What's new
By:
Filters

The Science Of Sexual Orientation

Chrisl0 said:


Good question, I am not sure. It probably varies from person to person. Just maybe the environment is what causes it.
Click to expand...

So you have no idea....you just don't want to believe that a person is born gay. Well I guess that is your prerogative....but I would think if I strongly believe against something so much, I would have a better answer than "just maybe the environment is what causes it."
 
BabyBuddha said:


So you have no idea....you just don't want to believe that a person is born gay. Well I guess that is your prerogative....but I would think if I strongly believe against something so much, I would have a better answer than "just maybe the environment is what causes it."
Click to expand...

So you are saying people that murdered or rape are born to do this? Your saying things that happened to these people during their life have nothing to do with these events? I may not be able to give you a clear answer and even if I did I would be reluctant to do so since you would probably say I am wrong. I seen reports about things like this and I've seen it first hand. I just can't give a good example.
 
Chrisl0 said:


So you are saying people that murdered or rape are born to do this? Your saying things that happened to these people during their life have nothing to do with these events? I may not be able to give you a clear answer and even if I did I would be reluctant to do so since you would probably say I am wrong. I seen reports about things like this and I've seen it first hand. I just can't give a good example.
Click to expand...

Some people who murder and or rape, come from a "normal" home-life. They were never abused, molested, or treated poorly. And yet some people who's lives were worse than we could ever imagine, lead very successful lives, and never become a murder and or rapist. So why is that?? It has to be somewhat generic...don't you think??
 
BabyBuddha said:


Some people who murder and or rape, come from a "normal" home-life. They were never abused, molested, or treated poorly. And yet some people who's lives were worse than we could ever imagine, lead very successful lives, and never become a murder and or rapist. So why is that?? It has to be somewhat generic...don't you think??
Click to expand...

The reason why is because its all mental. Some people are mentally strong than others. Doesn't have to do with birth, maybe somewhat but what happens throughout your life has some effect on it. I know more than a few people that when they were young were treated poorly (not molested though) that have successful life's but they are left with mental scars that affects them throughout their life.
 
BabyBuddha said:


So you have no idea....you just don't want to believe that a person is born gay. Well I guess that is your prerogative....but I would think if I strongly believe against something so much, I would have a better answer than "just maybe the environment is what causes it."
Click to expand...
Perhaps this from Doctor Paul Cameron's "Born What Way?" explains it better. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Dr. Cameron is Chariman of the Family Research Institute of Colorado Springs. It is a bit long, but if you really care about this particular issue, and really do have an open mind, read the article in it's entirely. It, in my opinion, is perhaps one of the best cases to support that you are not born gay.

Sexual Preference Shifts
That sexual desire and behavior are flexible was demonstrated by the Kinsey Institute in 1970. It reported(9) that 81% of 684 **** and 93% of 293 lesbians had changed or shifted either their sexual feelings or behaviors after age 12.

58% of the **** and 77% of the lesbians reported a second shift in sexual orientation; 31% of the **** and 49% of the lesbians reported a third shift; and 13% of the **** and 30% of the lesbians reported even a fourth shift in sexual orientation before "settling" into adult homosexuality. The shifts reported by these subjects varied in degree, but some were quite dramatic - about a quarter of **** and a third of lesbians once had heterosexual desires and 5% of heterosexual men and 3% of heterosexual women once had substantial homosexual desires. Heterosexuals in the study were much less likely to report shifts in their orientation. Even so, 29% of 337 heterosexual men and 14% of 140 heterosexual women reported at least one shift; while 4% of the men and 1% of the women reported at least three shifts. Immutable things like eye color or skin color don't change once, much less three or four times!

Unlike biological changes, the shifts in sexual orientation began at age 18 or later for half of both **** and lesbians. Sexual changes, five or more years after puberty, are exceptionally late and without biological precedent in development. But changes in tastes (e.g., food or entertainment) often take place around age 18.

Other Evidence
The same Kinsey study also produced other evidence that can not be explained in terms of biological determinism, but would readily support the idea that choice is involved in sexual orientation and behavior:

* 74% of their **** admitted to having been sexually aroused by a female and 80% of lesbians said that they had been sexually aroused by a male;
* 19% of their **** and 38% of lesbians had been heterosexually married;
* 20% of ****, 5% of heterosexual men, 7% of lesbians and no heterosexual women had had sex with animals.

Consistent with these results, the Family Research Institute (FRI) 10 conducted a nationwide random survey of 4,340 adults drawn from 5 U.S. cities in 1983 and found:

* 82% of those currently lesbian and 66% of those currently gay said that they had been in love with someone of the opposite sex;
* 88% of lesbians and 73% of **** had been sexually aroused by someone of the opposite sex;
* 67% of lesbians and 54% of **** reported current sexual attraction to the opposite sex;
* 85% of lesbians and 54% of ****, as adults, had sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex;
* 32% of **** and 47% of lesbians had been heterosexually married; and
* 17% of ****, 3% of heterosexual men, 10% of lesbians and 1% of heterosexual women reported sex with animals.

These are the kinds of sexual choices one would expect from the sexually adventurous or confused. Unless Dr. Isay and his supporters are willing to believe that people are "born" to fall in love, get married or to have sex with animals, some measure of choice, rather than biological inevitability, must have been involved.

The ability to change explains the FRI findings that:

* Overall, 7.8% of women and 12% of men claimed to have been homosexually aroused at some point in their life. Yet 59% of the once homosexually aroused women and 51% of the once homosexually aroused men were currently heterosexual;
* 5.1% of the women and 9.4% of the men admitted to at least one homosexual partner. Of these, only 58% of the women and 61% of the men were currently gay;
* 4.1% of women and 5.8% of men reported that they had, at least once, been "in homosexual love." Yet only 66% of those who had fallen in love with a member of the same sex were currently gay; and
* almost a third of those who admitted to homosexual relations in adulthood were now heterosexual.[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
GoingNova said:

Perhaps this from Doctor Paul Cameron's "Born What Way?" explains it better. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Dr. Cameron is Chariman of the Family Research Institute of Colorado Springs. It is a bit long, but if you really care about this particular issue, and really do have an open mind, read the article in it's entirely. It, in my opinion, is perhaps one of the best cases to support that you are not born gay.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the references from this article you posted:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]References[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [SIZE=-1] 1. Schwartz MF & Masters WH The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. Amer J Psychiatry 1984:141;173-81.
2.1910 letter to Sandor Ferenczi.
3. Wall Street Journal 4/21/93 A6.
4. Homosexuality and psychiatry, Psychiatric News, Feb. 7,1992, p.3.
5. LeVay S A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 1991;253:1034-1037.
6.Bailey JM & Pillard RCA genetic study of mate sexual orientation. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991;48: 1089-1996.
7. Human sexual orientation: the biologic theories reappraised. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993:50;228-239.
8. King M & McDonald E Homosexuals who are twins: a study of 46 probands. Brit J Psychiatry 1992,160:407-419.
9. Belt AP & Weinberg MS Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978. /& Hammersmith SK Sexual Preference: Statistical Appendix. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981.
10. Cameron P, Cameron K. & Proctor K Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychol Rpts, 1989,61,1167-79.
11. Cameron P, Cameron K. & Proctor K. Homosexuals in the Armed Forces, Psychol Repts, 1988,62,211-219.
12. Dixon, JK. The commencement of bisexual activity in swinging married women overage thirty. J Sex Research, 1984,20,71-98.
13.1993, after Broude GJ & Greene SJ Cross cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology 1976;15;409-430.
14. Gebhard P & Johnson AB The Kinsey data Philadelphia: Saunders, 1979.


It is ALL a little outdated don't you think....the most recent information here is over TEN years old. And the Masters and Johnson scientific information you constantly quote is over 20 years old. Which brings me back to my previous post you ignored about the evolution of man, is it the scientific concept you believe or the Christian one?
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
 
BabyBuddha said:


Let's look at the references from this article you posted:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Referenceshttp://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.htmlhttp://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.html[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [SIZE=-1] 1. Schwartz MF & Masters WH The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. Amer J Psychiatry 1984:141;173-81.
2.1910 letter to Sandor Ferenczi.
3. Wall Street Journal 4/21/93 A6.
4. Homosexuality and psychiatry, Psychiatric News, Feb. 7,1992, p.3.
5. LeVay S A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 1991;253:1034-1037.
6.Bailey JM & Pillard RCA genetic study of mate sexual orientation. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991;48: 1089-1996.
7. Human sexual orientation: the biologic theories reappraised. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993:50;228-239.
8. King M & McDonald E Homosexuals who are twins: a study of 46 probands. Brit J Psychiatry 1992,160:407-419.
9. Belt AP & Weinberg MS Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978. /& Hammersmith SK Sexual Preference: Statistical Appendix. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981.
10. Cameron P, Cameron K. & Proctor K Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychol Rpts, 1989,61,1167-79.
11. Cameron P, Cameron K. & Proctor K. Homosexuals in the Armed Forces, Psychol Repts, 1988,62,211-219.
12. Dixon, JK. The commencement of bisexual activity in swinging married women overage thirty. J Sex Research, 1984,20,71-98.
13.1993, after Broude GJ & Greene SJ Cross cultural codes on twenty sexual attitudes and practices. Ethnology 1976;15;409-430.
14. Gebhard P & Johnson AB The Kinsey data Philadelphia: Saunders, 1979.


It is ALL a little outdated don't you think....the most recent information here is over TEN years old. And the Masters and Johnson scientific information you constantly quote is over 20 years old. Which brings me back to my previous post you ignored about the evolution of man, is it the scientific concept you believe or the Christian one?
Click to expand...
BabyBuddha said:
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...
[/SIZE][/FONT] So scientific theory becomes incorrect because it is old? Evidence is evidence until proven incorrect. The age of this evidence is irrelevant. Until you can produce evidence that proves it to be incorrect, it remains what it is: evidence.

Using the logic you just presented, one can simply dismiss Einstein's theory on general relativity simply because it is "Old", and was developed by Einstein in the years 1911 - 1915. So, because Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is almost 100 years old, it is completely invalidated?

Address the points raised, don't just dismiss them. The Doctor who wrote them is still a Doctor, and he still stands by his findings.
 
The statistics would have changed by now. If you were to take the stats on cigarette smokers in 1970 do you think that they have changed or have they remained the same?

It has only been within the last decade that **** have started to "come out" and not try to hide their true identity.
 
ANGLOIRISH said:
The statistics would have changed by now. If you were to take the stats on cigarette smokers in 1970 do you think that they have changed or have they remained the same?

It has only been within the last decade that **** have started to "come out" and not try to hide their true identity.
Click to expand...
First off, these studies take time, you can't just whip one up.

Secondly, and again, you can not simply dismiss the findings without offering alternative findings. It is very difficult to argue against the logic presented in these findings. Rather than simply dismiss them as old, pick something in the study that you disagree with, and point out why you think it is no longer vaild.

 
That sounds like a plan. Good idea Nova. Some of us will get right on that! Seriously, not joking or being a smart ****.
 
Well you wanted paper proof and you got some. Can't always find something up to date.
 
GoingNova said:

Perhaps this from Doctor Paul Cameron's "Born What Way?" explains it better. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Dr. Cameron is Chariman of the Family Research Institute of Colorado Springs. It is a bit long, but if you really care about this particular issue, and really do have an open mind, read the article in it's entirely. It, in my opinion, is perhaps one of the best cases to support that you are not born gay.
Click to expand...
I'm just going to paraphrase what I said in the other thread, that being that this guy has an obvious agenda and the articles he's written betray a rather severe bias. I would not trust his interpretations any more than I would trust those of a vehemently pro-gay website. For a matter such as this, where people are so highly opinionated, I would suggest the route ski2bfree took, that being to read some recent scientific studies and make your own conclusions.
 
smo1704 said:

I'm just going to paraphrase what I said in the other thread, that being that this guy has an obvious agenda and the articles he's written betray a rather severe bias. I would not trust his interpretations any more than I would trust those of a vehemently pro-gay website. For a matter such as this, where people are so highly opinionated, I would suggest the route ski2bfree took, that being to read some recent scientific studies and make your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

Smo, once again, you speak reason. That being said, I have read what he said, and while I certainly do not agree with everything, he raises very valid points that, I feel, really are tough to dispute.

I particularly like his point that if you are born gay, how does one account for the many people who are gay, and then decide they are no longer gay. That, in my opinion, lends strong credence to the position that it is choice.

The bottom line is, it is better to try and refute the message itself rather than simply dismiss it because you do not like the messenger. I'll admit, I am sometimes guilty of discrediting something based solely on it's source, but I will also admit, that I think when you do that, it reflects poorly on your position. It suggests that perhaps you can not answer valid questions.
 
I know I didn't choose to be gay. And I grew up in an average family, with a mother and father, and one brother, in a house, sorry no picket fence, but we did have a big fence, as we had a dog. My mom stayed home with us and my dad worked (first RCMP and then Government). I wasn't abused, sexually or otherwise. I had a loving family. I wasn't spoiled. I had lots of friends and even played with Barbie and Ken. So tell me what in my family life made me gay???
 
BabyBuddha said:
I know I didn't choose to be gay. And I grew up in an average family, with a mother and father, and one brother, in a house, sorry no picket fence, but we did have a big fence, as we had a dog. My mom stayed home with us and my dad worked (first RCMP and then Government). I wasn't abused, sexually or otherwise. I had a loving family. I wasn't spoiled. I had lots of friends and even played with Barbie and Ken. So tell me what in my family life made me gay???
Click to expand...

Its all mental. It might be that you were born with it, but its still possible for events in your life to cause it. Many people choose later on to be gay.
 
Homosexuality: Not That Different

"A favorite of conservative Christians like Jack Chick is to promulgate the idea that homosexuals "choose" to be gay. I find this interesting considering that these same individuals would never claim that they "choose" to be heterosexual. If it is so simple to "choose" to be gay, then I offer this challenge - try it. Try to imagine yourself in lust or in love for someone of the same sex. Can't do it? The reason is because you are straight; the same way a homosexual person would not want to imagine themselves being intimate with someone of the opposite sex - because they are gay. In other words, you are born that way.


Why would anyone wake up one day and choose to lead the life of a minority that has to put up with so much hate and prejudice against them - often from even their own families? Oh yes, I think I'm going to choose to be shunned by my family, kicked out of my church and stereotyped everywhere I go for the rest of my life. Sure - yeah - that makes sense."



Written by : S. Riley
 
BabyBuddha said:
I know I didn't choose to be gay. And I grew up in an average family, with a mother and father, and one brother, in a house, sorry no picket fence, but we did have a big fence, as we had a dog. My mom stayed home with us and my dad worked (first RCMP and then Government). I wasn't abused, sexually or otherwise. I had a loving family. I wasn't spoiled. I had lots of friends and even played with Barbie and Ken. So tell me what in my family life made me gay???
Click to expand...
And I grew up with a mother who was a sex fiend, did marijuna, cocaine, and shot heroine. When my parents divorced and my mother got custody of us, her boyfriends (she had multiple partners) would beat me and my brother if we came out of our rooms while my mom and her friends all partied. I remember coming out and watching everyone having sex and doing drugs. I was five. I caught a beating for seeing that, so I never came out of my room when I was told not too. My brother and I would get up in the morning, and walk the streets, because you see, after a long night of partying, my mom would not be up until around 3 in the afternoon. So my brother, age 3, and I would more or less cook ourselves breakfast and lunch, and come and go as we pleased. Until my mom and her boyfriend du jour would walk up and roll cigarettes. I remember asking a guy one time, "You make your own cigarettes just like Cowboys huh?" He smiled, and said, "Yup". I could go on and on.

So, coming from that, one would think I would be a drug addict, a sex fiend, beat my wife (my mom was beaten, by her second husband), and beat my son. But I don't. Go figure. What made you gay? I can't say. What made me the way I am, I can't say either. What made me bring all of that? I have no idea. I am not a doctor. All I do know is that people make choices in their life. True, they may be effected by outside forces, but ultimately, I believe we all make our own choices in life.
 
Nova that is so heart wrenching!:love9: Come here you Big Kahuna!:huggg:
 
Is There a 'Gay Gene'?

New Genetic Regions Associated With Male Sexual Orientation Found

Jan. 28, 2005 - "The genes a man gets from his mother and father may play an important role in determining whether he is gay or not, according to a new study likely to reignite the "gay gene" debate.
Researchers say it's the first time the entire human genetic makeup has been scanned in search of possible genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality.
"It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.


Those previous studies looked only at the genes located on the X chromosome. Genes on this chromosome are only passed to a son from his mother. But this study examined genetic information on all chromosomes, including genes from the father.


The findings show that identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes were shared by about 60% of gay brothers in the study compared to the about 50% normally expected by chance."


New Targets for Gay Gene Research


"Elliot S. Gershon, MD, professor of psychiatry and human genetics at the University of Chicago, says the study represents an important step forward in understanding how genes affect human sexual orientation.
"It is worth testing genes within a region of linkage to see if one of them has a variant that is more frequent in men who are gay than in men who are not," says Gershon, who is also currently involved in another study of gay brothers and genetic influences on sexual orientation.


"This report adds to the legitimacy of research on normal variations in human behavior," Gershon tells WebMD. "There is an argument that has been made in public press that it doesn't make sense to study conditions or traits that are behavioral. But this suggests that there is a genetic contribution to this particular trait of same sex orientation."


[Read More]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top