Replies

As a scientist familiar with genetics, I think it may be one of several things. Perhaps a hormonal abnormality in which the child is exposed to elevated amounts of the opposite sex hormone during brain development could also be a cause. New studies show many gay males have a straight older brother, revealing the possibility that the first son born to a woman may affect her hormone levels in some cases.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could "choose" a sexual orientation. As a straight male, I find it impossible to imagine being able to make a choice of that manner, as I have been attracted to females as long as I can remember. I certainly did not make a choice to be that way. I was just born that way. I find it unlikely that gays are any different.

...is exposed to elevated amounts of the opposite sex hormone during brain development could also be a cause.

Nice try, but no cigar. Prenatal or neonatal exposure to estrogen results in masculinization (Dr. Richard Whalen, UC Irvine) just as perinatal exposure to testosterone results in the same outcome, masculinization (Drs. Beach, Noble and Orndoff UC Berkeley). These results have been replicated and verified. The absence of exposure to gonadal hormones allows for the development of feminine characteristics, regardless of genotype.

Family Research Report - May-Jun 2002 Omnisexual -Webster's dictionary4 defines 'homosexual' by "sexual attraction toward [or relations with] a person of the same sex" (p. 464). Yet as both the FRI and the Kinsey studies demonstrate, sexual flexibility rather than a fixed interest in or exclusive performance with members of the same sex is characteristic of 'homosexuals.' Almost all 'homosexuals,' in fact, manage to have sex with the opposite sex.

The term [homosexual]certainly does not seem to fit ex-homosexuals, many of whom express no further interest in sex with their sex. Further, the sexual flexibility that the great majority of 'homosexuals' exhibit over their lifetimes does not fit the 'compulsive' nuances associated with the term 'homosexual' either.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could "choose" a sexual orientation. As a straight male, I find it impossible to imagine being able to make a choice of that manner, as I have been attracted to females as long as I can remember. I certainly did not make a choice to be that way. I was just born that way. I find it unlikely that gays are any different.

Thats kind of funny, as a scientist you accept this based solely upon your own experience. But how do you explain weird fetishes people have? Are people 'born' with attractions towards rubber or leather? Are people 'born' being attracted to feet or whatever strange fetish people may have? Don't people change who or what they are attracted to? Today children are being much more exposed to homosexuality and are being made to accept it as OK and normal. That wasn't true 10 or 20 years ago. Don't underestimate the power of sexuality. You might be very surprised at how people's minds are shaped through sexual experience.

As a straight male, I find it impossible to imagine being able to make a choice of that manner, as I have been attracted to females as long as I can remember. I certainly did not make a choice to be that way. I was just born that way. I find it unlikely that gays are any different.

Whether you are correct or not, the central fact -- the ball off which gays invite us to take our eyes by arguing essentialism -- is that homosexuality is maladaptive in several dimensions.

Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is no more genetic trait than pedophilia. Every person has a choice not to involve themselves with another person, provided they are not victims of assault.

By definition, homosexuals do not reproduce - - it is self-imposed sterility.

No person can ever have a "sex change." The use of the language has been so twisted by the leftist radicals, that in our touchy-feely world, many blindly accept some of these erroneous terminologies. XX or XY chromosones can't be changed after conception when mitosis begins.

There are variants in alleles...

All are still genetically male or female. They are sterile. XO (Turner syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXX (poly-X syndrome), and XYY (Jacob syndrome). No matter how many X chromosones there are, any individual with a Y chromosone develops into a male. These abnormalities are so few, only one in several hundreds of thousands occur (about 0.022% of the human population - do the calculus).

Keeping in mind people with the previously listed syndromes are sterile, they cannot pass those genotypes or phenotypes to offspring.

So much for the "gay" gene - - it does not exist.

I object to voodoo science based upon personal idolatries of vanity. This idolatry of perversion is a totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion.

Instead of making the open declaration it is a human anatomical perversion they enjoy, the idols of vanity and impoverished ego require the invention of some religion to justify it.

Homosexual acts are no more a genetic trait than identical acts practiced by heterosexuals. (You know which ones I'm talking about.)

I've never quite understood the battle over environmental vs. genetic causes of homosexuality. Especially troubling to me is the religious right's committment to the environmental model. I think it stems from the corrupting influence of arminian theology... I'll explain below. The environemental model is considered more of a "choice" somehow--but either one really denies the choice of ORIENTATION. As a human, I decide how to act, and whom to have sex with, my emotional desires notwithstanding.......however who I'm oriented desire sex with is based on many complex things--and the environmental model says how a child is raised is what determines that. Either one doesn't address whether a person consciously chooses to the homosexual orientation--and I think the evidence is that the orientation, at least initially, is not chosen.

Here's why, from a religious/biblical perspective, I think the environmental/genetic argument is a false one: Basic (non-arminian) Christian theology (Catholic and Protestant) accepts the idea of "original sin." Each person, as Psalm 51:5 says, is born, no really concieved, with a sin nature. Sin is a basic part (really a basic flaw) of our personality--ask any mother, how kids don't have to be taught to be bad--and also how some kids--in the same family, and same upbringing--misbehave more (and in different ways) than others.

When we are grown, we don't think in such categories--however its still true. We all have to struggle with doing right--and what tempts you severely, may not temp me at all--however I too have my own personal pattern of temptation.

The good news of Christianity is that Jesus will give us a new life (really His life inside us) and the inner strength to change how we live day to day. Without this new life, we will often just continue in the same destructive (usually downhill) patterns of behavior--a nature that we were born with.

Arminian theology--heavily influential in the religious right--denies the idea of original sin, saying sin is basically learned--and always due to our conscious choices. Most won't come out and put it that way--however that is the assumption.

As a classical Christian, I'm not troubled by the shakey assertions that homosexuality is genetically based. Its not now proven, but even it it were, so what? That doesn't make it right or healthy for society. I'm a "natural" adulterer...that doesn't legitimize me going bed-hopping with various women! My old sin nature is being overcome daily by the power of Jesus' life inside me--and He helps me Not to follow that inborn nature, and TO do what is good and right.

When Newt Gingrich was loudly derided for comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, there's a reason the Left shouted so shrilly: Such strikes at the heart of their argument. Their assumption is, if homosexuals can be shown to have been BORN gay, than by golly, you better not say homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Yet like alcoholism, which science does think may have some genetic links (since it does run in families), something that your born with does not mean its healthy or even morally neutral. We all choose how we act too, regardless of our inclinations--be they from how we were raised, or our genetic inheritance.

Sinners need a Savior, and if homosexuals prove they were sinners from birth, hey, Jesus saves.

I believe that the federal prison experience has changed many a male mind on the environmental influence of homosexuality. Alpha males, lack of females, stronger vs. weaker, and limited avenues for sexual release combine for a powerful, albeit "ungenetic", inducement for buggery. When the prison environment is removed, many of these pirates return to a hetero lifestyle. Or so I've heard...

You can't understand being attracted to the somone of the same sex because you are not warped and perverted and sick. Just like you can't understand how someone could hurt a child or committ murder. Your inability to understand how someone could choose to be gay does not change the fact that they do make a choice to be gay.

re: As a straight male, I find it impossible to imagine being able to make a choice of that manner, as I have been attracted to females as long as I can remember. I certainly did not make a choice to be that way. I was just born that way. I find it unlikely that gays are any different.)))

Obviously, the origins of homosexuality will remain mysterious to us in the foreseeable future.

But I'm curious to see if researchers (objective researchers) can tie homosexuality to fetish behavior. Since my email mailbox is full of all kinds of depressing spam these days, I've come about my education in bizarre sexuality reluctantly. There are many who become aroused by *feet*--surely they're not born that way, but have something derailed in their responses? And it's so peculiar to me that there is clearly a large number of men who respond to images, but not flesh.

There's a lot of "lifestyle choices" out there. Homosexuality is only one variant--

I have a compulsion to pull fire alarms. I don't practise it due to fear of the consequences. As a matter of fact I have only pulled one once, and that was because security in our hospital had set up a flashing light to symbolize a real fire(part of a drill). But it gave me a thrill to make bells clang and people run around! Unfortunately, it was a once in a life time treat and now every-time I see a fire-alarm...I just want to tug on it just once more...
Do I have a disease? I feel this "tugging" at the deepest core of me...it must be a genetic sort of thing...don't you think?

Are there others like me? If there are then we need to form a support group and scientific studies to study us for strange genetic anomalies. We must get laws passed to bar the use of indelible ink on public fire alarm boxes so that we are not stigmatized. We must come up with a name for our genetically disposed group of fire alarm pullers. How about "tuggers" or for short.... "tugs"?

To fight off the inevitable "insensitive" discrimination, we will form political advocacy groups and infiltrate our-selves quietly at high levels of media,arts, and government. We will align our-selves with the Democratic and Liberal parties and fight for funding to help us treat the diseases we get off from the fire alarms for too much "tugging". We will approach the UN, to fight for international recognition...our goal will ultimately be world domination and for initiation of the young into our society of "Tuggers"!And then....and then...dare we assault the throne of God him-self....? Hmmmmmmmm!