Quote:
a) I'm not judging anyone. There are just as many stupid c'unts who can't figure out where to insert tab a as there are those who can.
b) Not being able to remember a choice doesn't mean it wasn't made.
I am not making a value judgment. I don't care what you like to eat any more than I care what you like to wear. I've never met a **** who I felt a burning desire to say "no, silly..." to (there was a lesbian, once, but when we were through she still felt like she wasn't missing much. Talk about a blow to the ego...), and I've never had one tell me he could be the one to change my mind.
But comparing sexual proclivities to skin color is just dumb.
The fact that I've NEVER met someone who remembers making it is a much stronger sample.
And it's only dumb when you make a retarded assumption like "it's a choice." Can a black man will himself to be white? Can someone with ADD will themselves to not have it?
BASED ON EVIDENCE, sexuality as a biological process is the most likely scenario. Does that mean it is correct? No. But it certainly isn't stupid to assume that it isn't something a homosexual person can change. I've never seen any scientific evidence to support homosexuality as a choice. I ask you again--link me some. Because the picture of sexuality as being optional is truly awkward to me based on my own experience and all scientific evidence I have ever seen. Until you can link any research that favors choice over biology, I have no reason to accept it.
Quote:
"Purely"? No, it doesn't suggest it is genetic. All of the markers ever identified as possible candidates are missing in enough gay people to make them inconclusive, at best. Beyond that, why bring in flat earth when I am talking about cosmological models obviated by Galileo? Your arguments keep doing that, going wildly off target to try and confuse the issue. You should not do that.
A. I'm not arguing that it is genetic. I've tried to avoid using that word as much as possible--sorry if I slipped up. I'm arguing that our sexuality is likely the result of a miriad of biological events (you know, like EVERY other aspect of organism development).
Do I think there could be a gay gene? Yes. Is that the only option? No.
Why does that matter? Because you are assuming that there's one way to become gay. I seriously doubt that's the case. There are more ways to have x hair or skin color than pure genetics. Different biological influences can change your emotional inclinations as you develop.
I'm saying that I find it extremely likely that homosexuality can be described the same way as every other biological trait on the planet--through a mixture of genetics vs. physical environment.
In the post I mentioned above, there was more than just proof that genetics might play a role. For example, I mentioned that the probability of a mother's second son is 33% more likely to be gay than her first (regardless of the first's sexuality). There is a correlation among mothers with gay children suggesting that her immune system will become stronger as she produces more males, and it will attack antibodies that we know influence sexuality in other animals. NOT ALL MOTHERS SHOW THIS, no. But not all others have to. It's merely one factor that might help contribute to a varying sexuality. But there is a definite correlation here in increased antibody numbers relative to the number of males a women has and the chances of later ones being gay.
They've also done studies testing the X chromosomes in women. Normally, these switch on and off so that only one is active (and each is active about half the time). And the process is normally understood as random. But there's a correlation between mothers with gay children and x chromosomes in which one stays "on" for much longer than it is expected to. Mothers without gay children have a much lower probability of the deformity. (Note- One chromosome goes into one egg, so some eggs would have Xs that are prone to short periods and others would have ones prone to long periods--I don't know which is assumed to potentially cause homosexuality).
Identical twins are 53-70% more likely to be gay if their twin is gay. Fraternal twins are something like 11-13% more likely. Non twins are far less likely. This would support a hypothesis that uses genetics combined with womb contitions.
And there are many more theories being tested. The actual brain structures are different in gays and heteros, along with the pheromone thing. The idea that a choice can actually cause huge developmental changes is a bold claim, and not represented in scientific evidence we have. We've seen the mind forcing small changes, but it's extremely rare for large ones to occur. And most of those involve forcing hormone switches through intense emotional stress. Homosexuality would be an even larger change cause on a much larger scale We're talking about a stress-free choice leading your body to alter the development of the brain in a significant way.
Here's a list of physical differences that have been shown to have different correlation in men and women (from wikipedia--feel free to check the sources (link)):
Quote:
-Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.[48]
-Gay men and straight women have, on average, equally proportioned brain hemispheres. Lesbian women and straight men have, on average, slightly larger right brain hemispheres.[49]
-The VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus is larger in men than in women, and larger in gay men than in heterosexual men.[50]
-The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.[28]
-The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[27] but a subsequent study found no such difference.[51]
-Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.[52]
-The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).[53]
-The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[54] the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[55]
-The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.[56]
-Gay and non-gay people emit different underarm odors.[57]
-Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).[24][58][59]
-One region of the brain (amygdala) is more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.[60]
-Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women.[53][61][62][63][64][65]
-Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than non-gay men and women;[66][67][68] Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth[69]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.[28]
-A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whirl, as opposed to 8% in the general population. This may correlate with left-handedness.[70]
-Gay men have increased ridge density in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies.[70]
Length of limbs and hands of gay men is smaller compared to height than the general population, but only among white men.[70]
[EDITED to note that some of these haven't had dedicated studies, but also that the use of words like "may" are to demonstrate that it isn't universal among gays but does show some correlation.]
Maybe homosexuality is a choice, but it seems clear it is hardly a free one (and is actually hugely influenced by your environment). And it's not a choice you can just change your mind about down the line.
Edited, Dec 20th 2010 2:34pm by idiggory 
Not because they're bad ones, but because they were the questions the University of Delaware's Residence Life program for freshmen were forced to ask, which (among a controversial racism definition) led to the entire program being scrapped and entirely rewritten when lawsuits were threatened. I was an RA during that year, and the fallout was pretty nasty (luckily I was in upperclass honors housing, not freshmen, so I escaped most of the blaze). 
