to do with changing orientation. Stop ignoring it.

what exactly do you define environmental factors as?

The genetic component to homosexuality is a fact. Whether or not you read it in this forum doesn't change that.

its not a fact yet; they havent found the genes. i do think genetics play a role, but i believe environmental factors play a larger role when determining sexual orientation.

You haven't refuted anything by the APA either. imo the discussions ends here unless you you do so (did you even read it?).

the APA has no relevence to the discussion. you seem to think im claiming sexual orientation is a conscious choice because its environmentally influenced when thats not what im talking about at all

 

[SuperBowser]

how does it show genetics plays a part? both the genes and the environment were controls, so the effects could have been genetic, environment, or both. we wouldn't know.

Here's what you wrote. If you bothered to read the sources I gave it's obvious genetics plays a role.

Why are you debating environmental factors prior to birth with me (this is why I gave you a link to 7 studies from a comprehensive website with more links)? What has this got to do with the discussion? I NEVER said environment doesn't play a role, in fact I said it would be stupid to suggest it didn't. These sorts of factors are out of the child's decisions anyway, so it's not exactly helping your case.

Here's another 8 studies from the same website: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus6.htm

The genetic component is a fact. Enough studies have been done on the matter to show a familial pattern. The genes may not be found but it can be said, at a statistically significant level, genetic inheritance is involved. Law of probability states that genes do exist. Tens, if not hundreds of studies confirm this. Look it up yourself -_-

I don't know what you are debating anymore. At least blazedaces was clear. What are you claiming? Why are you debating environmental factors with me when I don't deny they exist?

Earlier you tried to say behavioural modification is environmental. I hope you can see this is not the case anymore. It's a psychological therapy.

edit: sorry, forgot to define environmental factors. I always thought the name was pretty self explanatory but after this topic I guess not. It is basically any determinant or risk factor for a condition that is not genetic. Some examples are radiation, chemicals, stress, diet. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[arrowhead]

Why are you debating environmental factors prior to birth with me (this is why I gave you a link to 7 studies from a comprehensive website with more links)? What has this got to do with the discussion? I NEVER said environment doesn't play a role, in fact I said it would be stupid to suggest it didn't. These sorts of factors are out of the child's decisions anyway, so it's not exactly helping your case.

read the last part of my previous post

The genetic component is a fact. Enough studies have been done on the matter to show a familial pattern. The genes may not be found but it can be said, at a statistically significant level, genetic inheritance is involved. Law of probability states that genes do exist. Tens, if not hundreds of studies confirm this. Look it up yourself -_-

the law of probabilities states no such thing. and the studies are all observational. there may be variables the scientists did not take into consideration.

I don't know what you are debating anymore. At least blazedaces was clear. What are you claiming? Why are you debating environmental factors with me when I don't deny they exist?

i'm debating that sexual orientation is mostly determined through environmental causes

Earlier you tried to say behavioural modification is environmental. I hope you can see this is not the case anymore. It's a psychological therapy.

edit: sorry, forgot to define environmental factors. I always thought the name was pretty self explanatory but after this topic I guess not. It is basically any determinant or risk factor for a condition that is not genetic. Some examples are radiation, chemicals, stress, diet.

behavioral modification IS environmental. it's a outside stimuli affecting your body.

 

[SuperBowser]

''Environmental'' is not a scientific term. Environmental factors is, and is what I've described for you. Behavioural modification is a psychological therapy. You can look all these terms up yourself. You should probably look up observational too.

I don't particularly care to discuss if genetics or the environment play more of a role. The conclusion is of little relevance to me and I don't think there are any studies that can quantify one over the other. Interaction between genetics and environmental factors is far more complex than you seem ro realise. You can't just slap on a %. It's difficult enough to give exact numbers the way you are describing for other mental conditions. If you want to debate that, you should be providing your own sources, not using mine -_-. You didn't make your intentions clear, and I never said what I thought about this in this whole topic because I wasn't trying to prove any such thing.

Probability is used all the time to find genes. It's complicated. Scientists first work out the area the gene is located by comparing massive groups. Then go into specifics. Sometimes it's hard because people with the same condition can have different genetic anomalies.


I'll leave you with a few quotes, from the previous source.

They detected three chromosomal regions on the human genome more than 50 percent of the time; they were on 7, 8, and 10. Of these, a region 7q36 on chromosome 7 was shared most frequently. Since males "inherited this region from their fathers just as often as their mothers, a finding that suggests genes from both parents can contribute to a son's sexual orientation." 5

"The fact that we found suggestive evidence of different areas where there might be genes for sexual orientation builds upon the research that's been done on family studies, twin studies, and previous molecular genetic studies which are consistently showing evidence of genetic influences."

The chromosome 7 finding may shed new life on a Dutch study. A gene near 7q36 is known to be responsible for the creation of a brain center called the suprachiasmatic nucleus. A Dutch research team in 1990 found that men with a homosexual orientation have a larger suprachiasmatic nucleus than heterosexual men. Mustanski said: "Perhaps this gene results in different brain structure and that brain structure causes someone to be heterosexual or homosexual."

"There's a converging line of evidence between the hormonal studies, the genetic studies, and the neuroanatomical studies. My research has identified candidate genes within these new chromosomal regions that could link together all of these different findings."

It is worth noting that most studies into the causes of homosexuality seem to show that about 10% of individuals are set up to be potentially homosexual by some gene or combination of genes. However, only about 55% of them are triggered by an unknown environmental factor during early childhood so that they will develop as homosexuals after puberty. The Mustanski study shows that, if this theory is correct, some combination of multiple genes is involved, rather than a single gene.

I guess that's all I've got to say.

 

[Xsyven]

its not a fact yet; they havent found the genes. i do think genetics play a role, but i believe environmental factors play a larger role when determining sexual orientation.

There are three boys in my family.

Gay
Straight
Gay

Why is my middle brother not gay if we all grew up in the same environment? Same goes with my three straight sisters. My opinion, like yours, is that it's a combination of nature and nurture. I just don't agree that nurture is the bigger determining factor. If all six of us grew up in the same environment, how come only two of us ended up gay?

Only two kids in the family have brown hair. I only find it natural that two of us got the gay gene, or whatever it may be.

 

[RDK]

There are three boys in my family.

Gay
Straight
Gay

Why is my middle brother not gay, if we all grew up in the same environment? Same goes with my three sisters.

Don't be stupid. All three of you don't share the exact same experiences. When he says environmental factors, he means the effects each individual's environment and experiences have on the person.

 

[Xsyven]

Don't be stupid. All three of you don't share the exact same experiences. When he says environmental factors, he means the effects each individual's environment and experiences have on the person.

Don't be stupid? When it comes to me growing up, and being raised by the same two people as my siblings, we all had a pretty similar experience. Trust me-- I was there. And being gay myself, I can assure you that there wasn't one drastic experience in my life that made me think "OH GOD, THAT TURNED ME GAAAY!"

In theory such as nurture affecting sexuality, it has to be simple life that's the main factor. There's no way that just one or two drastic moments could flat-out change the sexuality of a human being. And since my family all shared a life together, and we all lived the same experience, then why aren't we all gay?

Honestly, I'm not a firm believer of nurture affecting one's sexality-- except for in extreme conditions, which my family didn't go through. We were pretty **** normal.



Now, if you want to get picky, and say that my brother and I perceived our lives differently than our other siblings, and that turned us gay, then I can shrug if off-- but only because it's such a vague theory that it's extremely easy to shrug off. Anything that vague is possible.

 

[RDK]

Don't be stupid? When it comes to me growing up, and being raised by the same two people as my siblings, we all had a pretty similar experience. Trust me-- I was there. And being gay myself, I can assure you that there wasn't one drastic experience in my life that made me think "OH GOD, THAT TURNED ME GAAAY!"

In theory such as nurture affecting sexuality, it has to be simple life that's the main factor. There's no way that just one or two drastic moments could flat-out change the sexuality of a human being. And since my family all shared a life together, and we all lived the same experience, then why aren't we all gay?

Honestly, I'm not a firm believer of nurture affecting one's sexality-- except for in extreme conditions, which my family didn't go through. We were pretty **** normal.



Now, if you want to get picky, and say that my brother and I perceived our lives differently than our other siblings, and that turned us gay, then I can shrug if off-- but only because it's such a vague theory that it's extremely easy to shrug off. Anything that vague is possible.

I wasn't arguing that one or two major major events changed you and your brother's sexual orientation. What I meant is that you and your two brothers are not exact carbon copies of each other. You experience different things, and even the things you experience together, you perceive differently. You and your siblings don't think the same. Your'e different people, despite being related and brought up in generally the same atmosphere.

As for this:

There are three boys in my family.

Gay
Straight
Gay

Why is my middle brother not gay, if we all grew up in the same environment? Same goes with my three sisters.

Besides the environmental issue, I could again safely say that you and your brothers are not exact copies of each other genetically. Your brother could have heterosexuality in his genetics, and maybe the two of you don't. However, I think the environmental argument is a lot more reasonable (and likely). I was merely trying to stress that you're different people, and that you aren't going to bring the same things out of your personal experiences, despite the fact that you were brought up close.

Although let me ask you what you DO believe made you gay. If it isn't genetics and it isn't atmosphere, what was it?

 

[AltF4]

The entire discussion of environment and upbringing are just thinly veiled attacks on homosexuality to begin with.

The assumption is that everyone is born heterosexual, and that something had to come in and CHANGE them into being gay. It's a form of discrimination. It's a subtle way that people dehumanize gays, by making it sound like there's something "wrong" with them. "Something must have happened to them in order to make them gay".

 

[RDK]

The entire discussion of environment and upbringing are just thinly veiled attacks on homosexuality to begin with.

The assumption is that everyone is born heterosexual, and that something had to come in and CHANGE them into being gay. It's a form of discrimination. It's a subtle way that people dehumanize gays, by making it sound like there's something "wrong" with them. "Something must have happened to them in order to make them gay".

But that's not what I was trying to say at all. I merely said that in lieu of his disbelief about homosexuality being predetermined genetics, maybe his orientation was a product of experience.

My point is that maybe he didn't realize he was homosexual until a certain point. It had to be developed by personal experiences.

As for Xsyven, note that I don't harbor any hatred towards homosexuals at all. I believe it's not up to anyone to decide who can and can't get married. I was just making a point.

 

[pockyD]

The entire discussion of environment and upbringing are just thinly veiled attacks on homosexuality to begin with.

The assumption is that everyone is born heterosexual, and that something had to come in and CHANGE them into being gay. It's a form of discrimination. It's a subtle way that people dehumanize gays, by making it sound like there's something "wrong" with them. "Something must have happened to them in order to make them gay".

No, in this line of argument, the assumption is that everyone is born "neutral", and their experiences determine whether they develop into a heterosexual or a homosexual

Most people are "assumed" heterosexual simply because the majority of the population does turn out to be heterosexual. That is the only reason why the only case being considered is that of a homosexual. If homosexuality was the prevailing orientation, then you could easily make the same argument using developing heterosexuals instead

 

[arrowhead]

''Environmental'' is not a scientific term. Environmental factors is, and is what I've described for you. Behavioural modification is a psychological therapy. You can look all these terms up yourself. You should probably look up observational too.

psychological therapies are carried out through environmental factors

I don't particularly care to discuss if genetics or the environment play more of a role. The conclusion is of little relevance to me and I don't think there are any studies that can quantify one over the other. Interaction between genetics and environmental factors is far more complex than you seem ro realise. You can't just slap on a %. It's difficult enough to give exact numbers the way you are describing for other mental conditions. If you want to debate that, you should be providing your own sources, not using mine -_-. You didn't make your intentions clear, and I never said what I thought about this in this whole topic because I wasn't trying to prove any such thing.

the more i think about how hard it was to tell you what i was debating about, the more i realize i was actually just here to correct people. so i take back what i said about why i came here... lol. but you assume too much

The entire discussion of environment and upbringing are just thinly veiled attacks on homosexuality to begin with.

not what i intended at all.

 

[SuperBowser]

psychological therapies are carried out through environmental factors

I... just told you what an environmental factor was. Are you being dense on purpose

tbh, I'm tired of going over definitions so I'll leave it at this. I recently covered this topic on my degree and got 100% for this section. If you don't want to believe me, fine.

edit: actually i still can't let this go. all my terms were covered by the APA pages ago. it's pretty aggravating you can't read.