Homosexuality is a choice

[SnakeTongue]

Ah. I see. Still can't face a challenge and the truth so you don't even bother to try.

Also, you just simply ignore that you have proven one of the points I've been making all along and have contradicted one of your own points.

See if you can answer this:

By your own volition, heterosexual baby-producing sex is the only sex that is "natural". So I put it to you that if an adult male can have sex with a 13 year old girl, that is, by your definition, "natural sex" because it is heterosexual baby-producing sex.

Yes, keep talking... No evidence yet was presented to support your claims.

I will gather more evidence than you will be able to read and understand.

"I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..."

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

snaketoungue, if I understand you correctly, you think homosexuality is not natural.

So please explain the existance of homosexuals. Explain men and women who have no attraction to the opposite sex, but attraction to their own.

What is your opinion of gay people?

 

[keale]

Yes, keep talking... No evidence yet was presented to support your claims.

I will gather more evidence than you will be able to read and understand.

"I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

Male homosexuality as hypermasculine
Main article: Hypermasculinity

There is evidence of a correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are determined in utero[12]. Williams et al. (2000) found that finger length ratio, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in lesbians than in straight women. However, they found no difference between gay and straight men. people of distinct sexual orientations.[1] Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations, likewise the suprachiasmatic nucleus of homosexual men was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, [2], the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[13] Gay men have also been shown to have higher levels of circulating androgens [14] and larger penises [15], on average, than straight men.

Gay men have more older brothers on average, a phenomenon known as the fraternal birth order effect. It has been suggested that the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen fetuses are exposed to.
[edit] Male homosexuality as hypomasculine
Main article: Hypomasculinity

In a 1991 study, Simon LeVay demonstrated that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus—which is believed to control sexual behavior and linked to prenatal hormones—was on average more than twice the size in heterosexual men when contrasted to homosexual men. Initially he could not rule out that this may be due to AIDS since all of his homosexual male subjects had died from it before the autopsies were performed[citation needed]. However in 2003 scientists at Oregon State University announced that they had replicated his findings in sheep.
[edit] Female homosexuality

Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (an autosomal recessive condition which results in high androgen levels during fetal development) have more masculinized sex role identities and are more likely to have a homosexual sexual orientation as adults than controls [16][17][18][19][20]. An alternative explanation for this effect is the fact that girls with this condition are born with masculinized external genitalia, which leads their parents to raise them in a more masculine manner, which then influences their sexual orientation as adults. However, the degree to which the girls' genitals are masculinized does not correlate with their sexual orientation, suggesting that prenatal hormones are the causal factor, not parental influence.


Beware of the dark path....once you start down the dark path forever it will dominate your destiny!

 

[kuroyume0161]

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...ferences+b&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=b339b50e1c851ae5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_and_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Bite on that you nasty, myopic person, you (SnakeTongue, but of course)!

 

[keale]

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...ferences+b&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=b339b50e1c851ae5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_and_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Bite on that you nasty, myopic person, you (SnakeTongue, but of course)!

Honestly I dont believe that there is any evidence that would change his position on this issue. He has already made up his mind a priori.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Wikipedia will not support your "castle of sand" against the wind of "truth"...

Quote:
http://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=436&year=2009

Q: Geoffrey Toyes and Jefry Cohen in NJ (Higher Education grade other): Hi, My friend and I are gay. With all the current controversy about homosexuality, has there been any research linking sexual orientation to genes?

A: Barry H. Thompson, M.D., M.S.:
In a very general sense, some studies indicate that there may be a considerable genetic component to sexual orientation. However, there is no known gene for "homosexuality." Sexual orientation, no matter the genetic make-up of an individual, likely is a very complex matter.

 

[keale]

Wikipedia will not support your "castle of sand" against the wind of "truth"...

Thats great! Now address the rest of the linked articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenata...al_orientation

Male homosexuality as hypermasculine
Main article: Hypermasculinity

There is evidence of a correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are determined in utero[12]. Williams et al. (2000) found that finger length ratio, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in lesbians than in straight women. However, they found no difference between gay and straight men. people of distinct sexual orientations.[1] Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations, likewise the suprachiasmatic nucleus of homosexual men was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, [2], the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[13] Gay men have also been shown to have higher levels of circulating androgens [14] and larger penises [15], on average, than straight men.

Gay men have more older brothers on average, a phenomenon known as the fraternal birth order effect. It has been suggested that the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen fetuses are exposed to.
[edit] Male homosexuality as hypomasculine
Main article: Hypomasculinity

In a 1991 study, Simon LeVay demonstrated that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus—which is believed to control sexual behavior and linked to prenatal hormones—was on average more than twice the size in heterosexual men when contrasted to homosexual men. Initially he could not rule out that this may be due to AIDS since all of his homosexual male subjects had died from it before the autopsies were performed[citation needed]. However in 2003 scientists at Oregon State University announced that they had replicated his findings in sheep.
[edit] Female homosexuality

Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (an autosomal recessive condition which results in high androgen levels during fetal development) have more masculinized sex role identities and are more likely to have a homosexual sexual orientation as adults than controls [16][17][18][19][20]. An alternative explanation for this effect is the fact that girls with this condition are born with masculinized external genitalia, which leads their parents to raise them in a more masculine manner, which then influences their sexual orientation as adults. However, the degree to which the girls' genitals are masculinized does not correlate with their sexual orientation, suggesting that prenatal hormones are the causal factor, not parental influence.

 

[JFrankA]

And there is no simplistic answer to something as complex as sexual attraction, not just merely a choice.

http://www.genome.gov/DNADay/q.cfm?aid=436&year=2009

Q: Geoffrey Toyes and Jefry Cohen in NJ (Higher Education grade other): Hi, My friend and I are gay. With all the current controversy about homosexuality, has there been any research linking sexual orientation to genes?

A: Barry H. Thompson, M.D., M.S.:
In a very general sense, some studies indicate that there may be a considerable genetic component to sexual orientation. However, there is no known gene for "homosexuality." Sexual orientation, no matter the genetic make-up of an individual, likely is a very complex matter.

 

[bookitty]

If snake-tongue can get all heterosexual humans to agree to have sex only for the purpose of procreation, I'll consider his line of reasoning.

In the meantime, I'll be in the "Sheeesh, homosexuality is totally normal, get over it already." camp.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Thats great! Now address the rest of the linked articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenata...al_orientation

You did not get it... It is not an"homosexual" gene.

The proof that is not an "homosexual" gene make the whole Wikipedia web page pure entertainment!

Without a gene, all the studies are pure speculation, not conclusions.

 

[JFrankA]

You did not get it... It is not "homosexual" gene.

The proof that is not "homosexual" gene make the whole Wikipedia web page pure entertainment!

Without a gene, all the studies are pure speculation, not conclusions.

Oh, so that's what you've been doing. Speculating.

ETA - You MUST be speculating, Snake. The entire passage that was posted had NOTHING TO DO WITH GENES. Do you actually read stuff that you don't like, or just speculate what it says?

 

[keale]

You did not get it... It is not an"homosexual" gene.

The proof that is not an "homosexual" gene make the whole Wikipedia web page pure entertainment!

Without a gene, all the studies are pure speculation, not conclusions.

Dont like reading huh? Dont like the study on prenatal hormones? Too hard to refute? The sad thing is as I mentioned earlier there is no evidence that will change your mind. For you the earth is still flat and only a few thousand years old. So really there is no opportunity for growth or learning this is just mental masturbation.

 

[The Don]

Yes, that was the claim.

So?

Still, in such species males mate with females.

Could you provide evidence of a specie with exclusive "homosexual behavior" and how this affect the procreation of such specie?

Why should I provide evidence for a claim I've never made ?

The claim was that there are species that exhibit homosexual behaviour. Evidence was provided. That should be the end of that element of the discussion.

Where?

Where is this new scientific discovery which will change science forever?

Where is the evidence that it is a new and well defined gender called "homosexuals"?

Wikipedia will not save you...

From where did you conjure up that prepostorous suggestion ?

 

[JFrankA]

From where did you conjure up that prepostorous suggestion ?

Especially since his own "proof" proved that not only does homosexual behavior exist in animals, it affect which males get to mate with females, and therefore, affects what genes get passed.

Sounds like homosexuality affecting and yes, causing procreation to me.....

 

[SnakeTongue]

Dont like reading huh? Dont like the study on prenatal hormones? Too hard to refute?

I like to read more than you think.

Pre-natal hormones research is already refuted. You are out of date...

Wikipedia is for dummies.

Hormones

In 1998, Dennis McFadden and Edward G. Pasanen published a study that evaluated auditory systems. Specifically, the study considered differences in echo-like waveforms emitted from an inner ear structure of people with normal hearing. These waves are higher in women than in men, a factor often attributed to the level of a person's exposure to androgen (a male hormone) in his or her early development as a fetus.42

In self-acknowledged lesbians, the waveforms ranged between those of men and those of heterosexual women. The researchers concluded that this suggests that female homosexuality could result from larger exposure to the male hormone androgen in the womb (homosexual men did not show the same variation).43

The media eagerly jumped on this bandwagon. But even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that exposure to "intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations" can lower the level of these auditory waveforms. "Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently."44

Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality -- especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.

http://lifeissues.net/writers/kni/kni_01homosexuality1.html

-

The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each. (1) Likely immune response prevalence is too low compared with calculated SSA prevalence resulting from the fraternal birth order effect. (2) Testis immune attack would be more likely than brain attack but is not known. (3) Fetal brain structures are practically indistinguishable at birth and subsequent brain anatomical gender differentiation only occurs after birth when no attack is occurring. (4) The hypothesis also predicts unfavourable biology for late birth-order males but in fact the reverse is generally true, and neurological effects are very minor. Studies show aborted fetuses caused by likely maternal immune attack are predominantly girls rather than boys, which also argues against the theory. Studies on identical twins show that common factors such as uterine environment are only a small influence on SSA and post-natal idiosyncratic reactions and non-shared environmental factors are much larger influences.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1359088

The sad thing is as I mentioned earlier there is no evidence that will change your mind. For you the earth is still flat and only a few thousand years old. So really there is no opportunity for growth or learning this is just mental masturbation.

You do not know anything about me.

 

[Thunder]

SnakeTongue- is homosexuality is purely choice, who would honestly choose to be a member of a hated, persecuted, and often attacked minority?

If homosexuality was really a choice, there wouldn't be any homosexuals.

 

[SnakeTongue]

SnakeTongue- is homosexuality is purely choice, who would honestly choose to be a member of a hated, persecuted, and often attacked minority?

If homosexuality was really a choice, there wouldn't be any homosexuals.

This is a fallacious argument.

Being part of "persecuted minority" is not equivalent of absence of choice.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Guess what? I'm waiting for yours, too.

Bull pucky. You've made plenty of claims without any evidence, using only your assurtions and unreliable sources for "proof".

Here are some of your claims:

...and where is the evidence that it was "made" for that? I say again, evolution does not design the body and decide where things go. Your statement is nothing but an assertion.

My claim was that the genitals organs of a particular gender were designed to be exclusively used with the opposite gender genitals organs.

Sexual selection supports my claim.

Sexual Selection and Genital Evolution

David J. Hosken and Paula Stockley

Genitalia are conspicuously variable, even in closely related taxa that are otherwise morphologically very similar. Explaining genital diversity is a long standing problem that is attracting renewed interest from evolutionary biologists. New studies provide ever more compelling evidence that sexual selection is important in driving genital divergence. Importantly, several studies now link variation in genital morphology directly to male fertilization success, and modern comparative techniques have confirmed predicted associations between genital complexity and mating patterns across species. There is also evidence that male and female genitalia can coevolve antagonistically. Determining mechanisms of genital evolution is an important challenge if we are to resolve current debate concerning the relative significance of mate choice benefits and sexual conflict in sexual selection.

http://rom.exeter.ac.uk/documents/Bios/djh205/Hosken_Stockley_Tree04.pdf

 

[keale]

I like to read more than you think.

Pre-natal hormones research is already refuted. You are out of date...

Wikipedia is for dummies.


-




You do not know anything about me.

And you think you know me? Pot meet kettle

You want to quote a site like lifeissues.net?
Catholic Pro-Life news, articles, editorials and on-line resources inspired by The Gospel of Life and updated daily. Way to stay unbiased....watch fox news often? Their fair and balanced.

You keep citing that it has to be genetic when its likely there is more than one cause. You want to frame sexuality as an either or really a false dichotomy. There are those that swing only one way and theres everything in the middle.

Now having wasted my time writing this I dont see the point. The argument over this is effectively over and in 20 years this wont even be an issue. Im old enough to remember that things were much different 20-30 years ago and open homosexuality on prime time TV was a no no. You may not like it but thats the way it is.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Sex is used for many other things besides reproduction. Even your own sources have shown that. Calling heterosexual, procreation-only sex "natural" is biased and uninformed and not backed by any "evidence" you've shown.

No, it is not.

Just the perverted human species use sex to "many other things besides reproduction."

All other species have been using sex in the last millions of years exclusively to reproduce.

Why, then, does sex exist? In his 2001 book, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer admitted:

‘Sex is not only unnecessary, but it ought to be a recipe for evolutionary disaster. For one thing, it is an inefficient way to reproduce.... And sex carries other costs as well.... By all rights, any group of animals that evolves sexual reproduction should be promptly outcompeted by nonsexual ones. And yet sex reigns... Why is sex a success, despite all its disadvantages?’[31] [emp. added].​

From an evolutionary viewpoint, sex definitely is “an inefficient way to reproduce.” Think about all the sexual process entails, including the complexity involved in reproducing the information carried within the DNA. It is the complexity of this process, and the manner in which it is copied from generation to generation, which practically drove Mark Ridley to distraction in The Cooperative Gene.

‘No one in human culture would try the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. You only have to think of sex to see how absurd it is. The “sexual” method of reading a book would be to buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away’[32] [emp. added].​

Again, from an evolutionary viewpoint, sex would be considered “absurd.” But from a design viewpoint, it is nothing short of incredible!

http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

-

Sexual reproduction is an ancient evolutionary tool. Its significance in the development of the human, genetically and socially, is profound. It is hard to find a cultural rule which does not refer in some way to sex. Contrary to modern (PC) ideology, the unit of human culture is not the individual. It is, instead, the male-female bonded pair and their off-spring. This has been true at least 4 million years, since the first hominid ventured onto the plains.

http://www.onelife.com/ethics/sex.html

-

Sexual Reproduction Process

The process of sexual reproduction involves two parents. Both parents normally contribute one gamete or sex cell to the process. This process assures that the genetic information given to the offspring will be obtained equally from each parent. The female gamete is called the egg or the ovum and the male gamete is called a sperm. These gametes are formed in specialized reproductive structures called gonads. The sperm is much smaller than the egg, but is capable of moving on its own power using a whip-like tail called a flagellum.

http://regentsprep.org/Regents/biology/units/reproduction/sexual.cfm