Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors says world's largest study of twins

Animals have leaves of homosexuality as well. Animals in the wild. How then can you correlate need for reproduction with the rate of homosexuality?

again, this is a huge load of crapola. so human nature is shifting toward homosexuality because humans have sex primarily for pleasure? this is ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous. why embarrass yourself by posting such asinine theories? get a clue!

Damned Science, always foiling previously misinformed views about society.

arcanebliss,

I hear you! In fact, I'm picking up my bible right now and reading Leviticus. I'm not letting any newfangled thinking teach me anything! Cotton-pickin whippersnappers with their studies and their facts, their round world, theories of cause and effect...

"god said" was good enough for my goatherding, patriarchal pederast forebears and, by god, it's good enough for me!

Look for me as a born again Republican! I see the oh, so dim, very dim, light!

Lol "social disobedience" now I am not gay but I am far from that insecure either. I don't know why people are so concerned with Homosexuality. I just don't get it Gays and Lesbians can do what ever they want and it wont affect you unless you want it to. Its just finding something different to disapprove of. Although its humorous to me some of these comments like "choice". That's so ridiculous because how do you think humans learn procreating in the first place is an innate physical desire. Why then isn't it possible for that same trigger to be faulted. Same thing with certain eye colors and hair colors that are actually coded as genetic misprints or for lack of a better word "defects". The fact that homosexuality happens on an animal level as well is refutable evidence of a probable innate preference. Deal with it or dont but dont go out of your way to have a problem with a group of people so that you can blame them for something later.

your a member of the G8 summit?

no wait your a member of the World Economic Summit?

*whispers* your not an athiest are you?

oh no i know the most despised group on the planet, i dont know what i was think this is easy

its the REPUBLICANS

BAHAHAHA

but seriously why the hell cant people get over themselves and admit some choose it and some are INCREDIBLY gay from birth

i knew a kid who was the most effeminate boy ive ever met we knew 10 years before he did that he was gay

but ive also known people who it is VERY much a choice, for alot of reasons, one just happened to be acceptance into the group

Iranian Fellow,

I went to school with a boy who was gay as a day in May since 1st grade(probably since birth, but I didn't meet him till 1st grade). We all knew he was different but we were still friends. He was one of the nicest, smartest and kindest kids in a tough, poor, mill town school.

I would much rather live in a neighborhood of gays than next door to Mary. The ambiance would be more congenial and we all know those gays can decorate!

ROFL well said

The ambiance would be more congenial and we all know those gays can decorate!

Yeah, but they'd also have way better muscle tone than us.

The same reason that murderers are murderers and theives are theives and anyone else who goes against the norm goes against the norm. They are controlled by their attractions instead of being in control of their attractions.

So when you have sex with someone that means you are controlled by your attractions, and therefore you are sinful? Explain the difference between yourself and a homosexual.

and anyone else who goes against the norm goes against the norm

And in ancient Greece, homosexuality was the norm. Does that mean that homosexuality wasn't a sin for them? Come on, now. Even you can do better than that.

Jack - actually Bisexuality was the norm; homosexual contact is a part of that

Mary a norm is only an average; we all are unaverage in some way so we all go against the norm be it hazel eyes, red hair, etc. However, this is all a part of God's creation, including the homosexuality that exists in thousands of species. This is God's way, why do you continue to deny God and instead believe in the mistranslated rantings of ancient hebrews? This says more about you than God or His homosexuals.

Jack - actually Bisexuality was the norm; homosexual contact is a part of that

True. My error.

Science is still in its infancy and none more so than psychology; destined to be "queen" of the sciences.

Because genes are responsible for an indirect influence, did you even read the article?

The study flatly concedes that no particular genes were isolated or identified as having an influence on whether or not an individual would be a homosexual.

The same can be said for most genetic traits. The human genome has been mapped, but the majority of individual genes can not be attributed to specific genetic traits. Likewise there are human characteristics that are undoubtedly passed on through genes, but the exact genes have yet to be identified. Not being able to isolate a gene for a characteristic does not make that characteristic non-genetic.
But as a staunch member of the fruity Swedish born-gay brigade, I am obviously biased.

The study also said the cause "may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb". So there might not be a "gay gene". This was my understanding when I looked at this in my one and only psych class many years ago. The prevailing wisdom at the time for homosexuality and also I think, transgendered individuals had to do with an abnormal prenatal exposure to certain hormones. I do not know what the state of research is on this however.

Basically I think people object to homosexuality based on religious outlook. It is not rational. Neither is religion for that matter. This is an article of faith so no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to convince them. Maybe if Jesus came back flaming gay, perhaps sporting spiked heels, a sequined clutch purse and a feather boa, but barring that unlikely occurrence, I think this issue will be with us as long as it is a useful tool to the people who benefit from it remaining controversial.

That being said, if instead science stops looking for the gay gene and instead seeks gay jeans, they will have no problems locating them in many fashionable dance clubs. Now if you'll pardon me I have a teleconference with Satan and some of my fellow minions. Too doo loo.

Anyone with the most elementary understanding of genetics knows this cannot happen.

Really? Do you have the most elementary understanding of genetics? Or do you assume that the fifth-grade overview of brown eyes / blue eyes gives you everything you need to understand?

Here's something to ponder, Brandon: in humans, the gene for five fingers on each hand is recessive. Yes! It's true. The dominant gene codes for six fingers on each hand. Anyone with the most elementary understanding of genetics knows that by now, we should all have twelve fingers, right?

But genetics just isn't that easy.

I know a guy with six fingers on one hand and five on the other.

I know a guy with six fingers on one hand and five on the other.

See what happens to masturbators. God gets you.

No Nearing, eating is not the same thing, Don't be silly. While a human may have an urge to eat, he also has a need to eat. While propagation of the species requires inter-gender sexual contact, individual survival does not.
I don't believe a homosexual should have to choose to have sex anymore than a heterosexual should have to choose to wait for marriage. Because they don't "have to choose" They DO choose to, just as some folks choose not to. If you can accept who you are and embrace it, there is no shame in your choice. If you consider yourself "a dirty fag" for giving into your urges then you have only yourself to "blame". (not to mention some really @!$%#ed up self esteem and insecurity issues).

nearing and Adam Kemp,

I went to sleep. Perhaps I should have waited as people seem to think I am refusing to answer questions ...

Adam, I never identified my gender preference, but yes, I chose to engage in heterosexual activities.

nearing, I never said people should abstain from sex or engage in sex. I said people have a choice. They can choose to abstain, they can choose to engage in sex and they can choose the gender of the person they choose to have sex with.

I have never seen a study on the issue but it seems that most people who identify as homosexual have engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual coupling. Such behavior shows an ability to choose.

You ask why anyone would choose homosexuality when faced with social stigma and I certainly don't know. Many people choose behaviors which cause them social ostracism every day. I never know why people choose so poorly.

jpark---there you go again:

You ask why anyone would choose homosexuality when faced with social stigma and I certainly don't know.

as asked above:

Why would anyone "choose" to be a part of one of the most despised groups of people on the planet?

As the seeded article indicates, and the article that I linked to above, and you choose to not accept: homosexuality has genetic influences. Therefore, jpark, Mary Baker and Billman you will continue to insist that homosexuals have a choice (to have sex or not to have sex). Perhaps you fail to understand that there are, apparently, many who have made that choice (the not to have sex choice) and I think you will probably find them in monasteries and convents. Perhaps if you took your head out of the bible long enough to look around you, you might just see that the world is not as easily understood as you think; it is quite confusing and the environmental factors (such as harsh home life, strict indoctrination, gangs, religion, politics and many more) have many non-beneficial influences !!!

try citing that Bill,

There is no evidence that such a correlation exists. Putting it in sciency sounding sentences does not make it any more true.

Adam, I never identified my gender preference, but yes, I chose to engage in heterosexual activities.

First of all, that's not what I asked. I asked if you chose to be a heterosexual, not if you chose to perform heterosexual actions. The distinction is important because this article has nothing to do with actions. This article is about homosexuality not being a choice. Your response blurs that distinction between being homosexual and performing homosexual acts even while you pretend to make the distinction. The article has nothing to do with acts, so why are you acting like the article doesn't show that homosexuality (not acts) is not a choice?

Now, with all that said, what does it matter if the actions are a choice? The only reason to bring that up is to make it seem like it's their fault if they choose to have a relationship with another human being whom are actually attracted to. Maybe that's a choice. So what? You would make the same choice. Everyone wants to be loved and to love, and it is wrong to ask anyone to just "choose" not to ever be in a loving relationship with someone they like (not someone you like) just to suit your idea of what a real relationship should be.

Adam Kemp,

First of all, that's not what I asked. I asked if you chose to be a heterosexual, not if you chose to perform heterosexual actions. The distinction is important because this article has nothing to do with actions. This article is about homosexuality not being a choice. Your response blurs that distinction between being homosexual and performing homosexual acts even while you pretend to make the distinction. The article has nothing to do with acts, so why are you acting like the article doesn't show that homosexuality (not acts) is not a choice?

The title of the article is: "Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors"

The study asked people about their behaviors:

This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had.

The study definitely does deal with acts. At no point does the study ask "How do you feel?".

People are defined by their actions, not by their feelings. A man who thinks about killing someone is not a murderer. A man who thinks about stealing is not a thief.

I will not involve myself in any argument about how someone else feels.

Now, with all that said, what does it matter if the actions are a choice? The only reason to bring that up is to make it seem like it's their fault if they choose to have a relationship with another human being whom are actually attracted to. Maybe that's a choice. So what? You would make the same choice. Everyone wants to be loved and to love, and it is wrong to ask anyone to just "choose" not to ever be in a loving relationship with someone they like (not someone you like) just to suit your idea of what a real relationship should be.

It matters because there is a choice.

This article was not about the moral or religious aspects of sexuality. It was about the incidence of homosexuality and the factors contributing to homosexuality. The statement that there is no choice is wrong, hence I say that there is a choice.

jpark:

they can choose the gender of the person they choose to have sex with... I never know why people choose so poorly.

So, does that mean that you get all hot and bothered in the locker room with a bunch of guys but you choose to go home and have sex with a woman? Wow, what a lucky lady.

Never much cared for locker rooms.

Try understanding his point jpark.

As the sustainable population of given "animal" in it's territory reaches balance, homosexual activity in said "animal" will increase. Too many mouths to feed = fewer reproducing animals. Since sexual hormones are still present throughout the population, the focus of the outlet for those "needs" will be met through same sex coupling.

You're making the rather amusing assumption that animals automagically sense when their population becomes unsustainable, and "turn gay" to stave off mass starvation. Hehe, that's a good one.

Try understanding his point jpark.

We've been saying that to jpark for quite a long time, to no avail.

You're making the rather amusing assumption that animals automagically sense when their population becomes unsustainable, and "turn gay" to stave off mass starvation. Hehe, that's a good one.

No, I'm not assuming they "turn gay". If that was implied I apologize. What I am stating is that animals do "sense" when their population becomes unsustainable. (for you to deny or mock that fact tells me you're not very knowledgeable when it comes to the subject).

Do to the stresses of overpopulation Sexually Antagonistic Selection comes into play in which the females will give birth to more "gay" offspring.

Here are some links discussing Sexually Antagonistic Selection if you want to actually learn something.

www.scientificblogging.com
www.nature.com
www.plosone.org

Jack--not that I am well versed in it but for:

You're making the rather amusing assumption that animals automagically sense when their population becomes unsustainable,

I refer you to the lemming phenomenon.

I refer you to the lemming phenomenon.

I thought that was debunked years ago. If i recall correctly Disney basically chased a bunch of them over a ledge and filmed it to "create" the "lemming phenomenon".

The title of the article is: "Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors"

The "behavior" mentioned is the desire and the acts which result from that desire. If you want to argue that actions have no connection to desires then go ahead. It wouldn't be the craziest thing you've said, but it would still be crazy.

People are defined by their actions, not by their feelings. A man who thinks about killing someone is not a murderer. A man who thinks about stealing is not a thief.

While the latter two sentences are true, the first is not. People are defined by both their actions and their feelings. The words "murderer" and "thief" inherently describe behavior. In fact, the construction of the "murderer" literally means "someone who murders", just as "runner" literally means "someone who runs".

Those words do describe actions, but there are other words that describe what a person is. The words "heterosexual" and "homosexual" refer to sexual attraction, not actions. A person may be heterosexual without ever actually having intimate relations with another person. Likewise, a person may be homosexual and never have intimate relations with anyone. Alternatively, someone may be a heterosexual who engages in gay or lesbian sex for pornography, thus committing homosexual acts while not actually being homosexual.

The only reason to try to push homosexuality into the realm of actions only is to promote an agenda that is anti-homosexual. It places blame on homosexuals for acting out their desires by treating it as a choice instead of what they are. You want to separate their desires from their actions, which makes no sense.

Well put Adam.
=-)

No, I'm not assuming they "turn gay". If that was implied I apologize. What I am stating is that animals do "sense" when their population becomes unsustainable.

Fair enough. However, if you wished no such implication, I question your motive for saying As the sustainable population of given "animal" in it's territory reaches balance, homosexual activity in said "animal" will increase.

... not to mention a source for such a contention.

RETLAW: Lemming hoax.

Jack...
It should have read ... " homosexual offspring will be produced". Bad wording on my part.

Source would be ... Sexually Antagonistic Selection.

RETLAW---

Therefore, jpark, Mary Baker and Billman you will continue to insist that homosexuals have a choice (to have sex or not to have sex). ...Perhaps if you took your head out of the bible long enough to look around you, you might just see that the world is not as easily understood as you think...

If you ever find my head in a bible it's because it was severed from my torso and placed there by a somebody else. Other than for mythological reference, I have no use for the book.

I still stand by the fact that as humans, we do have the ability to choose our sexual partners (to have sex or not). I don't have any issues with people giving into their "inborn urges" as long as they are with a consenting partner.
If you'd take a little time to read my comments, I think you'll find that I have never asserted that it is wrong to have a homosexual relationship, And if you can find any instance of me quoting the bible for any reason other than to question it....I'll give you a cookie.

Jpark, et. al. - consider this: of the thousands of species in which homosexuality has been observed, one of those is the common fruit fly. IF homosexuality is a choice, fruit flies are making it. IF homosexuality were "immoral" then fruit flies, with a brain the size of a head of a pin, are choosing to be immoral.

BTW - yes, there have been surveys of gay men that showed that nearly half of gay men (over 40) have been married, over 40% have children; it's not that they physically could not "perform", they were not attracted to an opposite sex partner but wanted a family or were afraid to be with a man at that time, etc. I have not seen a similar study for women but would assume the same; anecdotally I know of lesbian women have been married to a man previously; and some who have had sex with men just to have children.

BTW - the easy way to tell if you are gay or straight or bi: I am sure that you biological adults out there know how your body responds to sexual desire: nipples get firm, other body parts, etc. Look at a picture of a naked person: If you are a man and it is a man and you get a physical response you are gay; if you are a man and it is a woman and you get a physical response you are straight, if you got a response to both you are bi, if you got no response to both you are dead and should not be reading this. Seriously, you are repressing yourself to the point that you are (sexually) dead - seek professional help. Now. The world has enough serial killers.

Look at a picture of a naked person

come on eriq, they have to be naked photos of hot people.

In the words of the Only presidential candidate I would ever admit to supporting, Pat Paulsen; "Picky, picky, picky."

Are you offering any for perusal eriq??

Then I have to beg the question - why bother mentioning that humans choose their behavior if there was no real point to put across? Such is common sense. Both hetero and homosexuals choose their behavior - regardless of what sex their genetics and environment predisposes them to be more inclined to have sexual urges with. Such is not new to the science of human behavior.

... why bother mentioning that humans choose their behavior ...

The first comment on this seed noted that there was no choice. There is a choice so I pointed out that there was a choice.

try reading closer... no choice in how you feel jPark, not what you do.

OK. I read comment #1 again:

There you go. Choice has nothing to do with it.

The comment said choice had nothing to do with it.

And I said (comment #2):

How do you come to that conclusion? The study finds a combination of genetic and environmental factors influence preference.

How do genetic or environmental factors eliminate choice?

Some people want to reduce human beings to automata, to animals with no choices, merely following somatic urges. Human beings are much more than our somatic urges. I don't accept that people are compelled by our bodies to act in any particular way.

And nearing answered your question.

You do not choose your genetics or the environment you are raised in (that includes the womb where hormones have a greater impact on sexuality than genetics)

I think there's only a choice if the urge is simultaneously to swing one way or another; then one is in the position of choosing. So, if one is contiually confronting hetero or homo relations then one is continually confronting choice.

Unless, of course, it's an evening of fun-filled debauchery but I think that's for a different topic.

The actual point jpark and friends are missing is that it doesn't matter if there is a choice or not. There is nothing actually wrong with being homosexual, unless you have the delusional belief that a god dictated the perfect truth of the universe to some illiterate goat herders several thousand years ago.

Ryan Booker,

I have not been moralizing. There is a choice. When there are statements made that there is not choice, it is appropriate to note that the choice is there. This does not represent a moral judgment, it only points out that the 'no choice' statement is not true.

jpark---

I don't accept that people are compelled by our bodies to act in any particular way.

What you don't accept, and reality, are obviously different. See my post above.

Apparently jpark has the ability to not eat or drink or breath to the point of death.

It takes a great deal of imagination and intelligence to be able to see beyond what we do not already possess within ourselves. Or to state it more colloquially, to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

Biology 101:

Penises go into vaginas. The vagina is an in-out door. Sperm moves in, babies come out.

Feces move out of the colon through the anus. Therefore, the anus is an out-door, not an in-door.

A person may experience an urge to engage in a homosexual act. That urge though natural , does not mean it ought to be acted upon. Urges can be found in many other conditions like gluttony, kleptomania, murder, bestiality. Should these urges be acted upon?

An urge is not a cause of an action. The choice to act upon the urge is the cause of the action.

Why do people go to such lengths to argue around the obvious?

Except there are human beings that have no urge or interest to copulate with the opposite sex because of genetic and environmental factors. Instead, they enjoy and are more inclined to participate in non-procreation sex with a same sex partner - this is called homosexuality. It isn't unethical or unnatural to participate in sex that isn't for procreation, folks like barren women or men with necrozoospermia have sex regularly as well.

Urges can be found in many other conditions like gluttony, kleptomania, murder, bestiality.

And yet another bigot who can't wait to conflate homosexuality with bestiality, murder, and ever other kind of thing he thinks might smear or change the subject.

Urges can be found in many other conditions like gluttony, kleptomania, murder, bestiality.

The urge to spout off inane BS because someone told you it's "christian"...would that be the urge to "Righteous Indignation" or simply a compulsion?

nearing...

what ever do you mean? ;-)

Nearing:

Heterosexual sex is not just penis into vagina.

Sure if you define sex as more than intercouse. I'm sure you will now tell me that other animals also engage in other sexual activity other than intercourse for pleasure. Sex as entertainment is a necessary evolutionary mechanism. Yep.

Homosexual sex is not just penis into anus.

Ditto. Whatever.

Wheel:

And yet another bigot who can't wait to conflate homosexuality with bestiality, murder, and ever other kind of thing he thinks might smear or change the subject.

Asleep at the wheel, wheel? Genes carry information. They do not produce information. Genes express the decisions we make. We are not slaves to the whims of our genes.

Homosexuality is in the mind, not the body. You may 'feel' attracted to the opposite sex. So does that 'feeling' equal there is nothing you can do about it? There are many cases of ex-homosexuals. Have you considered those experiences? Didn't think so.

If, as you believe, homosexuality is an inherent trait 'caused' by genes, then of course you would have to 'conflate' it with other traits that are also 'caused' by genes. If an urge is genetic, all urges are genetic. No?

Why the sensativity to including 'other' urges with a homosexual urge? How do you classify each urge? Enlighten the vine, if you would.

Urges can be found in many other conditions like gluttony, kleptomania, murder, bestiality.

The urge to spout off inane BS because someone told you it's "christian"...would that be the urge to "Righteous Indignation" or simply a compulsion?

What you 'feel' does not equal being beneficial to your physical or emotional health. What you feel is just that, what you feel.

How you respond to those feelings and the consequences of that response is what determines benefit or detriment to your physical and emotional well being.

BTW, the BS is coming from your side. Genes as friggin' masters of your life. Yeah, right! A cop out if there ever wuz one.

Sure if you define sex as more than intercouse.

Here's where you just screwed up your argument. You want to define "sex" as only intercourse. Fine. Then there's no such thing as gay sex, and therefore you shouldn't have a problem with homosexuals.

Either you have to acknowledge that sex is more than just intercourse (in which case your scorn should be applied equally to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals) or you can't complain about homosexual sex, which (by your definition) does not exist.

I'm sure you will now tell me that other animals also engage in other sexual activity other than intercourse for pleasure.

Yes. They do.

Here's where you just screwed up your argument.

You're making a whole lotta assumptions. Like I say, reading between the lines causes blurred vision. I'm just responding to what I see as bad reasoning.

The problem I see is trying to connect homosexuality with gene activity, which is the focus of the article, no? Again, genes don't think, they don't select, they carry info. Change your thinking, your choices, you change your genes. Folks who were unlucky to inheret a set of genes that result in abnormalities have more work cut out for them. But that bad luck is changable. That's the key you (pl) won't consider. Your genes are not who you are. The represent your current physical and behavioral state. Change your physical attributes (except for the read only traits like skin color, eye color, bone shape and size) and change your behavioral choices and your genes will change with them. You have read only genes and read/rewritable genes. so there are lots of opportunities to influence your own life and the lives of your offspring.

Either you have to acknowledge that sex is more than just intercourse (in which case your scorn should be applied equally to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals) or you can't complain about homosexual sex, which (by your definition) does not exist.

Yes, there are all manner of sexual activity. None of them though, are hardwired into your genes. Behavioral traits are read/rewritable programming on your genes like I mentioned above. Anal intercourse by whomever is a choice and a foolish one (disease arises from either type of anal sex). If Russian roulette is your (pl) game, what can I say about it? What goes around comes around. Ya can't escape the gamble. I would advise against it 'naturally' but if you think its worth it, nothing doin'.

steven,

As usual with people who have no real argument you try to change the subjet. I accused you of conflating issues. You attack me. Typical.

The fact is steven you're a bigot trying to smear what you hate by associating with things that are hateful to others.

Wheel,

Unfortunately, the only attacking is coming from yr side.

Bigot? How many times have you made that charge? Have I done any name calling? Have I made any insults?

Changing the subject? Homosexuality is not a result of genes. Period. That's what I am saying.

Now can you speak to the issue? No need to name call. Just explain how behavior is read only in our genes.

Genes express the decisions we make. We are not slaves to the whims of our genes.

I know, dude. If only Tay-Sachs sufferers thought to change their genes, they'd be all better!

Change your thinking, your choices, you change your genes.

I didn't know Lamarckian believers still existed: giraffes exist because antelope stretched their necks real hard!

Yes, there are all manner of sexual activity. None of them though, are hardwired into your genes. Behavioral traits are read/rewritable programming on your genes like I mentioned above.

Yeah, and you've merely asserted it, just like how one can assert "flying unicorns secretly rule the world!" with equal validity.

If, as you believe, homosexuality is an inherent trait 'caused' by genes, then of course you would have to 'conflate' it with other traits that are also 'caused' by genes. If an urge is genetic, all urges are genetic. No?

Hahaha, what moronic oversimplification. Height is, according to your little claims, "read-only" (that bone size/shape part). However, grueling gymnastics training in childhood still stunts growth. Stop pretending to be stupid. That schtick is getting tired.

Changing the subject? Homosexuality is not a result of genes. Period. That's what I am saying.

Confidence is no substitute for substance, boy. Learn that.

Folks who were unlucky to inheret a set of genes that result in abnormalities have more work cut out for them.

Who says it's bad luck? That's subjective.

Change your physical attributes (except for the read only traits like skin color, eye color, bone shape and size) and change your behavioral choices and your genes will change with them.,

You can't change whether you are attracted to men or women. You can't just choose not to be attracted to men or women. Also, genes don't change because you want them to. It doesn't work that way.

None of them though, are hardwired into your genes.

Sexual attraction and sexual urges are hardwired. You can't change them. You can try to ignore them, but you cannot change them.

Anal intercourse by whomever is a choice and a foolish one (disease arises from either type of anal sex),

Anal sex is not the same thing as homosexuality. Yes, gay men often practice anal sex. That doesn't define them, though. They also practice other forms of sex. And so do lesbians. None of that has anything to do with the article, which is not about sex. It's about attraction. Who you have sex with and how you have sex is different from who you are attracted to.

Yeah, and you've merely asserted it, just like how one can assert "flying unicorns secretly rule the world!" with equal validity.

Jack, the Masons are going to come after you if you share "the big secret" like that.

shhhhh.

Steven - There are 3 big fallacies tie your thinking:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Therefore, the anus is an out-door, not an in-door.. Not true; the MALE anus has a prostate in it which, for proper health, should be massaged. This is one of the reasons why approximately 1/3 of all men develop prostate issues. For men, the anus is an in / out door.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The problem I see is trying to connect homosexuality with gene activity, which is the focus of the article, no? Again, genes don't think, they don't select, they carry info. Change your thinking, your choices, you change your genes. Folks who were unlucky to inheret a set of genes that result in abnormalities have more work cut out for them. But that bad luck is changable. That's the key you (pl) won't consider. Your genes are not who you are. The represent your current physical and behavioral state. Change your physical attributes (except for the read only traits like skin color, eye color, bone shape and size) and change your behavioral choices and your genes will change with them. You have read only genes and read/rewritable genes. so there are lots of opportunities to influence your own life and the lives of your offspring.

OK, you need a lot of coursework in Biology to understand just how wrong you have got this so I will summarize: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Genes do select; that's how they work. A given gene causes certain things to be created by matching it's sequence to other chemicals assembling them in order; etc.

NO, you can not change your genes. Ever. NO, you can not "change your behavioral choices and your genes will change with them." Please take a course in Biology before making such ridiculous, laughable claims. This is like saying change your behavior and you can defy gravity. YES, your genes ARE who you are (physically, and that's what we are talking about)

NO, there is much more than you think that is determined by your genes; for example, while some continue to think that you can control your weight/muscle mass entirely by exercise and diet; we now understand that people are born with certain limitations / advantages and: no matter how much you exercise, even 12 hours a day, no matter how much you eat or what you eat, you can only add as much muscle as your body / genetic makeup will support AND it will go away as fast or slow as your genes dictate if you stop / reduce exercising; (depending on your genes) you can only control "fat" weight to a certain degree no matter how much you diet, what you eat, how much you exercise.

NO, genes are not "abnormalities" or "bad luck" they are differences.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) An urge is not a cause of an action. The choice to act upon the urge is the cause of the action. I have an urge to breathe, does that mean I can choose not to - and still live? I have an urge to keep my heart beating, I have an urge to eat (it's called hunger), I have an urge to drink (it's called thirst), etc.; ultimately, LIFE, itself, is nothing more than an urge, or series of urges.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There just isn't any logic to these claims, just a lot of irrational preconceptions that someone told you and you are now telling us without ever examining them for the obvious fallacies they contain. It shows.

The first comment on this seed noted that there was no choice. There is a choice so I pointed out that there was a choice.

You are gay, not just in the closet gay, but locked in a safe, and thrown away the key gay. You have made the personnel choice never have gay sex. This is the only way you can be so adamant on the subject and insist you know that it is just a matter of choice and will power, is if you have personal experience. Very commendable of you Jpark. I bet you never even masturbated as an adolescent. Straight to heaven for you buddy. I'm surprised you don't float around as you walk as it is. What a man, what a manly man. A Man among Men. The quissential iconicity of masculinity incarnate.

Funny Dan.

Everything human beings do involves choice.

If homosexuality is a choice then all humans should be able to date and marry somebody that they're not attracted to (physically and emotionally) and not have a problem with it.

I know, dude. If only Tay-Sachs sufferers thought to change their genes, they'd be all better!

We are all part of one family, us humans. That Tay-Sachs suffers for you bub. It'll take you and science a few millenium to figure it out, 'naturally'. Your denseness is directly proportional to your arrogance.

Yes, there are all manner of sexual activity. None of them though, are hardwired into your genes. Behavioral traits are read/rewritable programming on your genes like I mentioned above.

Yeah, and you've merely asserted it, just like how one can assert "flying unicorns secretly rule the world!" with equal validity.

Indian men are sexually attracted to fat women. Show me the MASAFW gene, 'dude'. This'll be fun. Got me a pot of Oolong ready. I'll be here. :)

Changing the subject? Homosexuality is not a result of genes. Period. That's what I am saying.

Confidence is no substitute for substance, boy. Learn that

.

How duz dat make ya feel, Jack? Boy? Oooooh. Your 'we can't help who and what we are cuz geez, my genes did it' is friggin' old. Again, a cop out. Be an adult would ya and take responsibility for your actions. Don't lay it at the 'feet' of your genes. Sheesh.

You can't change whether you are attracted to men or women. You can't just choose not to be attracted to men or women. Also, genes don't change because you want them to. It doesn't work that way.

Sexual attraction and sexual urges are hardwired. You can't change them. You can try to ignore them, but you cannot change them.

Sure it does. Changing your lifestyle can change your genes

Who you have sex with and how you have sex is different from who you are attracted to.

Like I said to Jack, don't push off behavior onto your genes. Next thing you know, you'll be blaming your genes for getting fired.

Therefore, the anus is an out-door, not an in-door.. Not true; the MALE anus has a prostate in it which, for proper health, should be massaged. This is one of the reasons why approximately 1/3 of all men develop prostate issues. For men, the anus is an in / out door.

Come on. What is this? Where do you get this stuff from? In Chikung, all you have to do is press directly in the area of your lower abdomen with a flat hand, pressing down from the tips of your fingers and hold for a few seconds on each press. Viola, no prostrate or bladder issues.

A given gene causes certain things to be created by matching it's sequence to other chemicals assembling them in order; etc.

Genes are not the cause of anything. They don't have a friggin' brain. They do what they are told to do. How long will it take for ya'll to figure it out? A hundred years maybe. I'll be here waiting. :)

NO, you can not change your genes. Ever. NO, you can not "change your behavioral choices and your genes will change with them." Please take a course in Biology before making such ridiculous, laughable claims. This is like saying change your behavior and you can defy gravity. YES, your genes ARE who you are (physically, and that's what we are talking about)

Yeah? The same link here that I gave to Adam:

changing your lifestyle can change your genes

So you see, you do have read only and read/rewrite genes.

I have an urge to breathe, does that mean I can choose not to - and still live? I have an urge to keep my heart beating, I have an urge to eat (it's called hunger), I have an urge to drink (it's called thirst), etc.; ultimately, LIFE, itself, is nothing more than an urge, or series of urges.

Those are automatic responses from the hypothalamus. Is there a homosexual gene lurking the hypothalamus? Is that what you are saying? Good hunting.

That article is about prostate cancer, the title is misleading.

Steve:

That article's headline is wrong. The fact that someone else is wrong doesn't excuse you for being wrong. Genes do not change due to behavior. That's a fact. It doesn't happen. You are born with a certain set of genes, and you will die with the same set of genes. Genes are nothing but DNA. Behavior doesn't change your DNA. Period.

That article you linked to basically said that if you have genes that make you susceptible to certain diseases then you can do things to decrease your chances. Duh! If it's a gene that just makes you more susceptible to a disease then it's not a gene that gives you the disease. You're just improving your odds. The same is true for people who don't have that gene. They can also decrease their odds of getting that disease with the same behavior. They're just lucky enough to start out with lower odds even without doing anything at all.

Your problem is that you still think of homosexuality as a behavior. Homosexuality is not a behavior. It's not something you do. It's something you are.

A good analogy is the difference between being left-handed or right-handed. There is good evidence that people are born with a preference for right-handedness or left-handedness. Few people are equally good at using both hands. You can train yourself with a lot of work to use your less dominant hand, but naturally you will still be your original handedness. You are trying to override your genetic predisposition.

For left-handed versus right-handed that's just a matter of learning a new skill, but for sexual orientation it is much harder. It isn't just an issue of learning how to be attracted to the opposite sex. It's a matter of pretending to be attracted to the opposite sex. Attraction isn't something you do as an action. It's not a skill you learn. It's something you feel passively. You don't just decide "I'm going to be attracted to that person over there". It just happens instinctively or it doesn't happen at all.

What you're arguing is that people can just make up their minds to change who they are attracted to. Bull@!$%#. They can't do that. All they can do is pretend. That's the only "behavior" involved here.

Funny Dan.

Everything human beings do involves choice.

So you chose to be a bigot. And before you start foaming at the mouth and claiming I am calling you a name, let me define the word bigot to you as it is in the dictionary so there can be no misunderstanding.

bigoted |ˈbigətid|

adjective

obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries.
• expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

People make bad choices every day. But as I said before. You don't care, a slong as they make th echoise you say is right. But the problem is, you don't have the right to do that. I am going to give you a quote from a very smart man. i don't except you to even begin to understand it, but I don't quote him for your benefit, because you're far to obstinate. This is for those who have the cognitive abilities to grasp the more advanced concepts.

And this pertains directly to why jpark is amoral in his obstinacy to tolerate the free will of others in the name of free choice.

There is no subjugation so perfect as that which keeps the appearance of freedom for in that way one captures volition itself. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

We are all part of one family, us humans. That Tay-Sachs suffers for you bub. It'll take you and science a few millenium to figure it out, 'naturally'. Your denseness is directly proportional to your arrogance.

That made absolutely no sense. Feel free to tell us what behaviors cure Tay-Sachs. Till then, you're running around like a freshly beheaded chicken.

Indian men are sexually attracted to fat women. Show me the MASAFW gene, 'dude'. This'll be fun.

Height is at least partially hereditary. Show me the "tall gene."

Like I said to Jack, don't push off behavior onto your genes. Next thing you know, you'll be blaming your genes for getting fired.

Interesting, so when did you actually decide to behave like a heterosexual? Or, for example, when did you decide to optimize your body for walking on two legs?

Your 'we can't help who and what we are cuz geez, my genes did it' is friggin' old. Again, a cop out.

"Cop out," from the kid who thinks assertion becomes substantive discussion with repetition. Ha.

Steven - apparently reading comprehension is another skill you don't have. The article you cite repeatedly uses the phrase "gene expression" and then defines that as the amount of activity of that gene and regulating the amount by starving it / feeding antigens to it. This is not the same as regulating it by changing behavior or "lifestyle"

There is no "gay lifestyle"; gay / lesbian people are in every lifestyle. Because of this there is no way "lifestyle changes" would change whether they are / are not homosexual; this is an incredibly ridiculous concept. Further, NO you can not change your genes, that would likely kill you. Your genes are in every cell of your being, changing any one would be a mutation, a cancer, and your bodies defenses would make every attempt to eliminate the changed gene. There is no such thing as a read / rewrite gene - that would be a cancer.

To answer your response: regarding "chikung" there is no medical evidence to support this.

Regarding what genes are Genes are not the cause of anything. They don't have a friggin' brain. They do what they are told to do. You have no idea what you are talking about. Genes are the cause of everything. They are a blueprint that acts as I described. They have no brain neither do they need one,. they do NOT do what they are told, they are the instructions. Again, I repeat, take a class in biology and learn what you are talking about; this is basic Science.

regarding "is there a homosexual gene ..." It is unknown whether there is one gene, several, many; whether sexuality is an instinct, urge, etc. You are asking a question that has no meaning because you are asking it in simpleton terms. We don't have a working definition for what sexuality is; whether there is no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality, or bisexuality, etc; only sexuality (on or of) and then various degrees of attraction; or ... There is no definition so how do you look for a gene / many genes when you don't know what those genes do or what else they are connected / interconnected to (i.e. do you need a certain kind / amount of intelligence to be gay while ignorance is tied to some other sexuality; etc.)

What we do know is that "choice" or "nurture" or "experience", etc.; can not explain homosexuality in the thousands of species on this planet which have homosexuals as members so it has to be genetic in some manner. Only those who do not believe in what they can see happening right in front of their own eyes, believe otherwise.

And we usually place those individuals in a "home" where they can't get a hold of sharp objects and hurt themselves.

Genes do not change due to behavior

You are right. They do not physically change. They are still there. However, they turn on or turn off based on the type of behavior you exhibit. Their turning on or off are 'expressions of your choices. Haven't you read up on gene expression and epigenetics?

Your problem is that you still think of homosexuality as a behavior. Homosexuality is not a behavior. It's not something you do. It's something you are.

Unproven. Your 'matter of factness' without conclusive evidence is something Jack Huang would take issue with.

A good analogy is the difference between being left-handed or right-handed. There is good evidence that people are born with a preference for right-handedness or left-handedness. Few people are equally good at using both hands. You can train yourself with a lot of work to use your less dominant hand, but naturally you will still be your original handedness. You are trying to override your genetic predisposition.

I can eat with chopsticks using my left hand just as easily and comfortably as my right. Genes are concerned with habits.

What you're arguing is that people can just make up their minds to change who they are attracted to. Bull@!$%#. They can't do that. All they can do is pretend. That's the only "behavior" involved here.

Pure conjecture.

That made absolutely no sense. Feel free to tell us what behaviors cure Tay-Sachs.

I know I couldn't interest you in reading "Divine Mercy in My Soul' . But anyway, Saint Faustina endured sickness for years to save souls. The prayers and suffering of those who venerate Divine Mercy hold up the world. Do I hear chuckles in the background?Sorry you won't entertain such profound wisdom. I know its no sweat off your back as far as you are concerned. But when you cross over just remember that Steven P. reminded you about Mercy. Mercy's the anti-virus program that'll save the information that is you from getting wiped out by the Mega-Virus.

Indian men are sexually attracted to fat women. Show me the MASAFW gene, 'dude'. This'll be fun.

Height is at least partially hereditary. Show me the "tall gene."

Burden of proof in on you, Jack ole' boy. This is your forte. Show me the money.

Dan Hallo, aka, Zoilus,

So you chose to be a bigot. And before you start foaming at the mouth and claiming I am calling you a name, let me define the word bigot to you as it is in the dictionary so there can be no misunderstanding.

Almost 100% of the time, if a liberal does not win an argument, they will turn to personal attack. Why is that?

I am not bigoted. In your arrogance you attribute to me a behavior which I have not expressed. You presume that I care or judge a homosexual's behavior.

The only thing I have done is to point out the lie that there is no choice. There is always a choice.

Further, NO you can not change your genes, that would likely kill you. Your genes are in every cell of your being, changing any one would be a mutation, a cancer, and your bodies defenses would make every attempt to eliminate the changed gene. There is no such thing as a read / rewrite gene - that would be a cancer.

You are right. I am wrong. In this case, the gene activity I am talking about is disabling a gene, rather than re-writing it. Yes, mutation would be an example of a re-written gene. Not necessarily a cancer, though.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Genes are the cause of everything. They are a blueprint that acts as I described. They have no brain neither do they need one,. they do NOT do what they are told, they are the instructions. Again, I repeat, take a class in biology and learn what you are talking about; this is basic Science.

I disagree. Epigenetics says genes can be turned on or off. I can will genes to turn on or off. So yes you can 'tell' genes what to do. Go, stop, wait.

regarding "is there a homosexual gene ..." It is unknown whether there is one gene, several, many; whether sexuality is an instinct, urge, etc. You are asking a question that has no meaning because you are asking it in simpleton terms. We don't have a working definition for what sexuality is; whether there is no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality, or bisexuality, etc; only sexuality (on or of) and then various degrees of attraction; or ... There is no definition so how do you look for a gene / many genes when you don't know what those genes do or what else they are connected / interconnected to (i.e. do you need a certain kind / amount of intelligence to be gay while ignorance is tied to some other sexuality; etc.)

Translation. You have absolutely no idea what it is you are studying. Therefore you have no way to make the claim that it is genetic.

What we do know is that "choice" or "nurture" or "experience", etc.; can not explain homosexuality in the thousands of species on this planet which have homosexuals as members so it has to be genetic in some manner. Only those who do not believe in what they can see happening right in front of their own eyes, believe otherwise.

Er, no you don't know that. Uh, a poster on this thread said dogs mount other dogs to establish dominance. So there is no homosexuality, just 'homo-activity" :) What you 'see' is not always what 'is'.

Phrase of the day: Trust your judgement, not your eyes.

Yeah right, Jpark, you not a Bigot. Sure. Then being pro-choice, even for homosexuals, does not make me a Liberal, because I am for the death penalty and the right to bare arms. I love guns. A Neo-cons worse nightmare, a Liberal who knows how to shoot, and is not afraid to. WOW!

I guess I have to always just say it the long way, that you are obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of your own opinion and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions. Because you find the word Bigot as offensive. Well Archie. Pedophiles don't like being called child molesters either, and the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan are just innocent political organizations, because they don't like being called "Hate Groups", we shouldn't do it. Because if we do, we are being mean and hateful.

The only thing I have done is to point out the lie that there is no choice. There is always a choice.

Right, it's a lie, refuse to believe it's true, even if the experts say you are wrong, even when gays say your wrong, you know better then they do, you know better then everyone, and anyone who says any different, it is only because they are lying. What is it like in your little Bazzaro world Bigot.

Dan,

You are just ranting and spouting hate.

If you want to argue there is not choice in human behavior, provide supporting evidence.

In either event, you should at least try to comply with the COH.

I know I couldn't interest you in reading "Divine Mercy in My Soul' ... Mercy's the anti-virus program that'll save the information that is you from getting wiped out by the Mega-Virus.

Mindlessly irrelevant drivel. Enduring disease is not curing it. Even an idiot can see that, though apparently not you.

Pure conjecture.

He was just following your example. After all, if you won't accept rational discourse, we might as well lower our rhetoric to your level of comprehension.

Burden of proof in on you, Jack ole' boy. This is your forte. Show me the money.

Hahaha, evidence is certainly far from your forte. so you are saying that one can be tall if only one wished fervently for it. From that, then, we should conclude that dwarfs are inordinately short not through immutable genetics, but because, ya know, they didn't try hard enough to grow tall.

After all, there can't be a dwarf gene. And even if there was, just tell dwarfs to wish tallness for themselves. They'll stop being dwarfs in no time, right?

Now, care to say anything of substance?

You are just ranting and spouting hate.

How? How am am I ranting? Why when someone says something that is beyond the cognitive abilities of someone else it is labeled a rant. I am through talking to you like a child to get you to understand simple concepts, you refuse understand, not that you don't, so buy a dictionary sit down and figure these things out. Where is this hate coming from? All I feel is frustration. Hate, don't flatter yourself you're not that important.

Calling a duck a duck, is just making an observation. If you think you are a swan and Hate being called a duck, I can't help that you're a duck. I didn't make you a duck. Stop acting like one and I won't have to call you a duck.

If you want to argue there is not choice in human behavior, provide supporting evidence.

Unfortunately for you, the only one here trying to argue this point is you, as much as you want to make it out to be, it is not be the subject here, this is not what the article is about, it is a science article, not a philosophical, or theological debate on the nature or origin of free will....

People do have choice, no doubt about it, no one here disputes this. Were you are a bigot is in the fact YOU want to choose for them. And you refuse to accept their free will to choose for themselves.

In either event, you should at least try to comply with the COH.

Here it is, get marked as a bigot, for being a bigot, show that it is not NAME CALLING. Give a text book definition of the word, that is just a term like any other term used to describe a behavior, and therefor is no more Name calling is, any more then being called a Republican. And you still Hide behind the COH like it protects you from the consequences of behaving like a Bigot. If only life were that easy in the real world?

People do have choice, no doubt about it, no one here disputes this. Were you are a bigot is in the fact YOU want to choose for them. And you refuse to accept their free will to choose for themselves.

OK Dan. I'll call you the liar you are since name calling is all you can do.

I have not said that I want homosexuals to be different. I have not denigrated them. I only said that they have a choice..

You are the bigot in that you think yourself above reproach. You think you can judge others and pronounce them inadequate when you have no evidence to support your rants.

Continue to be an elitist prick. You do that well!

I am finished talking to you.

Homosexuals do have choices.

1. Sleep with people they are attracted to.
2. Sleep with people they are not attracted to.
3. Don't sleep with people at all.

and, it turns out that heterosexuals have those same choices.

Absolutely.

Continue to be an elitist prick. You do that well!

I am finished talking to you.

::As jpark, Violates the COH, stamps his foot, wipes his running nose, slams the door and runs stumbling down the trail for home to get some cookies and milk::
Get over yourself and grow up. How old are you? C'mon jpark. You have a choice to at least act like an adult.

How do genetic or environmental factors eliminate choice?
You do not choose how you are born, do you.

But we choose how we behave.You use the word "behave", as if it is a command from an authority figure or a parent. Good or bad behavior, what is or is not acceptable behavior. Sorry, this is your main mistake, and why you are so frustrated, and aggravating. That is not the kind of behavior referred to here. it is not meant to be judgmental.

You are failing to understand the main point, that there is strong evidence here presented by this study that there is a genetic, innate disposition towards homosexuality that some peole are born with. Do you understand this? Yes or No. Do you agree? Yes or no?
Human beings have extensive ability to choose behavior. Then they should ignore their nature and choose to act counter to it because of societal bigotry's and prejudices? Yes or No?

Their turning on or off are 'expressions of your choices.

Ok, then. Change the color of your hair. According to you, that's a choice. You can "will it". So go ahead. Then, after you've won the Nobel prize for refuting all of genetics, you can come back here and tell me how you did it.

OHhhh, so if I just will it hard enough I can cure being bald?!

It's a choice to have sex.
It's a choice who you have sex with.

It's not a choice as to what sex you're attracted to. ;]

Sure Emily.

I eventually get incensed when people repeatedly call me names.

Feel free to delete any comment I have made which offends.

(There is no method to appropriately respond to someone who continues to violate the COH by calling you names, etc. I have tried ignoring such posts and I have tried asking for the posts to be removed. I have even reported such posts. Nothing really works.)

If you review my posts and Dan's, I think you will see that Dan continually violated the COH before I finally responded in kind.

Their turning on or off are 'expressions of your choices.

Ok, then. Change the color of your hair. According to you, that's a choice. You can "will it". So go ahead. Then, after you've won the Nobel prize for refuting all of genetics, you can come back here and tell me how you did it.

Hair color is a read only gene for physical traits. Homosexuality is not a physical trait. It is a behavioral trait.

Behavioral traits can be modified by turning them on or off. The study I linked to shows your choices result in genes being turned off. You are saying no to genetic activity that is detrimental to your health. You are taking charge and your genes respond in kind.

You are under the mistaken impression that there is only one type of gene in yourbody. You will find there are many types and they all act differently.

When Jack finds the homosexuality gene/genes in the hypothalumus, which controls automatic responses like breathing and heart rate, as well as sexual activity, then you can throw a party.

What behavior are you talking about? You still have not explained what you mean by "behavior". Again, homosexuality is not an action. It's not something you do.

You are saying no to genetic activity that is detrimental to your health. You are taking charge and your genes respond in kind.

I just cannot believe how ridiculous your interpretation of that article is. Almost everything you just said contradicts how genetics works. It's not about "turning off" a gene. It's not about "taking charge" over the genes.

When Jack finds the homosexuality gene/genes in the hypothalumus

Wow. When you say things like that it just further demonstrates your complete ignorance of biology. Genes are not localized. You don't look for genes in one particular place in the body.

Seriously, you need to get a clue. Figure out how biology works and then come back here and try to have a discussion about this. Right now you're just really digging yourself a hole and making yourself look really ignorant.

I know I couldn't interest you in reading "Divine Mercy in My Soul' ... Mercy's the anti-virus program that'll save the information that is you from getting wiped out by the Mega-Virus.

Mindlessly irrelevant drivel. Enduring disease is not curing it. Even an idiot can see that, though apparently not you.

Maybe one day you and science will understand the interconnectedness of all life. Just maybe you will figure out that disease is really an virus program, prayer an anti-virus program and our will, our choices are the command to set that anti-virus program off.

And just maybe you and all the other skeptics out there will get wise and join the 'real fight' by attempting your own TCP protocol handshake with our divine, universal, self-sustaining operating system.

After all, if you won't accept rational discourse, we might as well lower our rhetoric to your level of comprehension.

It was 'revealed' to me a long time ago that science takes the long way home. If you really need all that exercise, who am I to stop you? Go right on ahead. Just don't make the mistake that people who won't jog along side you are somehow inadequate to the task of understanding. They comprehend life just fine without a microscope. That's why they stay at home, grap a cuppa and enjoy looking at the stars.

Hahaha, evidence is certainly far from your forte. so you are saying that one can be tall if only one wished fervently for it. From that, then, we should conclude that dwarfs are inordinately short not through immutable genetics, but because, ya know, they didn't try hard enough to grow tall.

After all, there can't be a dwarf gene. And even if there was, just tell dwarfs to wish tallness for themselves. They'll stop being dwarfs in no time, right?

Now, care to say anything of substance?

Can't get off that easy with all that bluster. You, Adam, Wheel, Dan, Eric all insist homosexuality is a physical trait. You are making the claim . Show me the gene/genes that code for homosexuality. You can't because there are none. Because homosexuality is not a physical trait.

The link I showed proved that we can influece our genes by our choices. Our choices have the effect of being able to turn on and off genes in our body. So we do have control over genes other than the read only genes for physical traits.

Your turn.

You are saying no to genetic activity that is detrimental to your health. You are taking charge and your genes respond in kind.

I just cannot believe how ridiculous your interpretation of that article is. Almost everything you just said contradicts how genetics works. It's not about "turning off" a gene. It's not about "taking charge" over the genes.

You must be one of those guys that believes in junk DNA; because they don't have any 'apparent' function.

FYI, your soul controls your body through the interface called the mind.

When Jack finds the homosexuality gene/genes in the hypothalumus

Wow. When you say things like that it just further demonstrates your complete ignorance of biology. Genes are not localized. You don't look for genes in one particular place in the body.

A copy of all your genes is in every cell, correct? But in each area of the body, only certain genes are turned on, which produces our individual parts, right?

Now if they hypothalamus is responsible for sexual activity, then certain genes were activated in the region where the hypothalamus is located to first, produce the hypothalamus gland, and then to give it is functions, no?

So logically, if we investigating the hypothalamus region we could seek to understand the attributes and activity of the genes in that region of the brain in order to determine if there is a gene that 'compels' a person to be attracted to someone of the same sex.

Maybe one day you and science will understand the interconnectedness of all life. Just maybe you will figure out that disease is really an virus program, prayer an anti-virus program and our will, our choices are the command to set that anti-virus program off.

And just maybe you and all the other skeptics out there will get wise and join the 'real fight' by attempting your own TCP protocol handshake with our divine, universal, self-sustaining operating system.

Huh?

FYI, your soul controls your body through the interface called the mind.

Wow, and there I was thinking that particular aspect of Cartesian logic had died out. Where's my horse?

lol @ "where's my horse?"

Emily. I would have gladly reported this if I ever was offended, I wasn't.

The article is clear, the issue is one of science, not the philosophy on the existence of "free will", and the article has shown that Homosexuality is innate. It is not a choice to be born a microcephalic if you would rather be a genius.
This common sense fact was disputed, repeatedly, by using a semantic play on the word "Behavior" is not a valid argument, but spin. and proceeds that the choice of a duck to not be one, is unrealistic and asking it to be a swan is, because you don't like ducks. This is bigotry. I pointed this out, as many others here did the difference is, I proved it. And still, the same false argument was harped on. He got in his philosophic conundrum of his own false logic, and said I was a hater for being the one to show him his error.

The COH is not a shield to hide behind when you have lost an argument and get mad. Calling me a hater and saying I am in Violation of the COH is just that, A tactic. And it is one that is used here too often. There is no reason to apologize to anyone for pointing out the truth except to say I am sorry it's true.

Genes don't "turn on" or "turn off" during your lifetime. That's the first thing you need to figure out. You don't go look at the DNA and say "ok, is that gene right there on or off?". Seriously, go figure out how genetics works and then come back.

Genes don't "turn on" or "turn off" during your lifetime.

Stem cells do that all the time. The turn off a large portion of their capabilities when they specialize by forming a particular type of cell.

Genes don't "turn on" or "turn off" during your lifetime.

It happens all the time.

That morning coffee is just the thing to get the brain in gear and the body moving. But it turns out that just the aroma of coffee also gets some of our genes up and at 'em. That's according to research in the June 25th issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. The authors report that a sniff of coffee turns on several genes in the brain in ways that help diminish the impact of sleep deprivation. In rats, at least.
Rats that were stressed by lack of sleep were exposed to the smell of coffee. Seventeen different genes got activated in their brains. And thirteen of them produced proteins known to protect nerve cells from the damaging effects of stress. While there have been numerous studies analyzing the health impact of the ingredients ingested when drinking coffee, the researchers say that this is the first study to examine the effects of coffee's aroma. Genes that tell the body to produce hormones, or enzymes turn on and off all the time as well.

Dan - read what you wrote: Genes do not "turn on and off"; the response of the body to certain stimuli causes it to use genes to produce proteins - the genes are the code; they do not turn on and off. This podcast transcript is an oversimplification for the unscientific.

Steven - I wrote this last night and when I hit post comment, newsvine had crashed (approx midnight PDT)

You still have no idea of biology and what genes are / what they do. there is no turning them on or off - what you (and that article you cited) are really talking about is regulating the effects / symptoms. In other words - you can take an aspirin for a headache but it does not treat the cause of the headache (a cold, for example) only the symptom - the headache.

You can by behavior treat the effect (homosexuality) by celibacy, but not the cause - which is related to heterosexuality so to end homosexuality you have to end heterosexuality and human reproduction. Good luck with that.

You also demonstrate severe delusions, signs of insanity with prayer an anti-virus program and our will, our choices are the command to set that anti-virus program off. No, "prayer" is not an anti-virus program; prayer is prayer and can not change a physical object; neither can "will" or "choices". Gravity will ignore you, momentum will ignore you, inertia will ignore you; and on and on. If you could change your genes

Dan - read what you wrote:

Duh...I don't need to read when I write, my secretary takes dictation......LOL

I didn't write it... it's quoted transcript from Scientific American's audio podcast who covered the story, you read it, slowly. Wait... click the link and listen to the podcast, the stimuli is the switch. So what makes them stop producing the proteins? Stimuli turns them off and they stop, or do the genes just run amok, and make Cancers, tumors and even Death, sometimes yes? This is a long time well understood, subject. If you don't WANT to believe it fine..

No, they don't turn on and off. They are not always expressed, but that doesn't mean they're "off". The effects genes have require certain biological conditions in order to be expressed. That are used during those conditions and dormant otherwise. They're never "off", though. You cannot disable them, and you certainly can't "will" them into submission.

they are not always expressed, but that doesn't mean they're "off".

ahh, yah right...

Genes have two states, active and inactive states. Or on and off. If they are never active, if what they used to be turned on for is no longer necessary or no longer serves a purpose, they are called dormant genes. This could be due to the fact that you are no longer in puberty, or you have reached menopause.

The genes didn't die, they just don't become active. You age, you stop growing hair and go bald, whatever. This is what happens in the regulation of endocrine system. For example. Regulating hormones and enzymes. that go where they need to go and when they need to be there.

Most enzymes are proteins with large complex molecules whose action depends on their particular molecular shape. Some enzymes control reactions within cells and some, such as the enzymes involved in digestion, outside them. The gene that "activates" and tells the specific glands necessary to produce this enzyme only become active "turn on" when lactose is in the digestive tract.

Some people never have this gene turned on, they have it, it was there when they were babies and were nursing, but when the reached puberty, it turns off. They are "Lactose intolerant". They have the same glands as everyone else, these glands are not dormant, they produce all kinds of enzymes. but they are never given the instruction from the gene to produce the proper enzyme for the digestion of Lactose. ALL HEALTHY Babies have this gene at birth. there is actually another gene that tells this gene to go dormant at a certain stage of life, perhaps so you don't hog all the milk from you baby sister..... Why some people have this gene stay on, or another gene take it's place to do the same thing is a matter of evolution, (The tribes who raised cows and adapted to drink milk after puberty, survived better then those who didn't, passing on the trait. the people of Europe who drank milk have a different gene used to produce the lactose enzyme then the peoples of the African plans who drank cows milk do) but. that's a whole other argument for the chronically ignorant to rationalize away and deny till they die.

You also demonstrate severe delusions, signs of insanity with prayer an anti-virus program and our will, our choices are the command to set that anti-virus program off. No, "prayer" is not an anti-virus program; prayer is prayer and can not change a physical object; neither can "will" or "choices". Gravity will ignore you, momentum will ignore you, inertia will ignore you; and on and on. If you could change your genes

The ignorance is your I'm afraid. First, yogi have proven they can levitate. Second, have you experienced 'seeing' people going about their daily lives in your mind? I know you haven't had the experience but I have. It's a developing gift and the more I focus, the more I can see people and events though I am not yet able to grasp their significance yet. However, the immediate effect is a strong sense of dejavu. I 'know' I have tapped into a life situation before it happened.

The problem is you are a skeptic. You don't seek such things because you skoff at them so you will never be able to experience them. So you will never have experiential evidence of things unseen and untouchable yet ever so real.

I am an optimist and have great faith. I venture into the realm of myself and will discover so much. I am sorrowful for all of you who, because of your skepticism, will lose out on the fantastic ride, which is 'knowing thyself'.

Oh yeah, you can control and influece your body. We have 85% of our brain unused. I suggest you get outta biology class and start praying and meditating. It will get you that much faster to tapping into the that 'junk' 85% of your unused brain.

We have 85% of our brain unused.

Yet another sign of your ignorance. Humans use 100% of their brains. It is a complete myth that we only use part of our brains. The reason people think this is because only part of our brain is used for conscious thought. The rest is used for other things.

I think you need to get into a biology class. Your meditation and prayer is doing no good for your ignorance.

First, yogi have proven they can levitate.

Show me the money.

So you will never have experiential evidence of things unseen and untouchable yet ever so real.

Actually, hallucinogenic drugs will give people that sort of experience quite readily.

We have 85% of our brain unused. I suggest you get outta biology class and start praying and meditating. It will get you that much faster to tapping into the that 'junk' 85% of your unused brain.

Ha. It's amusing that you can't even get your own misguided myth correct. The classic myth is "we only use 10% of our brains." Read more.

That 10% thing was started by a novelist and has no basis in fact, with the possible exception of Chris and a couple of his ilk, removal of 90% of most peoples brains would result in death, or at least a pay cut.

I can't believe people still go around with that % brain fallacy... are they trying to prove it by being so dumb I mean even if you do nothing but watch cartoons all day you should know better then that.....

Andimia,
If homosexuality is a choice then all humans should be able to date and marry somebody that they're not attracted to (physically and emotionally) and not have a problem with it.

and this is precisely what goes on with the religious community - it's called "duty" or "tradition" or some other BS tag. But it's also "honor" because to suffer is a good thing, after all, Jesus suffered on the cross so the least they can do is to emulate that pain by living a crappy existence. The honor is reinforced by the community - the more suffering, the stronger the faith. Of course is all brainwash but they can't break the cycle, because their social circle (their "faith") is too strong. We attempt to reason with ciphers, people stuck in a prehistoric tribal goatherding loop. For them, it's "god's word". For people of reason it's inspired literature and an interesting window on the beginnings of civilization. The lack of tolerance they exhibit emanates from the old tribal origins, where it was tribe against tribe. The modern world is wrestling with the question of how can we all get along for the betterment of all (sounds like a godly misssion if there ever was one)- these folks refuse to join that path out of fear of their tribal idol - which is all "god" is when they reference it.

So they suffer and, not being strong or wise enough to break their suffering, they expect us all to suffer as they do: with a dusty old tome and outdated tribal views. Why can't we see their humble and honorable suffering and acknowledge it as suffering was/is acknowledged in the bible? Aren't they noble?

The pattern is changing all of humanity. The old religions are dying, and something new is coming, it scares them. And so they claw at the world seeking relevance. The tenacity they seem to have is similar to the strength a drowning person has when going under for the last time - they've been known to drown their rescuers.

The old religions are dying, and something new is coming, it scares them.

1) No, God is not dying. He is not even sick.
2) Something new is always coming. Fads come and go.
3) No. However, #1 scares many people.

jpark,

religion is not god. religion is ritual.

The worship of God (religion) will not die so long as God lives.

God is not dying.

Therefore, his worship will not cease.

The worship of God (religion) will not die so long as God lives.

And God, the mythical superman folklore, will not die as long as worship still exists. Catch-22.

God is not dying.

Therefore, his worship will not cease.

Santa Claus is not dying.

Therefore, his worship will not cease.

Cute Jack. Except, of course, for the shifting of the issue under consideration to an imaginary being.

jpark,
... to an imaginary being

An imaginary being is what a god ever is, was or will be.

All you need do is review the idols of any primitive religion or any current religion for that matter.

Jack is entirely correct when he refers to it as a myth. And all gods are either "supermen" or "wonderwoman".

And all gods are either "supermen" or "wonderwoman".

Wonderwoman can make people tell the truth using a lasso, that's pretty damn godly. Well, at the very least it's awesome.

Personally, I like the X-men :)

jpark,

god is imaginary do you have solid evidence that he ever existed? The belief of masses for years doesn't mean it is real.

Now as for Santa! Are you telling me he isn't real?!?!?! :)

ms-364590,

Santa Claus is a well documented myth. The roots of the myth and the later commercialization of Santa Claus is documented.

God, on the other hand, has been worshiped throughout all of human history.

If you want to discount his existence, point to his origins, the time and method of his creation, etc.

I think heaven is being tied up by Wonder Woman while Santa continually delivers presents.

Of course, this is my own subjective interpretation and I wouldn't force my view on any one (unlike Wonder Woman who forces me to tell the truth with that delicious lasso).....

God, on the other hand, has been worshiped throughout all of human history.

Nope...

GODS have been worshipped throughout human history. The one all-knowing, all-seeing, master of the universe theory is relatively new.

Sorry to muddle up your opinion with actual facts.

Here's a decent article on the birth of monotheism

You read your own myths and propaganda.

Personally, I like the X-men :)

Yeah, polytheism seems more plausible anyway.

You read your own myths and propaganda.

Jpark,
The fact is that I read in order to learn. I am open-minded and have the ability to see the flaws in my thinking when proven to be erroneous. I was raised by a christian mother, and had a step-mother for many years that was a fire and brimstone thumper of the bible.

I read the bible and found myself with more questions than answers. I didn't sit idly by and let someone read and interpret it for me, and then tell me how i should live my life.

As a rule, I actively seek out opposing viewpoints in order to find the flaws in mine. If they make sense to me, I adjust my thinking. As I creep up on middle age, I find that my present belief system is pretty solid (for me) on the basics such as morality, basic human rights, religion and politics.

The core of my belief system is the ability to adapt it. The founding principal is that it is mine alone and while I may share it with the willing, I will not force it on others.

While I respect your point of view as yours, I don't respect the close-mindedness and resistance to new information.

But hey-
If it's working for you, stick with it. Some folks need a crutch.

Just because someone takes the time to write down 'just so' stories, there is no reason for a reasonable person to believe it.

The worship of God (the God of Abraham) did not grow out of polytheism. In fact, if you actually read the bible, you will note that the bible itself acknowledges the widespread worship of idols.

You may believe such atheist propaganda if you wish. I see no reason to hide from reality.

jpark,

Just because someone takes the time to write down 'just so' stories, there is no reason for a reasonable person to believe it.

Like many of same in the bible?

The bible contains a history over a very long period of time. Much of that history has been verified by archaeologists. It is not a 'just so' story.

(Do you know what a 'just so' story is? It is also called an 'ad hoc fallacy', though it is not strictly a fallacy, since it is not an error -- it is just made up.)

jpark- have you ever heard of Greek mythology? how about the Aztec's? Mayans? Inca's? Like billman said throughout history its been GODS not just the one god that YOU believe in.
The idea of Santa was based off of a person. Do you celebrate Christmas? How do you celebrate Christmas? Shopping egg nog stalkings?!

Having people throughout history believing in something doesn't make it true as I stated before.

Like billman, I too grew up in a religious background. (how it happened surprises me) My father is catholic along with his family my mother is an atheist. They didn't force me into any church sect cult or what have you. They wanted me to decide what I believed when I got older. This is the same thing I am doing with my child. Maybe my son wants to be a Buddhist well more power to him. If he believe in that then I will support that. I'm not going to try to force him to believe something else.

If you believe in a God sitting on a cloud and damning people entering into heavens gate for sins then so be it, more power to you! I personally don't buy into it. There are far too many contradictions in the Bible. And I'm NOT A RIB! :) lol

Saying that monotheism didn't rise out of polytheism is pure ignorance. Any honest look at history shows that it's true. Of course if you consider the Bible an honest, objective historical account of anything then something's already wrong with you.

ms and A.K.,

Thanks for picking up the ball. This is exhausting stuff and jpark's arguments are to be expected. The first order of brainwash is to create an impenetrable barrier to reason, otherwise known as "defending the faith". It's the same with all cults. That being said, ifjpark is a reasonably happy individual, enjoys his life and is good to friends, neighbors and countrymen then more power to his choice. For myself, I'd rather be open to the deeper mysteries of nature because it's wayyyy more fascinating than anything any human made church can produce.

I recall Carl Jung mentioning that religion is actually a defence against a religious experience.

And, as far as " egg nog stalkings" goes, I quit stalking egg nog a few years back. I love the stuff! Unfortunately, it goes straight to my thighs!

I mentioned the stalkings etc. because I am curious as to how he celebrates Christmas since he believes in his religion wholeheartedly. Now he does the commercial side of Christmas which MOST people do then he isn't practicing entirely what he preaches.

The egg nog, ham, turkey, and chocolate is bad bad bad! It's so good but your right it goes straight to the thighs :(

And your welcome. We are all going to state our opinion just some are harder to talk to than others :)

ms-364590,

Whatever made you think I am a practicing Christian -- or practicing anything?

Reality is not determined by my practices or yours.

You have been defending GOD and Christianity. You have been saying its all factual. So I was curious if you practiced your defense. That's all I was asking

It is a fair question.

Hang in there Stephen P, ..... I think you are doing great. Me thinks they have ganged up on you and are waging a battle of "quotes" and misinformation to beat you down.

I was disappointed that you didn't hammer eriq for this statement, to wit:

(eriq samson) Further, NO you can not change your genes, that would likely kill you. Your genes are in every cell of your being, changing any one would be a mutation, a cancer, and your bodies defenses would make every attempt to eliminate the changed gene. There is no such thing as a read / rewrite gene - that would be a cancer.

Apparently eriq has never heard of "gene therapy" and/or all the new food products, etc., etc., that are currently being created by gene replacements and/or gene insertions into a variety of animals and plants.

And lets not forget "transplant surgeries" where a lot of your genes are swapped out.

And ps, there is really no difference in a cancer cell and other cells in the body. All cells are capable of dividing (mitosis and meiosis) but they are only suppose to do that according to the "instructions" specified by their genes. With cancer cells those "dividing instructions" somehow get clobbered and they start dividing and won't quit.

And that is why one has to cut them out or kill them with chemo or radiation.

Sam,

Thanks for the encouragement, I'm in a different time zone so often have to post at work, which can be a problem. Sorry about my weak follow-ups. Will roll up the sleeves next time.

But its great fun though. These guys will go after everything you throw at them. Like my levitation claim. I owe Jack money on that one. But I will only give him my NT dollars when he gives me his Franklins (he has yet to show the genes that account for homosexuality).

They really got me on the 85% brain function, didn't they? Ha. Ha. They got a good shot of sarcasm in there. (Like a good shotta whiskey for them). But what flashes right by them is the fact that the brain, when damaged will alter itself in order to compensate for the loss of brain function. Meaning that another part of the brain, which itself already has a specific function, can take over the functions of another part meaning every part of the brain has the potential to do every other part's functions. So the brain has a much greater capacity than is currently observed. We just simply haven't the fainest idea of the true nature, power and capacity of the brain.

So they will just continue to slave to the myth of the myth of only 10% ( or 11% or 15%) brain usage. No talking to these folks, is there?. They're just cruising with their 100% brain usage!

Meaning that another part of the brain, which itself already has a specific function, can take over the functions of another part meaning every part of the brain has the potential to do every other part's functions

Wrong again. Why do you even keep trying? Many parts of the brain can overlap in functionality, but not every part of the brain can do every function of the brain. They're just not made that way.

That also doesn't prove a damn thing about it having more capacity. Just because you can retrain your brain to do something you could already do doesn't mean you can train your brain to do something it couldn't do at all before. There are limits to what the brain can do, and no amount of bull@!$%# spirituality will "unlock" some hidden capacity that you didn't know about before.

Like my levitation claim. I owe Jack money on that one.

Ah, I see, so you have no problem outright lying in trying to bulls---.

But I will only give him my NT dollars when he gives me his Franklins (he has yet to show the genes that account for homosexuality).

You yourself said that read-only genes account for bone size/shape. Show me those bone-coding genes, then you can contemplate about asking for more substance from me. Till then, go back to your naive little corner to marinate a bit more in your own bulls---.

Many parts of the brain can overlap in functionality, but not every part of the brain can do every function of the brain.

That's true. The cortex is not the same as the cerabellum or the medula. When people normally talk about brain function they are referring to the cerebral cortex, the part that is responsible for spacial and cognitive capabilities.

Just because you can retrain your brain to do something you could already do doesn't mean you can train your brain to do something it couldn't do at all before. There are limits to what the brain can do, and no amount of bull@!$%# spirituality will "unlock" some hidden capacity that you didn't know about before.

I'm sure you have 'evidence' to support these comments? Or is it maybe you just tripped over your atheism without noticing it? :)

It's funny how you can make bull@!$%# claim after bull@!$%# claim without an ounce of evidence, but I say something that is completely reasonable and you demand evidence.

Adam,

It is folks like you that 'lean' on empirical evidence to validate your claims. I would think you would at least adhere to your own criteria even if others would not. If you don't want to, hey that's just fine.

Are you 'breakin' on thru to the other side'?

(Stephen P) They really got me on the 85% brain function, didn't they? Ha. Ha. They got a good shot of sarcasm in there. (Like a good shotta whiskey for them). But what flashes right by them is the fact that the brain, when damaged will alter itself in order to compensate for the loss of brain function.

Stephen, ABSOLUTELY NOT, … they did not get you on that 85% thingy. Being the Devils Advocate, if I had seen anything glaring wrong with your statements I would have probably critiqued said. Now as far as I am concerned it is immaterial whether you intentionally or inadvertently stated what you did, nevertheless it was a factually correct assessment. Look again at what you wrote, and especially at the 'DEFINING' sentence preceding the 85% thingy, to wit:

(Stephen P #8-76) Oh yeah, you can control and influece your body. We have 85% of our brain unused. …….

Stephen, I read the above as conjoined statements and the words "you can" and "We have" implies or specifies "conscious control and influence". And 15% conscious control of one's body is most probably an exaggeration. Considering everything the subconscious brain, brain stem and spinal cord controls, I would say 5% or less would be a more conservative percentage for one's "conscious control".

Stephen, you will always find people who are mentally incapable of keeping track, from one sentence to the next, of what is being stated. And then you have those who love to "pick" a phrase or sentence "out of context" and use said as their proof that you are wrong and they are right.

And Stephen, to hedge off the naysayers from jumping my arse because of my above 5% thingy, …. I offer the following as one (1) such proof. So, please read the following, to wit:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro.

Now tell me, did you CONSCIOUSLY interpret what was written therein, ….. or did your subconscious mind INTERPRET it ……. and then tell your conscious mind what it was?

cehers

you will always find people who are mentally incapable of keeping track, from one sentence to the next, of what is being stated. And then you have those who love to "pick" a phrase or sentence "out of context" and use said as their proof that you are wrong and they are right.

This, my friends, is called an ironic statement.

When you have provided evidence for all of your ridiculous claims then I will provide evidence for my rational claim. Until then I'm not wasting any more time arguing with someone who thinks people can levitate.

no.... genetics does not imply any such thing. Genetic disorders operate on genetics yet they occur in the population as a pretty static rate from generation to generation.

I am not saying homosexuality is a disorder in any intolerant way, what I am saying is that the genetics operate the same as with any genetic disorder.

Hint - use Red Hair as an example - it is a double recessive trait, two people who do not have red hair may have several children who do. Clearly, as there have always been homosexuals, they are born from heterosexual people.

This should not be taken to suggest that the only way to eliminate homosexuality is to kill all the heterosexuals who are producing them .....

The lack of intelligence in some, or the sexuality preferences, like the want or imperfection of the senses of sight or hearing in others, is no more proof that it is a general characteristic of the species. Rather it is just the natural variation that can be measured in all abilities and traits in any given population. Do we deny you the right to express your opinion because you are stupid? It is more plausible then denying ones sexuality!

Eric,

Just got back from the mirror....

Nope, I still don't care what you do with your penis.

I will not deny that I'm a little repulsed by the thought of men having sex with men. As far as that goes I'm a little repulsed by anal sex period. I wouldn't have sex with an anus regardless of the sex of the person that it belongs to.

I'm an open-minded person when it comes to other people's life-styles. I don't care what folks do to get their jollys, as long as it's consensual and not harming anybody else.

Just because you are gay I don't think you are going to go to hell, or try to hit on me, or attempt to molest my 9 year old son.
I am aware that homosexual means you are attracted to some men, just as I am attracted to some women. I have had several gay friends, acquaintances and co-workers over the years, and sexual orientation is not something I take into account when i consider a person's "worth" anymore than their "ethnicity", "creed", or whether or not they chew tobacco (something else I find a little "repulsive" bye the way).

So believe what you want to believe about me. I promise not to be hurt by the opinion of someone whom I've never met and who's complete knowledge of me consists of reading a few lines I've written in an internet forum.

The only reason I jumped to the conclusion that you have issues is because you referred to yourself as "...one of the most despised groups of people on the planet... That tells me you're either not totally comfortable with yourself, or you're looking for sympathy.

I'm sorry, but I really can't help you with either of those.

So, have a great day Eric, and I'll see you around the vine.

I would not presume to know or judge desire or predisposition.

Homosexuality may be defined as a predisposition or desire if you wish. I won't so define it.

Behavior, however, is clearly defined. Behavior is a choice.

Behavior, however, is clearly defined. Behavior is a choice.

I thought I just said that?

You did say that. You also said that homosexuality [meaning desire] is not a choice. I said I would not presume to judge desire or predisposition.

because it makes it so much easier for you to keep ranting about how homosexuality is a choice. How convenient.

I won't presume to judge whether or not you find sunsets esthetic.

I don't really care how you feel about sunsets nor how you feel about sex with men or women.

Your actions are all that I will comment on -- they are what define you.

and so you presume to push your morals upon others and deem your morality to be the only just and righteous morality.

Behind My Screen,

Point out where I moralized. In this seed or any other.

And what is your point regarding heterosexual v homosexual actions? Are you not defining one group, at least by strong implication, as right and one as wrong? And why do you care about actions that don't concern you?

I don't care what you stick where, as long as you're sticking it in another consenting adult. Why should you care what anyone else does?

Ryan Booker,

When have I stated I care?

I'm not your God, your parent, your brother or sister. I don't particularly care if you choose to exit an airplane without a parachute. [I would be concerned you might kill someone else.]

When have I stated I care?

Your rather long history of chasing of your own tail regarding gay marriage shows that you care quite a bit, just not enough to produce an argument of substance.

As I understand it, Animals have instincts to mate where as human being have no instincts but only "Drives" to reproduce. I agree with all the studies pointed out in this seed and thank you for the information. I leaned more as I try to everyday. Thanx

I hope eating pu##& isn't against others moral beliefs, I do enjoy pleasing my wife.

People should live and let live and mind their own business. Everyone has the right to survive, be happy and live as they chose with whom ever they chose gender makes no difference.

As I understand it, Animals have instincts to mate where as human being have no instincts but only "Drives" to reproduce.

Rixar --

Humans are animals and we do have "instinctual" mating habits. As I understand it, human females emit pheromones that trigger male hormones, just as when a bitch dog is in heat, half the dogs in the neighborhood try to jump the fence to mate with it.

I'm not really familiar with the whole concept, but my wife has been researching the subject for quite some time.

I'll try and get some links from her when she gets home.

Billman - so are you suggesting that homosexuality may be as simple as a genetic response to the same sex's pheromones rather than the opposite sex's?

Actually, I never even considered it. But I suppose it makes sense.
As I stated, my wife has been involved in studying human sexual behavior for quite some time now. And she's basically come to the conclusion that human sexual "desires" are no different than those in other mammals. (go figure)
One difference I see in human sexual behavior is the ability to excite sexually through a purely visual medium. (such as internet porn) However, that could be attributed to association. If you flash a green light every time (and only when) you expose a male dog to a female dog in heat. It will become sexually excited when seeing the green light without the presence of pheromones (the female).
So yeah, the more I think about it, since sexual arousal occurs due to chemical triggers in the brain...
hmmmm...
It's an intriguing question. I'll have to do a little research.

Thank you for your feedback, as I recall from University of Maine my previous comments. I look forward to your research and links, Never too late for this old dog to learn.

stress factors - or possibly how well they are eating (calories, vitamins, etc.)? But remember, whatever it is, it has to work the same for thousands of species; cats, rats, bats, dogs, hogs, horses, cows, gophers, sheep, insects, sea life of all kinds, lions and tigers and bears (oh my!), apes, and monkeys, mice and men; all of them.

Is there something wrong with the behavior?

Is there anything wrong with buying two male dogs and allowing them to screw one another daily in the back yard? Is that something you would allow to go on? Or would you put a stop to it because you know that it is not normal behavior? Or do you think its normal behavior?
If you think it is normal then there is something mentally wrong with you. If you believe it to be wrong, then how can two male humans having sex be right?

Dahoss, homosexuality does not exist in dogs. One male will mount the other to establish dominance, not as a sexual preference.

By what measure is it wrong for two people to to have homosexual sex? What grounds do you use to claim it as wrong?

Two consenting adults. They want to have sex with each other. Perhaps they're in love. Perhaps they only just met and are horny. Happens all the time. Who cares what sex they are?

Is there a reason you are moralizing Dahoss65?

Dogs are animals and what they do is neither right nor wrong.

Humans engaging in sexual activity is neither right nor wrong no matter who they engage in it with as long as they are both consenting adults. The only moralizing that should be going on is that which states "one person's behavior is impacting on my rights and is therefore wrong". That is the measuring stick of morality that should be used. If you have problems with other people's behaviors, then you should look at your own behaviors, to paraphrase a Chinese proverb.

J Rod - You seem confused about the notion of personal choice - there is no choice to the sexual preference just to how it is expressed (i.e. celibacy). You use the example of someone with a genetic makeup to "abuse drugs" (your prejudice is showing, you should have chosen the non-judgmental "use drugs") To someone with that genetic makeup, using drugs is the same as eating is to others; their body has some kind of need. IF they have the resources to accommodate that need it is no business of yours or your "morality", they are affecting no one else. You assume they are affecting others. NOTE: to some people, salt is a drug, to "sugar" diabetics (diabetes mellitus), sugar is a drug, to some people even water is a drug (diabetes insipidus) which has to be controlled; etc.

Dahoss - no there is nothing wrong, yes I would allow it because - yes it is natural; "normal" means "average" and no it isn't the average behavior but that does not make it wrong any more than winning a blue ribbon is not average or "normal"

Arcane - yes, homosexuality does exist in dogs, who told you it didn't?

Work, Alcohol, Sex, Narcotics and Food. Its all the same and perhaps more education and less judgement would be in order...?

Rixar13,
Don't forget religion. It's subject to all the delusional thinking, denial and enabling as any other addiction.

Intervention may work, but the believer has to want to get better.

:o)

They have actually found a specific gene tied to religious zealotry; people with this gene tend to be "believers" in whatever religion they pick up to a higher, stronger, over zealous, often fanatic degree than people without it.

Also: yes religion can be an addiction; that's how Alcoholics / narcotics anonymous works: they replace an addiction to a substance with an addiction to a religion (generally Christian). Psychologists have long been aware of the ability of people's beliefs as a replacement for physical "drugs", hypnotism, walking on coals, lying on a bed of nails, etc. People can sometimes convince themselves that they aren't feeling pain / hunger; etc. That doesn't mean they aren't actually hurting, suffering burns, aren't hungry; they just don't feel it.

They have actually found a specific gene tied to religious zealotry; people with this gene tend to be "believers" in whatever religion they pick up to a higher, stronger, over zealous, often fanatic degree than people without it.

Awesome!! could you provide a link?...I'd like to read more on that subject.

this was a while ago and I had to search and found some useful links

Genes contribute to religious inclination from New Scientist:

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.

Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.

But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small role in religiousness at that age.

Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is God in Our Genes? from Time magazine:

Even among people who regard spiritual life as wishful hocus-pocus, there is a growing sense that humans may not be able to survive without it. It's hard enough getting by in a fang-and-claw world in which killing, thieving and cheating pay such rich dividends. It's harder still when there's no moral cop walking the beat to blow the whistle when things get out of control. Best to have a deity on hand to rein in our worst impulses, bring out our best and, not incidentally, give us a sense that there's someone awake in the cosmic house when the lights go out at night and we find ourselves wondering just why we're here in the first place. If a God or even several gods can do all that, fine. And if we sometimes misuse the idea of our gods--and millenniums of holy wars prove that we do--the benefits of being a spiritual species will surely outweigh the bloodshed.
Far from being an evolutionary luxury then, the need for God may be a crucial trait stamped deeper and deeper into our genome with every passing generation. Humans who developed a spiritual sense thrived and bequeathed that trait to their offspring. Those who didn't risked dying out in chaos and killing. The evolutionary equation is a simple but powerful one.
Nowhere has that idea received a more intriguing going-over than in the recently published book The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes (Doubleday; 256 pages), by molecular biologist Dean Hamer. Chief of gene structure at the National Cancer Institute, Hamer not only claims that human spirituality is an adaptive trait, but he also says he has located one of the genes responsible, a gene that just happens to also code for production of the neurotransmitters that regulate our moods. Our most profound feelings of spirituality, according to a literal reading of Hamer's work, may be due to little more than an occasional shot of intoxicating brain chemicals governed by our DNA. "I'm a believer that every thought we think and every feeling we feel is the result of activity in the brain," Hamer says. "I think we follow the basic law of nature, which is that we're a bunch of chemical reactions running around in a bag."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The God Gene from American Conservative magazine:

Instead, religiousness appears to be sui generis—a phenomenon unto itself that cannot be reduced to more fundamental cognitive operations (though like any other biocultural adaptation, it utilizes more fundamental cognitive systems in its operations). Religiousness may even turn out to be a normal biologic trait strongly influenced by standard, nonmysterious evolutionary forces. Like that other quintessentially human skill, language, religiousness displays many of the telltale signs of a classic, evolutionarily-shaped adaptation or suite of adaptations. It is found, for example, in all known human cultures, and furthermore, it is heritable. When one twin is religious, the other will likely be religious as well. Its "heritability coefficient" is moderately high, ranging from .40 to .70 (compared to heritability coefficients for traits that most scientists see as adaptations such as basic personality traits—.40 to .60—or intelligence—.50 to .60). Genes, such as the VMAT2 and the DRD4, are consistently associated with high scores on religiousness scales. And religiousness is now known to exhibit a definite brain basis: some drugs enhance religiousness, while others diminish it, and some brain regions are more consistently associated with religiousness than others.

All of the foregoing evidence is consistent with the idea that religiosity is an adaptation—not a mere delusion. Given that it is an adaptation, it is not surprising that basic components of religiosity are spontaneously acquired by children, who come to believe in omniscent supernatural agents in a relatively effortless manner. Children do not need to be force-fed religion because they naturally develop religion's basic component processes.

That should give you a start: again it is a nonspecific religion/belief or fanaticness gene

I am not religious. I do not go to church. I do not need a bible to tell me the difference between right and wrong or between normal and abnormal.

Dahoss, I am not religious. I do not go to church. I do not need a bible to tell me the difference between right and wrong or between normal and abnormal. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Dahoss65: Then what does tell you that homosexuality is wrong? Tell me what makes it wrong.

Thank you, very well said.

Go Kentuckywoman! Now we know why Neill Diamond wrote that song about you. :)

Kentucky woman
She shines with her own kind of light
She looks at you once
And a day thats all wrong looks all right
And I love her
God knows I love her

Kentucky woman
If she get to know you
She goin to own you
Kentucky woman

Well, she aint the kind
Make heads turn at the drop of her name
But something inside
That shes got turns you on just the same
And I love her
God knows I love her

Kentucky woman
If she get to know you
She goin to own you
Kentucky woman

I dont want much
The good lords earth beneath the feet
A gentle touch
Of that one girl and life is
Sweet and good
There aint no doubt
Hey, Im talking about
Kentucky woman

Yeah....Think you nailed that one right on the head Wheel. Dang we got us a Star among us ! Whoa !

humor
Sin is the father of homosexuality.

... What?

Are we three here again? I'm not stalking either of you, I promise.

... What?

Ditto.

He is assuming there is such a thing as "sin".

Quiet, sinner. ;]

Quiet, sinner. ;]

But sinning is so much more fun!

nearing- Your ignorance is appalling, dare to touch the whole comment not one piece.

humor......go look up ignorance in a dictionary......then grab your bible......hold it up front of a mirror ......take a picture.........send it in to the dictionary of your choosing for inclusion under the word

now i dont believe all gays are gay by genetics, but ive known too many who were obviously gay before they were even of an age to know they were or were not attracted one way or the other

the fact that there is actual proven studies with confirming studies on top of them, that prove it can be genetic, and you in all your worldly wisdom ignore those studies certainly proves who is ignorant here

humor
nearing- Your ignorance is appalling, dare to touch the whole comment not one piece.

Nearing is far from ignorant, I suggest that you refrain from insulting Viners.

Humor - your error: when we rebuke pure nature.. That, by itself, is OK. But, somehow, through some kind of elephantine mental contortions, you add this Sin is the father of homosexuality.

How did you jump from one to the other, and in what way is homosexuality, which exists in thousands of species on this planet, not "in pure nature"?

That is a leap of irrationality that I would not expect from someone who can correctly spell words longer than two letters

Pure nature is without sin, hence the "pure" part. That is how they correlate, have I lost you yet? Give me 5 credible sources about 5 species that their original environments aren't extremely tainted. And eriq your last sentence is incomprehensible and unrelated.

arcanebliss- Ignorance is not insulting, and you would be well to take the informed advice that you are too. Unless you choose to be ignorant, but that is called stupidity. Anyone can grab a sentence from a paragraph and make headlines for another paragraph, I just want him to refute the entirety or stay in his little corner. Your suggestion

nearing-That comment's placement is last so there is nothing to "get past," except your fear to debate.

hard to agrue with that iranian fellow-Ignorant defined for you by MW dictionary "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge"
I used in the correct context. The Bible has many times been validated by archeological discoveries, by atheist! And text outside of Bible have been used to verify the Bible. So there seems to be a lack of ignorance there. I also noted that environment was one of those factors, disproving the genetics angle. You through out studies liberally, link some up. Although it may be hard to "agrue" with an iranian fellow, it is not hard to argue with one.

Pure nature is without sin, hence the "pure" part.

Hah. Bonobos masturbate and penis-fence. Not sinful? Social animals steal from each other all the time. Also not sinful? Predators kill other animals. Similarly devoid of sin? What a silly notion of "pure" nature. I suppose lions ate lettuce before we "corrupted" them, hmmm?

Anyone can grab a sentence from a paragraph and make headlines for another paragraph, I just want him to refute the entirety or stay in his little corner. Your suggestion

Sorry, but that's idiotic. It's like you saying "You, there! You're short, you like plums, and you're addicted to heroin." then demanding that the person either refute your entire statement or refute nothing.

The Bible has many times been validated by archeological discoveries, by atheist!

Ha. I see you carry your pathetic "all or nothing" mentality to all facets of life. The Iliad has also been validated by archaeology. I suppose that means Aphrodite, Athena, and Hera exist, and Achilles was truly dipped into the mystical magic waters of the Styx.

And text outside of Bible have been used to verify the Bible.

To verify the supernatural claims of the Bible? Texts written by non-Christian sources?

I also noted that environment was one of those factors, disproving the genetics angle.

You've disproven nothing, except perhaps the notion that we've somehow underestimated your meager store of knowledge.

Humor - You set up your argument so you can always claim that, for the thousands of species that homosexual behavior has been observed and documented - they were "all" tainted by the observers (in other words the homosexual behavior only occurs when humans are watching). This is a ridiculous claim yet you set yourself up as God himself, to make this claim of "tainting" of "pure nature", for any citation.

Jack - you are incorrect, Somehow we have overestimated his meager store of knowledge; he can not correctly spell words longer than two letters

Jack - you are incorrect, Somehow we have overestimated his meager store of knowledge

That's why I said that the only thing he's disproven is possible underestimation of his knowledge base. ;-)

Jack are we debating sins or my thoughts that homosexuality is one? Because Bonobos masturbate has nothing to do with sin or homosexuality. Your predators statement is also misplaced, because no where in the Torah did it ever say not to kill. You're mixing Hinduism in to argue against my Christian belief, clearly comparing apple to asparagus. The Torah translated commands against murder not killing. Take some Hebrew and increase you meager knowledge.

eriq-

of "pure nature", for any citation.

the comma goes inside the quotation mark, but then again you make references to my poor spelling abilities, but they are vague and say again, show me. Your penchant for spelling obviously doesn't bleed into grammar lest you would have caught your issues.
I did not say they were tainted by the observer, you need to address your reading and comprehension skills, before you intend to correct me. And in no way did I directly claim, nor infer that I was a god or the God.

Well, generally, this site uses US English as do the blogger on the site.