Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

So if homosexuality doesn't fit into evolution why is it here at all? Wouldn't it have been evolved out by now?Is homosexuality a choice or is it some biological process. If it is a biological process it should have been eradicated by evolution right?If it is not a biological process and a result of choice and environment then it shouldn't be protected under the law any more than any other choice/environment option (like say vegetarianism). So which side does it fall under and what are the scientific and lawful implications?I put forward several studies that have been done that show homosexuality is more by choice and environment and falls under a mindset rather than a biological imperative or being of genetic origin:
Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."What are your thoughts, counter evidence (but not inflammatory or insulting responses)?Edited by lokiare, : Grammar.

Do you have any proof that "... that homosexual gender attraction is not a choice.". Studies? surveys? anything to factually back this up and negate the link I posted that lists many studies showing it is environmental and choice based?

Actually no. Nice try to box me in, but it won't work. Lets go back to your statement about veggie folk being persecuted. Homosexuals think that being persecuted means being denied service (usually because of additional costs, and possibly religious belief). So they are pushing for laws that require everyone to serve them. As is recently seen in the law suits about the wedding cake service being denied to a homosexual couple and them suing to force the group to do it or pay restitution. So the equivalency would be for every restaurant to be required to have a vegetarian option or be considered to be persecuting vegetarians.In fact its the religious freedoms that forcing those things would violate. Surely there are churches, housing, and places of employment that would likely not refuse service to homosexuals and even possibly cater to them. Why should everyone be forced to cater to something that is a choice. I see signs all over that say things like "firearms prohibited" and "no shirt, no service" can we then under the same assumptions start suing those people and throwing them in jail because they are 'infringing on our rights'? Of course not. That would be nonsense.It also has to do with what people consider persecution and bigotry. I once went to a forum and expressed my dislike of all of the homosexual lobbying that was putting homosexual scenes in every show. I said something along the lines that I was not entertained by it anymore than someone who doesn't like scenes of romantic comedy in their serious political thrillers. Shortly after I was severely 'persecuted' for having an opinion.The key thing to take away is that not liking something is not persecution or bigotry. The second thing is we have to get rid of all those signs and clauses in contracts that say "we can do these things without having a reason at all.".

Because it is getting to the point where it is coming into direct conflict with the laws that protect the free exorcise of religion. A christian bakery is now being sued and threatened with criminal conduct for choosing not to serve a homosexual couple for example. So it actually is our business. You'll notice that we didn't really care until that point. We tried to convert them, but that was it.

Nice try but you fail at a few points. One this would not work unless you had a large enough sample size to weed out randomness. Second it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other.According to the research I linked and others that I have seen. Homosexuality is brought on by environmental factors and habituated using the brains propensity to reward success (ejaculation or orgasm). These reinforcing brain chemicals form an addiction much like heroin or cocaine or caffeine or strawberries. So that by chemical reinforcement a homosexual would get aroused by seeing those pictures or videos.The research, if you didn't read the link, cites things like overprotective mothers and distant or absent fathers along with sexual abuse at early ages as the cause of homosexuality. So its more akin to a mental psychosis (not exactly, I'm looking for a more neutral word) than it is to anything else. Other research indicates that it can be brought on by serotonin imbalances which cause the inability to distinguish between the different genders which later can be reinforced chemically as above to lead into homosexuality.The one thing that most people don't understand is that it is reversible and treatable. There are many testimonies of willing people that have undergone therapy to reverse their (I want to use another neutral word, but can't find one) addition to the same gender and who live normal lives afterwords.

Its my understanding that homosexuals don't get aroused (as opposed to bisexuals) when around the opposite sex. So short of modern chemicals that stimulate an erection it really should have been evolved out, unless it doesn't come from genetics and is purely or mostly environmental. Sure, but as I've said before. Its more akin to a mental psychosis reinforced by brain chemistry. So if you were attracted to the same sex it would most likely be a reinforced reaction rather than something stemming from your genetics. See above. Well if you assume its some kind of disability as you compare it to above then sure, if seeking treatment for it, they should not be discriminated against (really no one should be discriminated against, but what some consider discrimination or bigotry is merely disagreement). However there is no special equipment needed to be installed for homosexuals only costly products and services that would be incurred by a business that didn't refuse service to homosexuals. Comparing it to religion is kind of a false comparison. I don't remember any wars over homosexuality or any mass persecutions (it was merely viewed as a mental illness up until the 60's). Which is odd, since its purely a mental state brought on by environment and chemical reinforcement, which can be reversed. The phrase "Which one is not like the others" comes to mind. Here I'll list the contents of that short website which includes many studies since apparently I'm not supposed to link to facts (weird).

quote:

---

Science Shows That Homosexuals Are Not "Born That Way."
December 13, 2004

​

Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 11:51:59 AM by Laissez-faire capitalist

​

1.)Dr. Dean Hamer who failed to find a "gay gene":

​

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic. Environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think that we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

​

2.) Dr. Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

​

"Absolutely not. From twin studies we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not negate the psychosocial factors."

​

("New Evidence of a "Gay Gene," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, Vol. 146. Issue 20, p.95)

​

3.) British researchers generated comparable results in an identical-twin study. Their conclusion? The suprisingly low odds that both twins were homosexual.

​

The study by them: "confirmed that genetic factors are insufficient explanation for the development of sexual orientation."

​

(King, M and McDonald, E. Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands. British Journal of Psychiatry. 160: 407-409 (1992).

​

4a.)Homosexual researcher Simon Levay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals:

​

"I didn't show that gay men are born that way the msot common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

​

4b.)Dr. Simon Levay: The most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.

​

Levay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

​

5.) Dr. J. Satinover:

​

"Research studies on homosexuality by Dr's Dean Hamer, Michael Bailey, Richard Dillard, Simon Levay. Laura Allen and Roger Gorski have failed to show proof of a gay gene. There is no scientific evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic. The media has sensationalized and perpetuated the myth of a homosexual gene."

​

Satinover, J. M.D. (1996) Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids. Baker Books

​

6.) Another of Dr. Jeffery Satinover's conclusions in "The Gay Gene":

​

"There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the resaerch itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do when speaking in sound bites to the public."

​

(Jeffery Satinover, M.D. The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8)

​

7.) The American Psychological Association:

​

"Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for many people at an early age through complex interactions of biology, psychological and social factors."

​

(The American Psychological Association's pamphlet "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

​

8.) The American Psychiatric Association (2000):

​

"no replicated scientific studies showing any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."

​

9.) Sociologist Steven Goldberg:

​

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

​

(Goldberg, Steven (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

​

10a.) Science, 1994:

​

"Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter: "It's hard to come up with many findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated...all were announced with great fanfare, all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

​

(Mann, C. "Genes and Behavior." Science 264: 1687 (1994), pp. 1686-1689.)

​

10b.) "The interactions of genes and environment is much more complex than the simple "violence genes" and "intelligence genes" touted in the popular press."

​

Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689

​

11.) Two genetics researchers, one at Harvard, commented in Technology Review, July 1993 p. 60 concerning twin study's.

​

"While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data, in fact, provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment."

​

(Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July 1993. p.60)

​

12.) P. Scott Richards:

​

"Some environmental and psychological factors that may play a causal role in the development of homosexuality include: (1) cross-gender effiminate behavior in childhood. (2) gender-identity deficits (3) hostile, dteached or absent fathers (which leads to "defensive detachment" from the father and other males) and (4) overly close, controlling or dominating mothers.

​

(P. Scott Richards, "The Treatment of Homosexuality: Some Historical, Contemporary and Personal Perspectives," AMCAP Journal. Vol 19, No. 1, 1993, pg. 36)

​

13.) Lesbian biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University, responding to the "born that way" argument:

​

"It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment actually having some sawy in court. For me, it's a very shaky palce. It's bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral one."

​

14.) Camille Paglia, lesbiam activist: "Homosexuality is 'not normal'. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

​

Camille Paglia: " Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is highly refractory, and once the sensory pathways have been blazed -- a phenmenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction...helping to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perferctly worthy aim."

​

Camille Paglia: " We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubscent stage where children anxiously band together bt gender...current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice'; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer to deal with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort."

​

Boys victimized by older men are far more likely to be homosexual as adults, and the cycle often repeats itself. More environmental factors.

​

15.) Noted child sex-abuse expert David Finkelhor found that "boys victimized by older men were over four times more likley to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had such an experience. Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their victimization experiences."

​

(Bill Watkins & Aaron Bentovim, "The Sexual Bause of Male Adolescents: A Review of Current Research, " Journal of Child Psychiatry 33, (1992); in Byren Finkelman, Sexual Abuse(New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 316

​

16.) The Archives of Sexual Behavior:

​

"One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender."

​

(Marie, E. Tomeo "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescent Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons." Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539)

​

17.) A study of 279 homosexual and bisexual men with Aids and control patients reported:

​

"More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20% by age 10 years."

​

(Harry W. Haverkos, "The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior," The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501)

​

18.) A stduy of 229 convicted child molesters found that:

​

"86% of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."

​

(W.D. Erickson, Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters, Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83)

​

19.) A National Institue of Justice report states that:

​

"the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people...who experienced no victimization as children."

​

(Cathy Spatz Widom, "Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse - Later Criminal Consequences, Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series: NIJ Research in Brief (March 1995): 6)

​

20.) A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59% of male child sex offenders had been victims of contact sexual abuse as a child.

​

(Michelle Elliott, "Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What offenders Tell Us" Child Abuse and Neglect 19, (1995): 582)

---

Can you explain to me what a 'bare link' is? What I linked is literally a list of studies that have been done on the subject.

People who have sickle cell anemia are immune or resistant to malaria a wide spread disease in some areas. There is a reason it persisted. There is no reason for homosexuality (if it were genetic) to persist. I already addressed this in a post above. My example is that every restaurant is forced to serve vegetarian options on their menus. Is that protected under the law? Because that's what homosexuals are pushing for. Ah the Ad hominem fallacy, where a source of information is defamed rather than the information provided.

Actually relatives helping others in their families in social animals is seen whether the animals in question are gay or not. So this proposition doesn't even stand up to basic logic (are there other equally likely reasons that this could happen?). There is no genetic advantage to this that wouldn't be eclipsed by a heterosexual creature that helps take care of relatives young as well as its own. Thus being more likely to spread their genetic code to the next generation.Also even if that were true, it doesn't follow unless the creature in question passes its genes on to another generation. If it doesn't, then it would still get weeded out.In order for natural selection to work, the gene has to be passed on, homosexual animals don't pass on genes. Uh no. There could just be similar unnatural reasons why both animal and humans have homosexuals within their ranks. Has anyone done studies on serotonin imbalances in animals that show that homosexuality in animals is driven by an imbalance? Why yes they have. So there is one similarity right there.Unless of course evolution is false, then there is no need to have an advantage, but assuming for the moment that evolution is fact (instead of a loosely put together theory that has been proven false over and over) what advantage would there be that wouldn't be eclipsed by other advantages that a heterosexual social animal brings to the table? I have yet to see a valid answer to this. I haven't reviewed your links. I will do so after I get done responding to what you've posted, if you properly summarized them, though it doesn't do much for the homosexual cause.

Do you have some references to back up the 1000 year claim? Short of the few years in medieval times and the Muslim people's practices, I was under the impression from early times that homosexuality was accepted along side everything else as just an oddity. Can you show me any studies at all that have been done that haven't been later disproven that show some genes that have anything to do with homosexuality? From my own research I haven't been able to find a single source that proves homosexuality is genetic in any way. Merely environmental and reversible at that.

It is a choice, not an easy choice. Many homosexuals are caused by sexual abuse as children (as the studies I linked show). The choice may not have been the individuals, but it was a choice. Many homosexuals voluntarily rid themselves of homosexuality through various therapies which indicates anyone can choose to change from homosexual to heterosexual.When I say its a choice, I don't mean its 'vanilla vs. chocolate' choice, I mean its a 'heroin addiction vs. being clean' choice. Being brought on by environmental factors (such as sexual abuse, parenting, or chemical imbalanced in the brain) and reinforced by brain chemistry means unless its caught early, it might be a difficult choice to change.

Can you explain what intersex means? If it does not mean transexual (which is a genetic flaw where certain traits from one sex are imposed on a person of the opposite sex due to various genetic problems some or all stemming from environment)?From my quick once over on wikipedia it looks to me like intersex individuals fall into the same category as people with other birth defects which can in some cases by corrected by surgery. In all cases they are likely to have a dominant sex from a genetic perspective which can be checked for and then correct their deformations to match that sex. Which has little to do with homosexuality except that some of these people might not have the glands to produce distinctly male and female hormones thus confusing them into thinking they are one or the other when they might in fact be the opposite.

Bringing in facts that haven't been vetted nor can be verified, is a bad way to start your proof. Very little if any evidence actually points to all organisms coming from one organism, which is why the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. You can speculate about this all you want, but without transitional fossils showing micro changes leading from one eukaryotic organism to the next you can't call this a fact. It might be the 'best' explanation you can come up with, but it is far from a fact. Even if we were to assume they all came from the same ancestors what would this have to do with homosexuality in social animals who according to my limited research never reproduce asexually? You appear to be comparing apples to space ships. If I were to assume your sentence above then it would easily be fit in by the fall and decay of the world brought on by Adam and Even throwing a wrench into a well working machine. Entropy. Very easy. All defects are caused by environmental factors whether its stress on the creature or previous defects brought forward. This is the same for both the evolution side and the CR/ID side, only the source of the flaws are debated.

Actually this is a common misconception. Many homosexuals voluntarily go through therapies to become heterosexual and are successful. For some reason the homosexual lobbies don't publicize this fact when they talk the subject. Go figure.

Please do not express theory as if it were fact. Its misleading and prevents the discussion from moving forward.If we came from creatures like that, it still wouldn't matter though, as what we were millions and billions of years ago has little or no bearing on what we are today, especially if none of the genetics remains (which appears to be the case).

Can you link some studies (or articles about those studies) that back up the idea that it is genetic. I haven't been able to find a single reputable study that proves anything of the sort. In fact all of the evidence I can find points to the opposite, in that it appears to be almost solely an environmentally caused state of mind.