Homosexuality - Is it a gene or a choice? - General

[QUOTE=deaded38;35769035]It makes me feel better that there's someone here with at least half a brain.[/QUOTE] Until you can find sources, your words mean nothing.

[QUOTE=a-k-t-w;35131368]it is a choice if youre bisexual.[/QUOTE] Are you high no

[QUOTE=toastedjam;35769232]Scientifically, we can't say that homosexuality is caused by genes. Genes are a hereditary thing, meaning that something is passed from one generation to another. I believe in the theory that it may be caused by a disorder within a male/female hormones, making them sexually attracted to the same sex, though there hasn't been proof of any biological or genetic differences. Also it could also be by choice and personal experiences at an early age. Sources: [url]http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L41.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] What exactly are you saying that your source supports, and where? That is a very large article; it covers a broad range of things.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35775405]What exactly are you saying that your source supports, and where? That is a very large article; it covers a broad range of things.[/QUOTE] i just scanned through it and gave my opinions. what it is is a history of homosexuality, and it explains how others try to find the cause of sexuality. But honestly no one knows and neither has the cause been proven.

[QUOTE=Jookia;35769369]Until you can find sources, your words mean nothing.[/QUOTE] Until you learn about human behavior, your words mean nothing. See, I can do it too.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35782735]Until you learn about human behavior, your words mean nothing. See, I can do it too.[/QUOTE] Can you source this human behaviour which you base your research on? Any peer reviewed article at least helps you. Otherwise you're just saying things, with no evidence. I can do that on the Internet too.

Why is there a debating thread about a simple binary fact that has yet to be determined by modern science?

Why the hell would someone choose to be gay with so much hate towards them by narrow minded fucking people. it would be way easier telling everyone you banged some blonde chick. You dont choose to be gay.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35782735]Until you learn about human behavior, your words mean nothing. See, I can do it too.[/QUOTE] I believe we've already had this discussion. Stop.

[QUOTE=toastedjam;35778548]i just scanned through it and gave my opinions. what it is is a history of homosexuality, and it explains how others try to find the cause of sexuality. But honestly no one knows and neither has the cause been proven.[/QUOTE] [quote]In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. That decision did not come as a result of new research. Ronald Bayer, author of the most exhaustive treatment of the 1973 decision, has described what actually happened:19 • “A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.”[/quote] This article is heavily slanted towards decrying any possibility of nature, in favor of nurture arguments, and is infused with indirect homophobia. For instance, the above implies that homosexuality is a disorder, and that any fellow psychologist who disagrees with his findings is merely caving into social pressure. [quote] “And, in a recent publication by West, a number of contemporary investigators are cited who independently have reached the same conclusion concerning the mother-son factor in male homosexuality. In this same publication, West presents his own study in England of 50 homosexual males and 50 matched control (nonhomosexual) males. His findings clearly show that male homosexuals are much more likely to come from a family constellation involving an overintense mother and unsatisfactory father relationship.[/quote] We know this to be nonsense. Quotes like these go undisputed in your source, unlike contrary points, which are the only ones to be criticized. [editline]1st May 2012[/editline] Additionally, the source is not at all a history of homosexuality, as you claimed.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35788877]This article is heavily slanted towards decrying any possibility of nature, in favor of nurture arguments, and is infused with indirect homophobia. For instance, the above implies that homosexuality is a disorder, and that any fellow psychologist who disagrees with his findings is merely caving into social pressure. We know this to be nonsense. Quotes like these go undisputed in your source, unlike contrary points, which are the only ones to be criticized. [editline]1st May 2012[/editline] Additionally, the source is not at all a history of homosexuality, as you claimed.[/QUOTE] Thank you for explaining the source i found. I appreciate you helping me learn to double check my source and it will help me in the future in other circumstances and debates. I'll be sure to read any sources thoroughly before posting them next time.

[QUOTE=Megafan;35784537]I believe we've already had this discussion. Stop.[/QUOTE] Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35800162]Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.[/QUOTE] Denying your claims because you aren't telling us where we can read this information for ourselves is what people are doing. Not because we don't have any understanding of it. If you just started sourcing your claims without going "lol i went 2 class u stupids" then maybe you'd have a valid argument. But right now your arguments are essentially being pulled from thin air as you aren't providing any evidence your argument might be correct. Taking a class in a subject doesn't exempt you from sourcing your arguments. Especially in an objective topic. And no, we won't take your word for it. You [B]need[/B] sources of some form. Peer-reviewed scientific papers preferable. [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] Oh and fyi, finding the best, most accurate sources is kinda how you win a debate. Short of being the most convincing speaker ever. Which you aren't.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35800162]Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.[/QUOTE] Because you can't back up your claims, saying "I know about human behavior" means nothing if you cannot back it up. And don't tell me internet sources aren't reliable, they are about as reliable as books these days, unless you are just thinking about Wikipedia.

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;35801878]Because you can't back up your claims, saying "I know about human behavior" means nothing if you cannot back it up. And don't tell me internet sources aren't reliable, they are about as reliable as books these days, unless you are just thinking about Wikipedia.[/QUOTE] Even then Wikipedia cites all of its sources at the bottom of the page and usually doesn't have baseless claims.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35800162]Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.[/QUOTE] Would you like to stop crying about what's wrong with us and explain your argument in a solid form?

Saying homosexuality is a gene would be like saying religions or opinions run through blood. No, it's not. Some people end up turning gay half-way through their lives.

[QUOTE=Nerdeboy;35137183]Well, there can be chemical reasoning unrelated to genetics. For example, pregnant women that have already given birth to a son have typically higher levels of androgenic steroids. This can cause noticeable changes in men, such as a more feminine ratio between the length of the index and ring fingers that are characteristic of homosexual men, among other things. [url=http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html]See also[/url][/QUOTE] 2d;4d ratio is a really poor area of study, since every researcher comes to his own conclusions on it. See: one researcher says gay men have feminine ratio, another says excessively masculine ratios are associated with homosexuality etc. Besides higher levels of prenatal androgen exposure would make more masculine ratios, which is the opposite of what you are saying.

[QUOTE=Sh33p;35783840]Why is there a debating thread about a simple binary fact that has yet to be determined by modern science?[/QUOTE] Probably because homosexuality is extremely complex, is produced and reproduced discursively in innumerable ways (as any cross-cultural or historical-comparative research would make quite clear - e.g. the greeks), and is in no way a binary. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;35807749]2d;4d ratio is a really poor area of study, since every researcher comes to his own conclusions on it. See: one researcher says gay men have feminine ratio, another says excessively masculine ratios are associated with homosexuality etc. Besides higher levels of prenatal androgen exposure would make more masculine ratios, which is the opposite of what you are saying.[/QUOTE] I concur with this. The biological determinist side of a causal mechanism for homosexuality is extremely problematic, and there have been a couple of high profile cases where research published in a major peer reviewed paper (I think it was Nature in the early 90s) was shown to be significantly methodologically flawed.

[QUOTE=Scarabix;35807152]Saying homosexuality is a gene would be like saying religions or opinions run through blood. No, it's not. Some people end up turning gay half-way through their lives.[/QUOTE] Doesn't "turning" gay half way through your life require some kind of pre-existing attraction?

[QUOTE=Bletotum;35804078]Would you like to stop crying about what's wrong with us and explain your argument in a solid form?[/QUOTE] He can't because he doesn't have one, if he did he would have already.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35800162]Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.[/QUOTE] Get off your high horse and show some sources or stop talking. "i am educate" is not a license to tell people everything you say is absolutely correct.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;35815553]Get off your high horse and show some sources or stop talking. "i am educate" is not a license to tell people everything you say is absolutely correct.[/QUOTE] See, but that's the thing. You guys aren't even educated on my argument and yet you guys still say I am wrong. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;35801281]Denying your claims because you aren't telling us where we can read this information for ourselves is what people are doing. Not because we don't have any understanding of it. If you just started sourcing your claims without going "lol i went 2 class u stupids" then maybe you'd have a valid argument. But right now your arguments are essentially being pulled from thin air as you aren't providing any evidence your argument might be correct. Taking a class in a subject doesn't exempt you from sourcing your arguments. Especially in an objective topic. And no, we won't take your word for it. You [B]need[/B] sources of some form. Peer-reviewed scientific papers preferable. [editline]3rd May 2012[/editline] Oh and fyi, finding the best, most accurate sources is kinda how you win a debate. Short of being the most convincing speaker ever. Which you aren't.[/QUOTE] You're right. It doesn't exempt me from having to provide proof. But that doesn't exempt [I]you[/I] from having to learn. And no, reading a source doesn't make you the most educated on a subject. Providing one doesn't make you win a debate, either.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35816607] You're right. It doesn't object me from having to provide proof. But that doesn't object [I]you[/I] from having to learn. [/QUOTE] that's not the way you use object i don't know what any of this means

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;35801878]And don't tell me internet sources aren't reliable, they are about as reliable as books these days, unless you are just thinking about Wikipedia.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying internet sources aren't reliable. I'm saying that you guys shouldn't base your entire argument on one. Not only that, but as said before, you guys are disregarding my argument completely because you know nothing about it. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;35816680]that's not the way you use object i don't know what any of this means[/QUOTE] Sorry, I goof'd.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35816692]I'm not saying internet sources aren't reliable. I'm saying that you guys shouldn't base your entire argument on one. Not only that, but as said before, you guys are disregarding my argument completely because you know nothing about it. [editline]4th May 2012[/editline] Sorry, I goof'd.[/QUOTE] Except we aren't basing it on one, we are basing it on multiple. Whereas you, on the other hand, are basing yours on NONE. This will get you no where in debating.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35816607]You're right. It doesn't exempt me from having to provide proof. But that doesn't exempt [I]you[/I] from having to learn. And no, reading a source doesn't make you the most educated on a subject. Providing one doesn't make you win a debate, either.[/QUOTE] Right it doesn't exempt me from learning. Good thing I learn by using multiple sources for my information to make an educated argument on a subject. Learning from one source is damn stupid, but using multiple sources to either confirm or adjust your views on a subject based on what they claim? That's learning baby.

[QUOTE=deaded38;35816692]I'm not saying internet sources aren't reliable. I'm saying that you guys shouldn't base your entire argument on one. Not only that, but as said before, you guys are disregarding my argument completely because you know nothing about it.[/QUOTE] Either use sources or get out. I'm surprised it's not bannable to do what you're doing, because you're certainly not debating.

[QUOTE=Jookia;35817524]Either use sources or get out. I'm surprised it's not bannable to do what you're doing, because you're certainly not debating.[/QUOTE] He's banned for it before. On multiple occasions. In this thread nonetheless...

I failed to remember that, or even consider that he could still be posting without learning from his mistakes.